fo|qr ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1573-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa fo|qr ea=kky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu

jQjy bysDVªhfiQds'ku dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa

dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr deZpkjho`an us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS%&

(i)

:jy bysDVªhfiQds'ku dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM]

ifj;kstuk dk;kZy;] vkseJh bUdyso]

izFke ry (yks;ksyk Ldwy ds ihNs)

,;jiksVZ jksM] fguw] iks-vkW- MksjaMk]

jkaph&834002] >kj[k.M

(ii)

:jy bysDVªhfiQds'ku dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM]

mi dk;kZy;] 7&U;w jksM]

viksftV ,e-ds-ih- dkWyst]

nsgjknwu&248001

¹la- 11017@10@2013&fganhº

lrh'k dqekj] la;qDr lfpo

2069 GI/2014

(4205)

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- 22]

ubZ fnYyh, ebZ 25—ebZ 31] 2014] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 4—T;s"B 10] 1936

No. 22]

NEW DELHI, MAY 25—MAY 31, 2014, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 4—JYAISTHA 10, 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)

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2014

S.O. 1573.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify

the following offices of the Rural Electrification Corporation

Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of

Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi-

(i) Rural Electrification Corporation Limited,

Project office, Om Shree Enclave,

1st Floor (Beside Loyola School),

Airport Road, Hinoo, P.O. Doranda,

Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand.

(ii) Rural Electrification Corporation Limited,

Sub-Office, 7 New Road, Opposite,

M.K.P. College, Dehradun-248001

[No. 11017/10/2013-Hindi]

SATISH KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

4206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1574-—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 gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) dh

LFkkfir

Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) tks fd

jí gksus dh

la[;k

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

frfFk

jí gksus gSa] vxj gS] fd

frfFk

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

vkbZ ,l 1448 ¹ih% 16º% 2014 isVªksfy;e ,oa blds

16 ebZ] 2014

IS 1448 [P : 16] : 1990

16 ebZ] 2014

mRiknksa dh ijh{k.k in~ofr;kW ¹ih% 16º dPps vkSj

(Third Revision)

isVªksfy;e mRikn&iz;ksx'kkyk esa n~;uRo Kkr djuk&

mRIyo n~;uRoekih in~ofr (pkSFkk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 3400 (Hkkx 2) % 2014 oYduhd`r jcM+

16 ebZ] 2014

IS 3400 (Part 2) : 2003/ISO

16 ebZ] 2014

dh ijh{k.k in~ofr;kW Hkkx 2 jcM+ OkYduhd`r ;k

48 : 1994 (Third Revision)

FkeksZIykfLVd&dBksjrk Kkr djuk (10 vkbZvkj

,pMh rFkk 100 vkbZvkj ,pMh ds chp dBksjrk

(pkSFkk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 3400 (Hkkx 9) %2014 oYduhd`r jcM+

16 ebZ] 2014

IS 3400 (Part 9) : 2003/ISO

16 ebZ] 2014

dh ijh{k.k in~ofr;kW Hkkx 9 jcM+ oYduhd`r ;k

2781 : 1988 (Second

FkeksZIykfLVd&n~;uRo Kkr djuk (rhljk iqujh{k.k)

Revision)

vkbZ ,l 12656 % 2014 jcM+ ;k IykfLVd gkst ,oa

16 ebZ] 2014

IS 12656 : 1989/ISO 1746 :

16 ebZ] 2014

V;wfcax cSafMx ijh{k.k (igyk iqujh{k.k)

1983 (First Revision)

vkbZ ,l 12657 % 2014 jcM+ ,oa IykfLVd gkst&

16 ebZ] 2014

IS 12657 : 1989/ISO 4672 :

16 ebZ] 2014

lc&,Ech,UV rkieku uE;rk ijh{k.k (igyk

1988 Rubber and Plastics

iqujh{k.k)

Houses-Sub-Ambient

Temperature Flexibility Tests

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks 15189 % 2012 fpfdRlk

16 ebZ] 2014

_ _

iz;ksx'kkyk,W& xq.krk vkSj fo'oluh;rk ds fy,

vko';drk,W (nwljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 16204 % 2014 jcM+ ,oa IykfLVd gkst ,oa

16 ebZ] 2014

_ _

gkst ,lsEcyh & 'kCnkoyh

vkbZ ,l 16209 % 2014 jcM+ ,oa IykfLVd gkst ,oa

16 ebZ] 2014

_ _

gkst ,lsEcyh & fuokZr izfrjks/drk Kkr djuk

vkbZ ,l 16210 % 2014 jcM+ ,oa IykfLVd gkst ,oa

16 ebZ] 2014

_ _

gkst ,lsEcyh & p;u] HkaMkj.k] iz;ksx rFkk vuqj{k.k

gsrq ekxZnf'kZdk

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] 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] Hkwous'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 ,oa izdk'ku)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4207

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014

S.O. 1574.—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 columan. 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 Indian

Date of

No. & Year of the Indian

Date of

No.

Standards Established

Establishment

Standards to be

cancellation

cancelled, if any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS 1448 [P : 16] : 2014 ISO 3675 : 1998

16 May 2014

IS 1448 [P : 16] : 1990

16 May 2014

Methods of test for petroleum and its

(Third Revision)

Products [P : 16] Crude petroleum and

liquid petroleum products-laboratory

determination of density-Hydrometer

method (Fourth Revision)

IS 3400 (Part 2) : 2014/ISO 48 : 2010

16 May 2014

IS 3400 (Part 2) : 2003/ISO 48 :

16 May 2014

Methods of test for vulcanized rubber

1994 (Fourth Revision)

Part 2 Rubbber, Vulcanized or thermoplastic-

Determination of hardness (Hardness

between 10 IRHD and 100 IRHD (Fourth

Revision)

IS 3400 (Part 9) : 2014/ISO 2781 : 2008

16 May 2014

IS 3400 (Part 9) : 2003/ISO 2781 :

16 May 2014

Methods of test for vulcanized rubber

1988 (Second Revision)

Part 9 Rubbber, Vulcanized or thermoplastic-

Determination of density (Third Revision)

IS 12656 : 2014/ISO 10619-1 : 2011 rubber

16 May 2014

IS 12656 : 1989/ISO 1746 : 1983

16 May 2014

or Plastic Hoses and Tubing-Bending Tests

(First Revision)

IS 12657 : 2014/ISO 10619-2 : 2011 rubber

16 May 2014

IS 12657 : 1989/ISO 4672 : 1988

16 May 2014

or Plastic Hoses - Sub-Ambient

Temperature Flexibility test (First Revision)

IS /ISO 15189 : 2012 Medical Laboratories-

16 May 2014

_ _

Requirements for Quality and Competence

(Second Revision)

IS 16204 : 2014/ISO 8330 : 2007 Rubber and

16 May 2014

_ _

Plastics Hoses and Hose Assemblies-

Vocabulary

IS 16209 : 2014/ISO 7233 : 2006 Rubber and

16 May 2014

_ _

Plastics Hoses and Hose Assemblies-

Determination of Resistance to Vacuum

IS 16210 : 2014/ISO 8331 : 2007 Rubber and

16 May 2014

_ _

Plastics Hoses and Hose Assemblies-

Guidelines for Selection Storage, use and

Maintenance

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)

4208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1575-—dsUæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (1987 esa ;Fkkla'kksf/r) ds

fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; esa fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku j[kus okys

deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k 80» ls vf/d gks tkus ds ifj.kkeLoi mls ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS%&

1- Hkkjrh; fof/d eki foKku laLFkku] dkads] jkaph&834006

¹la- bZ&11012@2@2014&fgUnhº

pUnzys[kk ekyoh;] ofj"B vkfFkZd lykgdkj

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2014

S.O.

1575.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Department of

Consumer Affairs wherein the percentage of the staff having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80% :

1. Indian Institute of Legal Metrology, Kanke, Ranchi-834006.

[No. E-11012/2/2014-Hindi]

CHANDRALEKHA MALVIYA, Senior Economic Adviser

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1576-—dsUæh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962

(1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu egkjk"Vª jkT; ds Hkhrj xsy (bf.M;k) fyfeVsM dh lHkh

ikbiykbZuksa ds fy;s l{ke vf/dkjh ds dk;ksZa dk fuoZgu djus ds fy;s Jherh ehuk{kh flag] la;qDr dysDVj] eè;izns'k ljdkj] dks fnukad

07&05&2014 ls izkf/Ñr djrh gS A

¹la- ,y&14014@28@14&th-ihº

,l-ih- vxzoky] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 28th May, 2014

S.O. 1576.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Central Government hereby authories Smt. Meenakshi Singh, Joint Collector,

Madhya Pradesh Govt. to perform the functions of Competent Authority for all pipelines of GAIL (India) Limited, under the

said Act, within the territory of Maharashtra w.e.f. 07-05-2014.

[No. L-14014/28/14-G.P.]

S.P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.

dks;yk ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1577-—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@th,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@454] rkjh[k 13 iQjojh] 2014 dk ftlesa iwoksZaDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr

Hkwfe {ks=k ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gS] fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk&vuqiiqj (eè; izns'k) ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkmafly gkmQl LVªhV]

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

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4209

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

mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 4 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] vuqlwph esa of.Zkr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk

iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS_

mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.Zkr 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)] lkmQFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 (NRrhlx<+) ls&

(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 iwoZs{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/ esa ;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

vfèkfu;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, iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/r lHkh ekufp=kksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj ldsxkA

vuqlwph

dsobZ Cykd] glnso {ks=k

ftyk&vuqiiqj] eè; izns'k

(js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@454] rkjh[k 13 iQjojh] 2014)

(iwosZ{k.k ds fy, vf/lwfpr Hkwfe n'kkZrs gq,)

Øe

xzke dk uke

iVokjh gYdk

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k gsDVj

fVIif.k;ka

la-

uEcj

esa (yxHkx)

iFkjkSMh

140

dksrek

vuqiiqj

700-000

Hkkx

cl[kyk

dksrek

vuqiiqj

50-000

Hkkx

egkjh

139

dksrek

vuqiiqj

20-000

Hkkx

cl[kyh

138

dksrek

vuqiiqj

30-000

Hkkx

dqy % 800-000 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 1976-80 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

lhek o.kZu%

d&[k

js[kk xzke cl[kyh vkSj egkjh ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cl[kyh ds iwohZ Hkkx] xzke

iFkjkSMh ds mRrjh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^[k* ij feyrh gSA

[k&x

js[kk fcUnq ^[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke iFkjkSMh ds iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^x* ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq ^x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke iFkjkSMh ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ xzke iFkjkSMh&cl[kyk ds lfEefyr lhek

esa fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA

?k&d

js[kk fcUnq ^?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cl[kyk] egkjh ds iwohZ Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh gSA

¹la- 43015@03@2014&ih-vkj-vkbZ-MCY;w-&Iº

,e-ds- 'kekZ] funs'kd

4210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014

S.O. 1577.—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/GM(PLG)/Land/454, dated the 13th February, 2014 containing

details of the area of land described in the aforesaid Schedule may be inpected at the office of the Collector, District-

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 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 Schedule;

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 licence

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 Coalifields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-

495006 (Chhattishgarh) within a period of ninety days from the date or publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Kewai Block, Hasdeo Area

District-Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/Land/454, dated the 13th February, 2014]

(showing the land notificed for prospecting).

Sl.

Name of Village

Patwari halka

Tahsil

District

Area in hectares

Remarks

no.

number

(approximately)

Pathrodi

140

Kotma

Anuppur

700.000

Part

Baskhala

Kotma

Anuppur

50.000

Part

Mouhari

139

Kotma

Anuppur

20.000

Part

Baskhali

138

Kotma

Anuppur

30.000

Part

Total:- 800.000 hectares (approximately) or 1976.80 acres (Approximately)

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' on the common boundary of villages Baskhali and Mouhari and passes through

eastern part of village Bhagta, along northern boundary of village Pathrodi and meets at point 'B'.

B-C

Line starts from point 'B' and passes along eastern boundary of village Pathrodi and meets at point 'C'.

C-D

Line starts from point 'C' and passes through southern part of village Pathrodi and meets at point 'D' on the

common boundary of villages Pathrodi-Baskhala.

D-A

Line starts from point 'D' and passes through eastern part of village Baskhala, Mouhari and meets at starting

point 'A'.

[No. 43015/03/2014-PRIW-I]

M.K. SHARMA, Director

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4211

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1578-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 4 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=kky; ds }kjk tkjh dh xbZ vf/lwpuk

la[;k dk-vk- 2014 rkjh[k 20 flrEcj] 2013 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k ds Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii)] rkjh[k 28 flrEcj] 2013 esa izdkf'kr

dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks=k dh Hkwfe esa ftldk eki 1066-002 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 2634-09 ,dM+

(yxHkx) gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh_

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V mDr Hkwfe esa fdlh Hkkx esa dks;yk

vfHkizkI; gSA

vr% dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 7 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, blls layXu vuqlwph esa

of.kZr 1020-492 gsDVj ;k 2521-63 ,dM+ eki dh mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkjksa ds vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh

gS%

fVIi.k 1% bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e@ih,yth@Hkwfe@ 453] rkjh[k 13 tuojh]

2014 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] mefj;k (eè; izns'k) ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd]1] dkmafly 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

fVIi.k 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%&

vtZu ds ckcr~ vkifRr;kW%

¶8 (1) dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kjk 7(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 ldsxkA

Li"Vhdj.k%

(1) bl /kjk ds vUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Loa; [kuu lafØ;k,a djuk

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

(2) /kjk 8 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke vf/dkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke vf/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

tkWp] ;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

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

vfèkdkjksa ds laca/ esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh fliQkfj'kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZ dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks mlds fofu'p; ds fy, nsxkA

(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¸

fVIi.k 3 % dsnzh; ljdkj }kjk] Hkkjr ds jkti=k] Hkkx II] /kjk 3] mi/kjk (ii)] rkjh[k 4 vizSy] 1987 esa izdkf'kr vf/lwpuk la[;kad

dk-vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987 }kjk dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 dks mDr vf/fu;e

dh /kjk 3 ds v/hu l{ke izkf/dkjh fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA

4212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

ekykpqvk Cykd] tksfgyk {ks=k

ftyk mefj;k] eè; izns'k

(js[kkad la[;kad&,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e@ih,yth@Hkwfe@453] rkjh[k 13 tuojh] 2014)

lHkh vf/dkj%

(d) jktLo Hkwfe%

Øe

xzke dk uke

iVokjh gYdk

tujy

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k gsDVj

fVIi.k

la-

la[;kad

esa

vkS<sjk

ikyh

mefj;k

291-946

Hkkx

ekykpqvk

852

ikyh

mefj;k

444-967

Hkkx

Cykd iMjh

752

ikyh

mefj;k

97-509

Hkkx

dqy % 834-422 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 2061-85 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

([k) ou Hkwfe%

Øe

dEikVZesaV

jsUt

laHkkx

ou dk

Cykd

{ks=k gsDVj

fVIi.k

la-

la[;k

izdkj

esa

223]225]229

?kqu?kqVh

mefj;k

vkjf{kr

lksgkxiqj

186-070

Hkkx

230

dqy % 186-070 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 459-78 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

egk tksM+ (d$[k) % 1020-492 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 2521-63 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

1- xzke vkS<sjk (Hkkx) esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad%

38(Hkkx)] 39(Hkkx)] 40 ls 44] 45(Hkkx)] 47] 48(Hkkx)] 50(Hkkx)] 54(Hkkx)] 55] 56(Hkkx)] 61(Hkkx)] 62(Hkkx)] 63 ls 71]

72(Hkkx)] ls 75(Hkkx)] 103(Hkkx)] 113(Hkkx)] 114(Hkkx)] 115(Hkkx)] 116] 117] 118(Hkkx)] 119 ls 141] 142(Hkkx)] 145(Hkkx)]

146(Hkkx)] 147 ls 169] 170(Hkkx)] 183(Hkkx)] 204(Hkkx)] 205] 206(Hkkx)] 208(Hkkx)] 219] 220(Hkkx)] 221(Hkkx)]] 222 ls 246]

247(Hkkx)] 248(Hkkx)] 249 ls 409] 72@410 A

2- xzke ekykpqvk (Hkkx) esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad %

1(Hkkx)] 2(Hkkx)] 5(Hkkx)] 6] 7] 8(Hkkx)] 9 ls 16] 17(Hkkx)] 18(Hkkx)] 47(Hkkx)] 48 ls 50] 51(Hkkx)] ls 53(Hkkx)] 54 ls

64] 65(Hkkx)] 66(Hkkx)] 70(Hkkx)] 102(Hkkx)] 104(Hkkx)] 105 ls 610] 611(Hkkx)] ls 613(Hkkx)] 617(Hkkx)] 618(Hkkx)] 619 ls

635] 636(Hkkx)] 638(Hkkx)] ls 641(Hkkx)] 642] 643(Hkkx)] 644] 645(Hkkx)] 656(Hkkx)] 659(Hkkx)] 15@669] 236@666(Hkkx)]

538@664] 445@668 A

3- xzke vkS<sjk (Hkkx) esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad%

1 ls 4] 5(Hkkx)] 20(Hkkx)] 21 ls 28] 29(Hkkx)] 30 ls 66] 67(Hkkx)] 68 ls 70] 71(Hkkx)] 72(Hkkx)] 82(Hkkx)] 89(Hkkx)] 90]

91] 92(Hkkx)] 94(Hkkx)] 95 ls 103] 104(Hkkx)] 105(Hkkx)] 107(Hkkx)A

lhek o.kZu%

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq ¶d¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkS<sjk ds IykV la[;kadksa 61] 62] 74] 73] 72@1] 72@410@2] 75] 118] 115@1]

115@2] 114] 113@1] 103@1] 170@2d] 170@2[k] 174@5] 248] 247] 183@4] 183@1] 229] 204] 206] 221] 208@2] 220]

219 ls gksrh gqbZ xzke ekypqvk esa izos'k dj IykV la[;kadksa 1]2]8]5]6]17] 18@2 ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ¶[k¸ ij

feyrh gSA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4213

[k&x

js[kk fcUnq ^[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke ekykpqvk ds IykV la[;kadksa 48 ds mRrjh lhek] 47] 51] 52] 53 ls gksdj] 64]

65 ds mRrjh lhek 66] 70] 104] 102@1] Hkkx la[;k 223 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ¶x¸ ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq ¶x¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke ekykpqvk ds Hkkx la[;kad 223 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke Cykd iMjh esa izos'k dj

Hkkx la[;kad 223] IykV la[;kad 5] 20] 29] Hkkx la[;kad 225] IykV la[;kadksa 107] 104] Hkkx la[;kad 225 ls gksrh gqbZ

fcUnq ¶?k¸ ij feyrh gSA

?k&Ä

js[kk fcUnq ¶?k¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke Cykd iMjh ds Hkkx la[;kad 225] IykV la[;kdksa 107] 104] 105] 89] 92]

94] 67] 82] 72]71] ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke ekykpqvk esa izos'k dj IykV la[;kad 236@666] Hkkx la[;kad 229] IykV la[;kdksa

659] 656] 636] 638@1] 638@2] 639] 640] 641] 643] 617] 618] 613@1] 612@3] 611] Hkkx la[;kad 230 ls gksrh gqbZ

fcUnq ¶Ä¸ ij feyrh gSA

M&d

js[kk fcUnq ¶Ä¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj Hkkx la[;kad 230 ds iwohZ Hkkx ls gksdj xzke vkS<sjk esa izos'k dj IykV la[;kadksa

145] 146@2] 142@1] 38] 39] 45@1] 47] 48@5] 48@4] 50] 54] 56] 63] 61 ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ¶d¸ ij feyrh

gSA

¹la- 43015@05@2013&ih-vkj-vkbZ-MCY;w-&Iº

,e-ds- 'kekZ] funs'kd

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2014

S.O. 1578.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2014 dated

20th September, 2013 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)

Act, 1957 (20 or 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and publiched in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-

section (ii) dated 28th September, 2013, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 1066.002

hectares (approximately) or 2634.09 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to

that notification;

And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands 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 measuing 1020.492 hectares or 2521.63 acres with all

rights in or over the said lands described in the Schedule appended hereto:

Note 1: The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM/PLG/LAND/453, dated the 13th January, 2014 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-700001 or in the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited

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

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

Objection to Acquistion:

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

(1)

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

undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and such operation should not be undertaken by

the Central Government or by any other person.

(2)

Every objection under sub-section (1) of Section 8 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 the Government.

4214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(3)

For the purpose 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;"

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

SCHEDULE

Malachua Block, Johilla Area

District Umaria, Madhya Pradesh

(Plan bearing number SECLlBSP/GM/PLG/LAND/ 453, dated the 13th January, 2014)

All Rights :

(A) Revenue Land :

Sl.

Name of village

Patwari halka

General

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

Number

hectares

Awdhera

Pali

Umaria

291.946

Part

Malachua

852

Pali

Umaria

444.967

Part

Block Padari

752

Pali

Umaria

97.509

Part

Total: 834.422 hectares (approximately) or 2061.85 acres (approximately)

(B) Forest Land :

Sl.

Compartment Number

Range

Division

Type of

Block

Area in

Remarks

No.

Forest

hectares

223, 225, 229, 230

Ghunghuti

Umaria

Reserve

Sohagpur

186.070

Part

Forest

Total: -186. 070 hectares (approximately or 459.78 acres (approximately)

Grand Total (A+B): 1020.492 hectares (approximately) or 2521.63 acres (approximately)

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

38(P), 39(P), 40 to 44, 45(P), 47, 48(P), 50(P), 54(P), 55, 56(P), 61 (P), 62(P), 63 to 71, 72(P) to 75(P), 103(P), 113(P), 114(P),

115(P), 116, 117, 118(P), 119 to 141, 142(P), 145(P), 146(P), 147 to 169, 170(P), 183(P), 204(P), 205, 206(P), 208(P), 219, 220(P),

221(P), 222 to 246, 247(P), 248(P), 249 to 409,72/410.

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

1(P), 2(P), 5(P), 6, 7, 8(P), 9 to 16, 17(P), 18(P), 47(P), 48 to 50, 51(P) to 53(P), 54 to 64, 65(P), 66(P), 70(P), 102(P), 104(P),

105 to 610, 611 (P) to 613(P), 617(P), 618(P), 619 to 635, 636(P), 638(P) to 641(P), 642, 643(P), 644, 645(P), 656(P), 659(P), 15/669,

236/666(P), 538/664, 445/668.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Block Padari (Part):

1 to 4, 5(P), 20(P), 21 to 28, 29(P), 30 to 66, 67(P), 68 to 70, 71 (P), 72(P), 82(P), 89(P), 90, 91, 92(P), 94(P), 95 to 103, 104(P),

105(P), 107(P).

Boundary Description :

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in village Awdhera through plot number 61, 62, 74, 73, 72/1, 72/410/2,

75,118,115/1,115/2,114,113/1, 103/1, 170/2k, 170/2kh, 174/5, 248, 247, 183/4, 183/1, 229, 204, 206, 221, 208/2, 220,

219 then enter in village Malachua and passes through plot number 1, 2, 8, 5, 6,17,18/2 and meets at point ‘B’.

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes in village Malachua along northern boundary of plot number 48, through

plot number 47, 51, 52, 53, along northern boundary of plot number 64, 65, through 66, 70, 104, 102/1, Compart-

ment number 223 and meets at point ‘C’.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4215

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in village Malachua through Compartment number 223, then enter in

village Block Padari and passes through Compartment number 223, plot number 5, 20, 29, Compartment number

225, plot number 107, 104, Compartment number 225 and meets at point ‘D’.

D-E

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes in village Block Padari through Compartment number 225, plot number

107, 104, 105, 89, 92, 94, 67, 82, 72, 71, then enter in village Malachua and passes through plot number 236/666,

Compartment number 229, plot number 659, 656, 636, 638/1, 638/2, 639, 640, 641, 643, 617, 618, 613/1, 612/3, 611,

Compartment number 230 and meets at ‘E’.

E-A

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes through eastern part of Compartment number 230, then enter in village

Awdhera and passes through plot number 145, 146/2, 142/1, 38, 39, 45/1, 47, 48/5, 48/4, 50, 54, 56, 63, 61 and

meets at starting point ‘A’.

[No. 43015/05/2013-PRIW-I]

M. K. SHARMA, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1579-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=ky; ds }kjk tkjh dh xbZ

vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 2094 rkjh[k 11 twu] 2012 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼AaAa½] rkjh[k 23 twu] 2012

esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk eki 4265-783 gsDVj ;k

10540-75 ,dM+ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh;

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V mDr Hkwfe ds fdlh Hkkx

esa dks;yk vfHkizkI; gS A

vr%] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, blls layXu

vuqlwph esa of.kZr 734-917 gsDVj ;k 1816-02 ,dM+ eki dh mDr Hkwfe dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS ;

fVIi.k 1 % bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@450]

rkjh[k 15 uoEcj] 2013 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk vuqiiqj vkSj 'kgMksy] e/; izns'k ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly

gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk &700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006]

NRrhlx<+ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

fVIi.k 2 % mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k gS%&

vtZu ds ckcr~ vkifRr;ka %

^^8¼1½ dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ gS] fgrc) gS]

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

dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA

Li"Vhdj.k %

¼1½

bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Lo;a [kuu lafØ;k,a

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

¼2½

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke vf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke vf/kdkjh] vkifRrdrkZ dks Lo;a

lqus tkus] fof/k 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 /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe dk

;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdM+s ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds

vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh flQkfj'kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZa dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks mlds fofu'p; ds fy, nsxkA

¼3½

bl /kkjk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc) 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/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs gSaA

4216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fVIi.k 3 % dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] /kkjk 3] mi&/kkjk ¼iia½] rkjh[k 4 vizSy] 1987 esa izdkf'kr vf/

klwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987 }kjk dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 dks mDr

vf/kfu;e dh èkkjk 3 ds v/khu l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA

vuqlwph

cVqjk Cykd if'pe foLrkj] lksgkxiqj {ks= ftyk vuqiiqj vkSj “kgMksy ¼e/; izns'k½

¼js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@450] rkjh[k 15 uoEcj] 2013½

lHkh vf/kdkj %

Øe xzke dk uke

iVokjh gYdk uEcj cankscLr

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIi.kh

la-

la[;k

jkeiqj

107

890

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

375-091

Hkkx

csfy;k

107

722

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

60-210

Hkkx

vrfj;k

107

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

126-670

Hkkx

[kSjouk

106

205

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

76-801

Hkkx

fcfN;k

106

716

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

61-645

Hkkx

dksnSyh

167

vuqiiqj

34-500

Hkkx

dqy % 734-917 gsDVj ;k 1816-02 ,dM+

xzke jkeiqj ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 1 ls 149]165 ls 205] 206 ¼Hkkx½] 207 ls 314] 316 ls 319] 352 ¼Hkkx½]

640] 761 ls 767] 776 ls 778] 782 ls 786] 801 ls 803] 804 ¼Hkkx½] 821 ls 828] 848 ls 856] 859 ¼Hkkx½] 860 ls1157] 1158 ¼Hkkx½]

1165 ls 1180] 1246 ls 1270] 1277 ¼Hkkx½] 1286 ls 1299] 1300 ¼Hkkx½] 1362 ¼Hkkx½] 1363 ls 1376] 1448] 1449] 1451 ls 1464]

1465 ¼Hkkx½] 1466 ¼Hkkx½] 1488 ls 1564] 1569] 1575 ¼Hkkx½] 1890 ¼Hkkx½] 2212] 2213 ¼Hkkx½] 2214 ¼Hkkx½] 2215 ¼Hkkx½] 2229 ¼Hkkx½]

2230 ¼Hkkx½] 2231 ls 2247] 2248 ¼Hkkx½] 2251 ls 2601] 2602 ¼Hkkx½] 2603 ¼Hkkx½] 2604 ¼Hkkx½] 2672 ls 2683] 2684 ¼Hkkx½] 2685 ¼Hkkx½]

2686 ls 2688] 2689 ¼Hkkx½] 2702 ¼Hkkx½] 2703 ls 2707] 2708 ¼Hkkx½] 2709 ¼Hkkx½] 2710] 2711] 2712 ¼Hkkx½] 2714 ls 2717] 2718 ¼Hkkx½]

2719] 2720] 3301] 3302] 3307] 3308] 3321] 3323 ¼Hkkx½] 3329] 3340 A

xzke csfy;k ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 1 ¼Hkkx½] 4 ¼Hkkx½] 8] 9¼Hkkx½] 10 ls 15] 19] 20] 21 ¼Hkkx½] 21/1/2 ¼Hkkx½]

21/4 ¼Hkkx½] 21/7 ¼Hkkx½] 21/10 ¼Hkkx½] 355 ¼Hkkx½] 356] 357 ¼Hkkx½] 358 ¼Hkkx½] 359 ¼Hkkx½] 360 ls 405] 406 ¼Hkkx½] 506] 510 A

xzke vrfj;k ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 700 ¼Hkkx½] 701 ¼Hkkx½] 702 ¼Hkkx½] 703 ¼Hkkx½] 711] 712 ¼Hkkx½]

713 ¼Hkkx½] 753 ¼Hkkx½] 754 ¼Hkkx½] 755 ¼Hkkx½] 756 ¼Hkkx½] 765 ¼Hkkx½] 766 ¼Hkkx½] 768 ls 850] 876 ls 879 A

xzke [kSjouk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 445 ¼Hkkx½] 446] 447] 448 ¼Hkkx½] 449 ¼Hkkx½] 450 ls 561] 562 ¼Hkkx½]

563 ls 569] 570 ¼Hkkx½] 571 ls 574] 575 ¼Hkkx½] 576] 577 ¼Hkkx½] 585 ¼Hkkx½] 643 ¼Hkkx½] 644 ¼Hkkx½] 645 ls 736] 749] 766] 767]

768] 769] 770 A

xzke fcfN;k ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 677 ¼Hkkx½] 678 ¼Hkkx½] 679 ¼Hkkx½] 693 ¼Hkkx½] 694 ¼Hkkx½] 721 ¼Hkkx½]

722 ¼Hkkx½] 723 ls 725] 726 ¼Hkkx½] 731 ¼Hkkx½] 732] 983 ¼Hkkx½] 984 ¼Hkkx½] 985] 986] 987 ¼Hkkx½] 987/1/2] 987/4/1] 987/15]

987/16/1] 987/16/2] 988] 989¼Hkkx½] 990¼Hkkx½] 1048 A

xzke dksnSyh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 229 ¼Hkkx½] 230 ¼Hkkx½] 231 ¼Hkkx½] 406 ¼Hkkx½] 444 ¼Hkkx½ ls

448 ¼Hkkx½] 450 ls 478] 479 ¼Hkkx½] 483 ¼Hkkx½] 484 ¼Hkkx½] 485 ls 576] 577 ¼Hkkx½] 579 ¼Hkkx½] 580 ¼Hkkx½] 585 ¼Hkkx½] 586

ls 593] 594 ¼Hkkx½] ls 598 ¼Hkkx½ 599 ls 607] 608 ¼Hkkx½] 609] 610 ¼Hkkx½] 611 ¼Hkkx½] 612 ls 625] 626 ¼Hkkx½] 627 ¼Hkkx½]

628 ¼Hkkx½] 631] 632 ¼Hkkx½] 633 ¼Hkkx½] 634 ls 636] 637 ¼Hkkx½] 638 ¼Hkkx½] 639 ls 642] 643 ¼Hkkx½] 655 ¼Hkkx½] 657 ¼Hkkx½]

659 ¼Hkkx½] 660 ¼Hkkx½] 661 ¼Hkkx½] 743 ls 746] 748] 749] 752 ¼Hkkx½] 753 ¼Hkkx½] 755] 812 A

lhek o.kZu %

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksnSyh ds IykV la[;kadksa 659] 660] 661] 611] 610] 406] 608] 753] 598]

596] 597] 595] 594] 584] 585] 577] 579] 580] 484] 483] 479] 444] 445] 446] 447] 448] 452] 231] 230] 229 ls xqtjrh

gqbZ xzke dksnSyh&jkeiqj ds lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq **[k** ij feyrh gSA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4217

[k&x

js[kk xzke dksnSyh&jkeiqj ds lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq **[k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksnSyh&jkeiqj ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr

lhek] xzke jkeiqj ds IykV la[;kadksa 875] 874] 640] 861] 860 ds if'peh lhek ds lkFk gksdj 859 ls] 856] 848] 828]

826] 821 ds if'peh lhek ds lkFk gksdj 804 ls] 803] 801] 786] 782] 778] 776] 1112 ds if'peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ

fcUnq **x** ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq **x** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke jkeiqj ds IykV la[;kadksa 767] 766] 762] 761] 311] 313] 314] 317] 316] 318]

319 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 319] 207 ds if'peh lhek ds lkFk gksdj] 206 ls] 171] 170] 166] 165 ds nf{k.kh lhek ds lkFk

gksdj] 165] 167] 149 ds if'peh lhek] 149] 142] 140 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 352 ls] xzke jkeiqj&fcfN;k ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr

lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **?k** ij feyrh gSA

?k&³

js[kk xzke jkeiqj&fcfN;k ds lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq **?k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fcfN;k ds IykV la[;kadksa 989]

990 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **³** ij feyrh gSA

³&p

js[kk fcUnq **³** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fcfN;k ds IykV la[;kadksa 990] 984] 983] 726] 731] 732] 721] 722] 694]

693] 675] 678] 677] 987 ls gksdj xzke [kSjouk esa izos'k dj IykV la[;kadksa 652] 644] 643] 562] 570] 577] 575] 585

ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **p** ij feyrh gSA

p&N

js[kk fcUnq **p** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kSjouk ds IykV la[;kadksa 585] 445] 448] 449 ls gksdj xzke vrfj;k esa izos'k

dj IykV la[;kadksa 765] 766] 768] 756] 755] 754] 753] 713] 712] 711] 703] 702] 701] 700 ls] xzke vrfj;k&csfy;k

ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksdj xzke csfy;k esa izos'k djds IykV la[;kadksa 1] 4 ls] 11] 10 ds mRrjh lhek ds lkFk

gksdj] IykV la[;kdksa 9 ls] 8] 15] 14] 19] 20 ds mRrjh lhek] 21@10] 21 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **N** ij feyrh gSA

N&t

js[kk fcUnq **N** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke csfy;k ds IykV la[;kadksa 21] 21/10] 21/7] 21/4] 21/1/2] 355] 357] 358] 359]

406

ls gksdj xzke jkeiqj esa izos'k dj IykV la[;kadksa 3323] 2602] 2603] 2604] 2672] 2673] 2679] 2684] 2685 ds

iwohZ lhek] 2689] 2702 ls] 2705] 2706] 2707 ds iwohZ] 2708] 2709] 2712 ls] 2714] 2717 ds iwohZ lhek] 2718 ls] 2719]

3329] 2720 ds iwohZ lhek] 2230] 2229] 2248] 2249] 2250] 2215] 2214 ls] 2212] 1178] 1179] 1180] 1246] 1247] 1248]

1270] 1269] 1268] 1267 ds iwohZ lhek] 1277 ls] 1290] 1289] 1288] 1287] 1286] 1299] 1300] 1165] 1158 ds iwohZ lhek]

1369] 1362 ls] 1365] 1366] 1376] 1452] 1449] 1448 ds iwohZ lhek] 1466] 1465] 1466 ls] 1488] 1563] 1564 ds mRrjh

lhek] 1575] 1890 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **t** ij feyrh gSA

t&>

js[kk fcUnq **t** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke jkeiqj ds Hkkxr% nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xzke dksnSyh ds iwohZ lhek ij fcUnq

**>** ij feyrh gSA

>&´

js[kk fcUnq **>** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksnSyh ds IykV la[;kadksa 643] 638] 637] 636] 633] 632] 628] 630] 627

ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **´** ij feyrh gSA

´&d

js[kk fcUnq **´** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksnSyh ds IykV la[;kadksa 627] 626] 655] 657] 659 ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd

fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA

[la- 43015@03@2012 & ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

,e- ds- 'kekZ] funs'kd

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1579.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2094

dated 11th June, 2012 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, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-

section (ii) dated 23rd June, 2012, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 4265.783

hectares (approximately) or 10540.75 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed

to that notification;

And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands 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 734.917 hectares or 1816.02 acres with all

rights in or over the said lands described in the Schedule appended hereto:

4218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Note 1 : The plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ CGM(PLG)/ LAND/ 450 dated the 15th November, 2013 of the area covered

by this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Shahdol and Anuppur, 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.

Note 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 :

(1)

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

undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operation 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”.

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

SCHEDULE

Batura Block West Extension, Sohagpur Area District Anuppur and Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM(PLG)/LAND/450 dated the 15th November, 2013]

All Rights :

Sl.

Name of village

Patwari halka

Bandobast

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

Number

Hectares

Rampur

107

890

Sohagpur

Shahdol

375.091

Part

Beliya

107

722

Sohagpur

Shahdol

60.210

Part

Atariya

107

Sohagpur

Shahdol

126.670

Part

Khairwana

106

205

Sohagpur

Shahdol

76.801

Part

Bichhiya

106

716

Sohagpur

Shahdol

61.645

Part

Kodaili

167

Anuppur

34.500

Part

Total: - 734.917 Hectares or 1816.02 Acres

1. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Rampur (Part):- 1 to 149, 165 to 205, 206(P), 207 to 314, 316 to 319, 352(P),

640, 761 to 767, 776 to 778, 782 to 786, 801 to 803, 804(P), 821 to 828, 848 to 856, 859(P), 860 to 1157, 1158(P), 1165 to 1180,

1246 to 1270, 1277(P), 1286 to 1299, 1300(P), 1362(P), 1363 to 1376, 1448, 1449, 1451 to 1464, 1465(P), 1466(P), 1488 to 1564,

1569, 1575(P), 1890(P), 2212, 2213(P), 2214(P), 2215(P), 2229(P), 2230(P), 2231 to 2247, 2248(P), 2251 to 2601, 2602(P), 2603(P),

2604(P), 2672 to 2683, 2684(P), 2685(P), 2686 to 2688, 2689(P), 2702(P), 2703 to 2707, 2708(P), 2709(P), 2710, 2711, 2712(P),

2714 to 2717, 2718(P), 2719, 2720, 3301, 3302, 3307, 3308, 3321, 3323(P), 3329, 3340.

Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Beliya (Part):- 1(P), 4(P), 8, 9(P), 10 to 15, 19, 20, 21(P), 21/1/2(P), 21/4(P),

21/7(P), 21/10(P), 355(P), 356, 357(P), 358(P), 359(P), 360 to 405, 406(P), 506, 510.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4219

Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Atariya (Part):- 700(P), 701(P), 702(P), 703(P), 711, 712(P), 713(P), 753(P),

754(P), 755(P), 756(P), 765(P), 766(P), 768 to 850, 876 to 879.

Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Khairwana (Part):- 445(P), 446, 447, 448(P), 449(P), 450 to 561, 562(P), 563 to

569, 570(P), 571 to 574, 575(P), 576, 577(P), 585(P), 643(P), 644(P), 645 to 736, 749, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770.

Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Bichhiya (Part):- 677(P), 678(P), 679(P), 693(P), 694(P), 721(P), 722(P), 723 to

725, 726(P), 731(P), 732, 983(P), 984(P), 985, 986, 987(P), 987/1/2, 987/4/1, 987/15, 987/16/1, 987/16/2, 988, 989(P), 990(P), 1048.

Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Kodaili (Part):- 229(P), 230(P), 231(P), 406(P), 444(P) to 448(P), 450 to 478,

479(P), 483(P), 484(P), 485 to 576, 577(P), 579(P), 580(P), 585(P), 586 to 593, 594(P) to 598(P), 599 to 607, 608(P), 609, 610(P),

611(P), 612 to 625, 626(P), 627(P), 628(P), 631, 632(P), 633(P), 634 to 636, 637(P), 638(P), 639 to 642, 643(P), 655(P), 657(P),

659(P), 660(P), 661(P), 743 to 746, 748, 749, 752(P), 753(P), 755, 812.

Boundary Description :

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in village Kodaili through plot number 659, 660, 661, 611, 610, 406, 608, 753,

598, 596, 597, 595, 594, 584, 585, 577, 579, 580, 484, 483, 479, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 452, 231, 230, 229 and meets at

point ‘B’ on the common boundary of villages Kodaili-Rampur.

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ on the common boundary of villages Kodaili-Rampur and passes along partly common

boundary of villages Kodaili-Rampur, through village Rampur along western boundary of plot number 875, 874,

640, 861, 860, through 859, along western boundary of plot number 856, 848, 828, 826, 821, through 804, along

western boundary of plot number 803, 801, 786, 782, 778, 776, 1112 and meets at point ‘C’.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in village Rampur along Southern boundary of plot number 767, 766, 762,

761, 311, 313, 314, 317, 316, 318, 319, western boundary of plot number 319, 207, through 206, along southern

boundary of plot number 171, 170, 166, 165, western boundary of plot number 165, 167, 149, southern boundary

of plot number 149, 142, 140, through 352, along partly common boundary of villages Rampur-Bichhiya and meets

at point ‘D’.

D-E

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes in village Bichhiya through plot number 989, 990 and meets at point ‘E’.

E-F

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes in village Bichhiya through plot number 990, 984, 983, 726, 731, 732, 721, 722,

694, 693, 675, 678, 677, 987 then enter in village Khairwana and passes through plot number 652, 644, 643, 562, 570,

577, 575, 585 and meets at point ‘F’.

F-G

Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes in village Khairwana through plot number 585, 445, 448, 449 then enter in

village Atariya and passes through plot number 765, 766, 768, 756, 755, 754, 753, 713, 712, 711, 703, 702, 701, 700,

along partly common boundary of villages Atariya-Beliya then enter in village Beliya and passes through plot

number 1, 4, along northern boundary of plot number 11, 10, through 9, along northern boundary of plot number

8, 15, 14, 19, 20, through 21/10, 21 and meets at point ‘G’.

G-H

Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes in village Beliya through plot number 21, 21/10, 21/7, 21/4, 21/1/2, 355, 357,

358, 359, 406 then enter in village Rampur and passes through plot number 3323, 2602, 2603, 2604, along eastern

boundary of plot number 2672, 2673, 2679, 2684, 2685, through 2689, 2702, along eastern boundary of plot number

2705, 2706, 2707, through 2708, 2709, 2712, along eastern boundary of plot number 2714, 2717, through 2718,

along eastern boundary of plot number 2719, 3329, 2720, through 2230, 2229, 2248, 2249, 2250, 2215, 2214, along

eastern boundary of plot number 2212, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1270, 1269, 1268, 1267, through 1277,

along eastern boundary of plot number 1290, 1289, 1288, 1287, 1286, 1299, 1300, 1165, 1158, through 1369, 1362,

along eastern boundary of plot number 1365, 1366, 1376, 1452, 1449, 1448, through 1466, 1465, 1466, along

northern boundary of plot number 1488, 1563, 1564, through 1575,1890 and meets at point ‘H’ on the village

boundary of Rampur.

H-I

Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes along partly southern boundary of village Rampur and meets at point ‘I’.

I-J

Line starts from point ‘I’ and passes in village Kodaili through plot number 643, 638, 637, 636, 633, 632, 628, 630,

627 and meets at point ‘J’.

J-A

Line starts from point ‘J’ and passes in village Kodaili through plot number 627, 626, 655, 657, 659 and meets at

starting point ‘A’.

[No. 43015/03/2012-PRIW-I ]

M. K. SHARMA, Director

4220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1580-—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] dksydkrk 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;] dksydkrk

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@13@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O. 1580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Kolkata and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-17012/13/2012-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 11 of 2012

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

LIC of India

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the

Mr. Jayanta Basu, Ld. Counsel

Management

On behalf of the

None

Workmen

State : West Bengal

Industry : Insurance

Dated : 10th April, 2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-17012/13/2012-IR(M) dated

29.06.2012 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

“Whether the action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Kolkata in

terminating the services (vide order dated 17/8/2010)

of Shri Mahadev Yadav working as Development

Officer on probation is legal and justified? What

relief the workman is entitled to?”

When the case is taken up for hearing, none appears

on behalf of the workman inspite of service of notice

though the management is represented by its Ld. Counsel.

It appears from the record that the workman neither

appeared on the last two consecutive dates inspite of

notice nor took any step in the matter. The above facts

and circumstances and also the conduct of the workman

go to show that at present the workman is not at all

interested in the present reference. Perhaps, the workman

has got no grievance against the management.

Accordingly, the present reference is disposed of

by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata

The 10th April, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1581-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xkMZu jhp f'ki

fcYMlZ ,oa bathfu;lZ 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;] dksydkrk

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 05@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&32011@5@99&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O. 1581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/

2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Garden Reach Ship Builders &

Engineers Limited and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-32011/5/99-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 05 of 2002

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of

Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Ltd.

A N D

Their workmen.

Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4221

Appearance :

On behalf of the

: Mr. Dipak Kumar Ghosh,

Management

Ld. Counsel.

On behalf of the

: None

Workmen

State : West Bengal

Industry : Ship Building

Dated : 31st March, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-32011/5/99-IR(M) dated 27.02.2002

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 the action of the management of Garden

Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. in dismissing

Sh. Ainul Haque from service w.e.f. 30.6.94 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of the workman/union inspite of service

of notice though the management is represented by its

Ld. Counsel. It appears from the record that on the last

two consecutive dates none also appeared on behalf of

the workman/union. Considering the facts and

circumstances, it may reasonably be presumed that

grievances between the parties have been amicably settled

and perhaps for that reason the workman/union does not

want 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 31st March, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1582-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk iksVZ

VªLV 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

942@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&37012@4@92&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O. 1582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 942/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Kandla Port Trust and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

12/5/2014.

[No. L-37012/4/92-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 20th December, 2013

Reference (CGITA) No. 942/2004

Reference (I.T.C) No. 03/1993(old)

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

A.O. Building,

Gandhidham (Kutch)-370201

.....Employer (1st party)

And

Their Workman

Sh. Rameshchandra K. Rajgor

Through the Union,

General Secretary Kandla Port Karmachari Sangh,

T.C.X.-5-94

Gandhidham (Kutch) 370201

......Union (2nd party)

For the First Party

: Shri Kishor V. Gadhia,

Advocate

For the Second Party

: Shri S.N. Gandhi, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide Order No. L-37012/4/92-IR(Misc) dated

18.03.1993 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 dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Rajkot on the terms

of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kandla

Port Trust, Kandla in terminating the services of

Shri Ramesh Chandra K. Rajgor, Messenger,

appointed on compassionate ground, after 4 years

of service, on medical grounds of defect in eyes,

justified and legal? If not to what relief the workman

is entitled for and what directions are necessary in

the matter?”

4222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case of the Union (2nd party) as per statement

of claim (Ext.3) filed on 29.04.1993 is that Rameshchandra

K. Rajgor was appointed on compassionate grounds in

the year 1982 vide first appointment letter dated 03.07.1982

and thereafter giving artificial intermittent breaks for a day

in the service appointment order dated 05.10.1982,

05.01.1983, 06.04.1983, 13.07.1983, 10.10.1983 , 07.01.1994,

12.04.1984, 11.07.1984,15.10.1984, 14.01.1985, 16.04.1985,

16.07.1985, 17.10.1985, 20.01.1986, 23.04.1986 and 31.07.1986

were issued. The Deputy Secretary of KPT issued an order

No. GA/PS/9403.877 dated 8th August 1986 informing

Rameshchandra K. Rajgor that offer of appointment for

the post of messenger vide GA/PS/9403/411 dated

24.04.1986 is cancelled as he (workman) was found

medically unfit for appointment in Kandla Port Trust due

to suffering from Myasthania Gravis. Rameshchandra

requested to secretary K.P.T. to reconsider his case vide

letter dated 10.06.1986. The 1st party vide letter dated

09.05.1986 also intimated that as per report of Sr. Medical

Officer Kandla Port Trust he has been declared unfit due

to suffering from Mysthenia Gravis and if aggrieved by

unfit certificate he may make appeal along with the

certificate from other medical practitioner to show

possibility of error in K.P.T. Doctor’s report. The workman

Rameshchandra got himself examined by civil surgeon;

Bhuj who issued certificate that earlier medical certificate

of K.P.T. appears to be error in judgement. Then the

workman was informed to appear before medical board of

K.P.T. Hospital vide letter dated 05.07.1986. The port

authorities informed Rameshchandra on 8/11.08.86 that

appointment order has been cancelled. The representation

of Rameshchandra was rejected on 04.09.1986.

Subsequently, Rameshchandra produced the certificate

from Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai and was examined by Dr.

Anil D. Desai at Mumbai and he was found fit for service

as per certificate dated 07.08.1991. Then workman made

representation on 19.11.1991 to the chairman of K.P.T. for

reconsidering his case. But as it was replied by K.P.T. that

his case for appointment as messenger cannot be

reconsidered. Then Rameshchandra approached the Union

and the Union took up the matter before the conciliation

officer vide letter dated 05.03.1992. But matter could not

be resolved resulting in failure report and followed by the

order of the appropriate Government. The case of the 2nd

party is that the defect of eyes of Rameshchandra is natural

and he has no defect in the eye sight and that medical

Board’s report of K.P.T. suffers from error of judgement in

view of certificate issued by Government Civil Hospital,

Bhuj as well as Doctor of Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai , a

country fame Hospital. So the impugned decision of the

K.P.T. (1st party employer) is illegal and arbitrary. The

father of Rameshchandra was serving in K.P.T. who expired

during service period and deceased family has no other

support and income and so, appointment to

Rameshchandra. Son of deceased workman was offered

as per the circular issued by the appropriate Government

from time to time. Rameshchandra worked around four

years to the satisfaction of the superiors of the 1st party

and so after a period of 4 years, the 1st party employer has

no legal right to terminate the services of Rameshchandra

K. Rajgor on the ground that he is medically unfit as

suffering from Myasthania Gravis. Further case is that

appointment on compassionate ground is made on regular

basis, but the 1st party employer issued appointment order

giving artificial intermittent breaks in the service of

Rameshchandra with a view to avoid grant of various fringe

benefits which are available to the permanent workman.

The action of the 1st party in giving artificial intermittent

breaks is illegal and malafide. On these scores prayer is

made by the 2nd party (Union) to set aside the impugned

cancellation of offer of appointment to Rameshchandra K.

Rajgor and by way of terminating his services and for

reinstatement on his original post of messenger with full

back wages and continuity of service and to any other

relief to which the concerned Rameshchandra is found

entitled.

As against this the contentions of the 1st party as

per written statement (Ext.5) dated 29.07.1993 are that

Rameshchandra K. Rajgor was initially appointed as a

messenger on ad hoc basis on compassionate grounds

on 03.07.1982 for a period of three months or till the post

was to be filled on regular basis which ever was earlier and

this way his ad hoc appointment was continued for further

three months after one day’s break after every three months

and the appointment orders carrying that it will not confer

any claim upon Rameshchandra for regular appointment

on the post. Subsequently, Rameshchandra was offered

the post of messenger on regular basis vide office

memorandum No. GA/PS/9403/411 dated 24.04.1986 which

was subject to character verification, medical fitness. On

production of certificate of fitness from C.M.O. K.P.T.

Hospital,Gopalpuri. In pursuance of offer of appointment

Rameshchandra was examined on 25.04.1986 by the senior

medical officer of Kandla Port Trust who declared him

unfit for employment in K.P.T. due to suffering from

Myasthania Gravis and Rameshchandra was informed that

it is open to him to make appeal along with certificate from

other medical practitioner to support that there was a

possibility of error of judgement in the findings of senior

medical officer K.P.T. and that if such certificate if produced

should contain a note by the medical practitioner that he

has been given full knowledge of the fact that the

candidate has already been declared unfit for service by a

medical officer and that appeal was to be made within a

month. Further contention is that Rameshchandra brought

a certificate from a private doctor stating that there seemed

to be an error in judgement on going through the detailed

history. Rameshchandra made an appeal to reconsider his

case vide letter dated 10.06.1986 and then Rameshchandra

was directed to appear before the medical board for re-

examination on 19.07.1986 and he was re-examined by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4223

medical board of four doctors, C.M.O. , Sr. M.O. (Surgeon),

Assistant M.O. (Opthalmologist) and senior M.O. who

declared him “not fit” for appointment in K.P.T.

Accordingly the services of Rameshchandra was

terminated w.e.f. 04.10.1986 vide letter No. EG/PS/4302/

3845 dated 04.10.1986 and he was paid an amount of

Rs. 5,562.90 as terminal benefits. Further contention is

that Rameshchandra brought a certificate from medical

practitioner after a lapse of five years in which it has been

stated that he was examined on 12.07.1990 and 27.08.1991

for his complaint of bilateral ptosis and opthalmoplegia

and condition remains the same. He has ocular myapathy

and is fit for any job in the category of peon or messenger”.

It is further case of the 1st party that since Rameshchandra

has already been paid terminal benefits when his services

were terminated and Rameshchandra also accepted that

terminal benefits and so his case cannot be considered

and the demand made at belated stage. Further case is

that there is no error of Judgement of the medical board of

K.P.T. Further contention is that the persons appointed

on compassionate grounds are not exempted from medical

fitness. It has been denied about any mala fide intention

of the 1st party to give ad hoc appointment to

Rameshchandra on compassionate ground. On these

contentions prayer is made to dismiss the reference since

the 2nd party/ Union/ Workman is not entitled to any relief.

The 2nd party Union also filed rejoinder (Ext.8) to

the written reply of the 1st party reiterating its stand so

taken in the statement of claim and denying the contention

of the 1st party (K.P.T.).

The 1st party also filed reply (Ext.3) to the rejoinder

of the 2nd party Union almost reiterating to its stand/

contentions so taken in the written statement and denying

the contentions of the Union in rejoinder.

The concerned workman Rameshchandra deposed-

in support of S.P. case vide Ext. 17 and was also cross

examined by the 1st party’s lawyer. The 1st party also

examined senior medical officer of K.P.T. namely Dr.

Mahesh Bopat to support the medical unfitness report

given to workman Rameshchandra by senior medical

officer of K.P.T. and medical boards report of K.P.T.

Hospital declaring Rameshchandra unfit for appointment

in K.P.T. The 2nd party has also relied upon the medical

fitness report given by medical practitioner of Anjar, Doctor

of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and the Doctor of Jaslok

Hospital, Mumbai that he (Rameshchandra) is fit to work

as peon/messenger.

The 2nd party Union filed 11 documents with a list

Ext. 4 on 28.04.1993. Ext.15 series are copies of ad hoc

appointment order of Ramshchandra 17 in number of

different dates from 03.07.1982 to 31.07.1986. Ext. 16 is

letter dated 09.05.1986 of 1st party addressed to

Rameshchandra. Ext. 18 is copy of order dated 8/11.08.86

cancelling the offer of appointment. Ext. 19 is copy of

letter dated 10.06.1986 of Rameshchandra to the 1st party.

Ext.20 is copy of certificate dated 08.06.1986 of Dr. S.R.

Dave of Anjar (EI), medical report of Dr. J.N. Patel of civil

Hospital Ahmedabad (E-II & E/III) showing admission of

Rameshchandra on 01.06.1986 diagnosis, medicines of

discharge on 06.06.1986. Ext.21 is letter of K.P.T. secretary’s

office dated 04.09.1986 rejecting the representation of

Rameshchandra. Ext.22 is copy of certificate issued by Dr.

Anil D. Desai, F.R.C.P.(E) F.A.M.C. of Jaslok Hospital,

Mumbai dated 27.08.1991. Ext.23 is copy of appeal dated

19.11.1991 made by Rameshchandra to chairman K.P.T.

Ext.24 is copy of reply letter of Dy. Secretary K.P.T.

addressed to Rameshchandra dated 13.12.1991 rejecting

the request for reinstatement. Ext.25 is copy of letter dated

05.03.1992 of the Union taking up the matter with

conciliation officer. Ext. 26 is copy of letter from the 1st

party employer dated 05.07.1986 to appear before the

Medical Board.

The 1st party along with w.s. has attached Annexure

A dated 24.04.1986 which is offer of appointment to

Rameshchandra and 4 others and also copy to C.M.O.

K.P.T. for medical examining of the 5 persons including

Rameshchandra. Annexure B is certificate dated 25.04.1986

of senior medical officer K.P.T. Hospital to Rameshchandra

mentioning no any disease, constitutional weakness or

bodily infirmity except myasthenia Gravis which is

disqualification for employment attached with copy of

candidates statement and declaration. Annexure C marked

Ext.49 is copy of medical examination of Rameshchandra

K. Rajgor by medical board of K.P.T. medical department

dated 21.07.1986. The 1st party again filed two documents

with list Ext.30 which are copy of memorandum/offer of

appointment dated 24.04.1986 and medical report dated

25.04.1986 of senior medical officer K.P.T. (medical

Department).

In view of the rival contention of the parties in their

pleadings, the following issues are taken up for

determination in this case.

ISSUES

(I)

Is the reference maintainable?

(II)

Has the 2nd party Union valid cause of action in

this case?

(III)

Whether the action of the 1st party (K.P.T.) in

terminating the services of the workman Shri

Rameshchandra K. Rajgor, messenger appointed on

compassionate grounds, after four years of service

on medical ground of defect in eyes is justified and

legal?

(IV)

Whether the workman Shri Rameshchandra is

entitled for the reliefs as claimed? What directions

are necessary in the matter?

4224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

FINDINGS

10.

ISSUE NO III : This is admitted fact that the workman

Rameshchandra K. Rajgor had been given appointment

by the management of K.P.T. on compassionate ground

that his father being employee of Kandla Port Trust died

while in service. There is virtually uniform rules and

regulation in the state or Central Government services,

P.S.U. etc. as to provisions of compassionate appointment

of ward of employee who dies during tenure of service to

protect family of such deceased employee in facing

financial hardship. In the instant case too, the management

of Kandla Port Trust provided compassionate

appointment on 03.07.1982 to Rameshchandra for the motto

of protecting the family of its deceased employee i.e. the

father of Rameshchandra who died in accident during

tenure of service in K.P.T. and the management of K.P.T.

provided job by way of compassionate appoint to the son

of deceased employee. More so, it was incumbent upon

the management of K.P.T. to take medical examination of

Rameshchandra, the son of deceased employee and if there

was any defect in eyes to him, the management could

have asked to the family of deceased for providing

compassionate appointment either to the widow of

deceased employee or to another son/daughter of the

deceased employee. But it was not done so by the

management of Kandla Port Trust and selected the

workman Rameshchandra K. Rajgor for compassionate

appointment and his compassionate appointment was

allowed to be continued up to four years by giving artificial

intermittent break of one day right from 03.07.1982 to

31.07.1986 by way of issuing as many as 17 appointment

orders (Ext.15 series). More so, is none of the appointment

order there is any stipulation that his appointment is

subject to medical fitness report of the medical officer of

K.P.T. Hospital. None of the appointment order contain

the word compassionate appointment or like this that

appointment of Rameshchandra is made on compassionate

ground. This essential ingredient is lacking in appointment

orders whereas even the 1st appointment order dated

03.07.1982 does not contain the word/sentence as to

compassionate appointment of Rameshchandra, son of

deceased employee of K.P.T. Rather the 1st appointment

order and all subsequent appointment orders are identical

as that of ad hoc appointment, will not confer any claim

for regular appointment. Such wording usually made in

temporary appointment order on casual basis other than

the compassionate appointment but such wording is not

in consonance with the compassionate appointment of

Rameshchnadra K. Rajgor. Yet examining the factum of as

many as 17 appointment orders (Ext.15 series) it is obvious

that the workman (Rameshchandra) was allowed to

continue work of messenger (class IV grade) and there

was no any complaint against his work of messenger or

that he is observed to be unfit for the work of messenger

during his long 4 year tenure of service.

11.

Even the last appointment order dated 31.07.1986

does not speak about giving of offer of appointment with

covenant of subject to medical report of K.P.T. Hospital.

More so, the offer of appointment dated 24.04.1986 which

is annexure A with w.s. of the 1st party is common to 5

persons mentioned in the bottom of page 2. This does not

indicate that the workman Rameshchandra K. Rajgor at

Sl.No. 4 is appointee on compassionate ground rather

shows ‘ad hoc’ with that of other four persons. It has

been seen that after almost four years of job of messenger

Rameshchandra was given offer of appointment. The 1st

party has not shown as to how many period other 4

persons were on ad hoc appointment or that those persons

were also appointed on compassionate ground but were

given ad hoc appointment.

12.

Now coming to examine the medical report given by

Sr. Medical officer of K.P.T. Medical department dated

25.04.1986. This speaks that there was no any disease

(communicable or otherwise, constitutional weakness or

bodily infirmity except “Myasthenia Gravis”. Even

Rameshchandra was found suffering from Myasthenia

Gravis as per medical report dated 25.04.1986 but there is

no evidence on behalf of the 1st party that his work as

messenger had been found unsatisfactory due to such

eye decease. More so, even after medical report dated

25.04.1986, the management of K.P.T. issued appointment

order ‘ad hoc’ dated 31.07.1986. The medical Board’s report

dated 19.07.1986/21.07.1986 of medical department of K.P.T.

speaks that Rameshchandra is suffering from Myasthenia

Gravis for the last nine years …. Bilateral ptosis of both

eyes and eye balls are not moving in any directions. There

is paralysis of the extra ocular muscles and hence eye

balls are fixed in position. The pupils are reacting to light-

for direct and corneal reactions…….It is a progressive

disease and it affects the other muscles of the body too.

The medical board of the First party considered

Rameshchandra not fit for appointment.

13.

But if the medical board’s report is taken into

account that Rameshchandra is suffering from Myasthenia

Gravis for the last nine years, then it has also to be

considered and to have taken into account that workman

Rameshchandra performed the job of the messenger for

about four years without dissatisfaction of the

management of K.P.T. and was being performing the works

of messenger without an difficulty.

14.

The one aspect of the medical report relied upon

by the 1st party (management of K.P.T.) is that since

medical department of K.P.T. gave report as to not fit for

the appointment offered and so offer of regular

appointment was cancelled that tantamount to termination

of the workman’s services which was being performed

without dissatisfaction of the management of K.P.T. but

one fine morning he was found unfit due to eye disease

by technical terms suffering from ‘Myasthenia Gravis’.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4225

15.

But there is another aspect of the medical reports

produced by the 2nd party Rameshchandra that go to

support that even he is suffering from Myasthenia Gravis

his condition is stable and so he is found fit for performing

the job of messenger /peon (class IV grade).The certificate

of Dr. S.R. Dave of civil Hospital, Bhuj Ext.20 granted to

Rameshchandra on 08.06.1986 go to show that it was

brought to notice of Dr. S.R. Dave that patient

Rameshchandra has been made unfit by the Kandla Port

Trust medical examiner but on examination by Dr. S.R. Dave

on 08.06.1986 of Rameshchandra his ptosis of eyelids and

certifying that his previous medical examiner labelled him

as case of Myasthenia Gravis which to me seems to be an

error of judgement as going through detailed history he

did not give any evidence of muscular weakness while he

was in service since last four years in Kandla Port Trust

office. There is also medical prescription and advise of Dr.

J.N. Patel of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad that go to show

that Rameshchandra (2nd party workman) was admitted in

Civil Hospital on 01.08.1986 and was discharged on

06.08.1986 diagnosed as myasthenia Gravis and certificate

was granted he is suffering from Myasthenia Gravis. He is

fit for duty provided he takes medicines regularly which

has been prescribed in given discharge card and 15days

medicines had been prescribed to him (Rmaeshchandra).

On behalf of the 2nd party yet another medical certificate

dated 27th August 1991 (Ext.22) of Dr. Anil D. Desai of

Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai has been filed that reveals that

“Mr Ramesh Rajgor was first seen by me (Doctor) on 20th

December, 1985 at the age of 23 years for his complaints of

bilateral ptosis and opthalmoplegia. He was admitted to

Jaslok Hospital and investigated. He has been re-examined

on 12th July, 1990 and 27th August, 1991. His condition of

bilateral ptosis and ophthalmoplegia remains the same.

He has ocular myopathy and is fit for job in the category

of peon or messenger.”

16.

The evidence of the 1st party witness Dr. Mahesh

Bopal is of formal nature. He had not examined Shri

Rameshchandra K. Rajgor. He was not among a doctor of

medical board. He formally proved the medical examination

report of Sr. M.O. and of medical board when those

certificate were shown to him Ext. 30/2 and Ext.49. He

admitted in evidence during cross-examination that he was

not in job at K.P.T. medical Department when the two

certificates were prepared by the medical department and

the said Rameshchadra was not examined inhis presence.

17.

From making comparison of the two medical reports

relied upon by the management of K.P.T. (1st party) on

one hand and the three medical reports relied upon by the

2nd party on the other hand, I am of the considered view

that the medical board of K.P.T. medical department,

appears to have dittoing the earlier medical report of senior

medical officer who was also one of the signatory doctor

signing the medical board report. More so, the medical

board in its report has not cared to controvert the

certificate of Dr. Dave (Ext. 20) regarding errors of

Judgement in the report of Sr. Medical Officer of K.P.T.

Rather Medical Board of K.P.T. medical department have

gone many steps forward in its report dated 21.07.1986

that “Rameshchandra’s eye problem (Myasthenia Gravis)

is progressive disease and it affects the other muscles of

the body”. Whereas report dated 25.04.1986 of senior

medical officer K.P.T. shows Rameshchandra has no any

disease, no constitutional weakness or bodily infirmity

except Mysthania Gravis Sr. M.O.’s report does not say as

to progressive disease. Now coming to examine the medical

reports/certificates relied upon by the 2nd party. The

certificate of Dr. Dave dated 08.06.1986 after detail

examination of Rameshchandra found error in judgement

of senior medical officer of K.P.T. because having no

muscular weakness while he was in service. The report of

Dr. J.N. Patel of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad dated 06.08.1986

did not find Rameshchandra has any progressive disease

of Mysthania Gravis and that he should take medicine

regularly and he is fit for duty. The certificate dated 27th

August, 1991 of Dr. Anil D. Desai of Jaslok Hospital,

Mumbai, clearly shows that Rameshchandra Rajgor

remained under periodical observation of Jaslok Hospital

on 29th December, 1985, 12th July, 1990 and 27th August,

1991, Ramesh has complaint’s of bilateral ptosis and

opthalmoplegia and his such condition remains the same.

He has ocular myopathy and is fit for any job in the

category of peon or messenger. The report and certificate

of doctor of Jaslok Hospital which covers the examination

of Rameshchandra from December 1985 to August 1991

for about 6 years clearly speaks that there is no progressive

disease of Myasthenia Gravis that could affects the other

muscles of the body too. The report of Jaslok Hospital,

Mumbai has clearly negative the doctor’s report of medical

department of Kandla Port Trust. More so, the factum of 4

years of working and performing duty by Rameshchandra

K. Rajgor clearly speaks that he is not suffering from

progressive disease of Myasthenia Gravis , rather is fit to

perform duty of messenger in class IV grade at Kandla

Port Trust.

18.

The 1st party has relied upon some case laws for

supporting the action of the management of Kandla Port

Trust in terminating the services of Rameshchandra by

cancellation of appointment on regular basis. (1) The case

law of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs. Salimbhai

Umarbhai Mansuri (2013 III CLR 1 is on section 2(oo) ,

25G, 25H of the I.D. Act, 1947 and is based on termination

of service of contractual appointment for a fixed period.

This case law is not applicable in the instant case because

the workman Shri Rameshchandra K. Rajgor’s appointment

on compassionate ground was not contractual

appointment because the employer (K.P.T.) purposely

issued as many as 17 appointments orders in the garb of

temporary appointment, knowing fully that Ramesh

appointment is on compassionate ground and more so

4226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ramesh had been given offer of appointment on regular

basis and on medical ground of disease in eye his

appointment had been cancelled. (2.) The case law of

Anantrai Gordhandas Jethwa vs. Gujarat Electricity Board

(2006 11 CLR 908) based on birth date correction and delay

and latches which is not applicable in the instant case. (3.)

the case law of Gujarat Industrial Development corporation

vs. Revabhai Maganbhai Patel (2013 111 CLR 187) on the

point of cancellation of appointment is not at all applicable

in the instant case because the appointment of respondent

as Asst. Manager was cancelled because the post was

reserved for S.T. community. (4.) The case law of Amarsigh

Waghela Vs. GSRTC and another (2003 Lab. I.C. 1125) is

not applicable in the instant case. In the given case law

workman was driver and after nine years in medical report

there was weak vision and not fit for job of driver. In the

instant case the workman Rameshchandra appointed on

compassionate ground and performing duty of messenger

for four years without complaints. (5.) The case law of

workman of Motipur Sugar Factory (pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Motipur

Sugar Factory (pvt.) ltd (LLJ 1965 page 17 S.C.) is based

on the factum of notice issued by the employee to the

workman individually alleging that they were adopting

go-slow tactics at the instigation of Union so is not

applicable in the instant case because workman

Rameshchandra worked as messenger for four years

without complaint of his employer. (6.) The case law of

Pappu vs. Management of Tajiv Automobiles Workshop

and Show Room and another (2012 (4) L.L.LN. 181) is based

upon termination at the end of contracted period whereas

in the instant case Rameshchandra’s case was not contract

job rather is based on compassionate appointment (7.) the

CAV judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in S.C.A.

No. 3257/2010 (Pankaj Suresh Lalwani & others Vs, Kadla

Port Trust is not applicable in the instant case. In the

given case respondents workman initially joined as daily

wager. So is not the case of workman Ramesh in the instant

case. (8)The case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corp.

Vs. Lakshmidevamma & another (2001 11 CLR 640) the

respondent was dismissed from service after domestic

enquiry. In the Instant case, it is not applicable. (9) The

case law of G.S.R.T.C, Ahmedabad Vs. Premsingh L. Rathod

[2001 (1) G.L.H. 490] on the point-Labour Court cannot go

beyond the terms of reference has no bearing in the instant

case because this tribunal has to adjudicate as per terms

of reference whether as to whether termination of workman

Rameshchandra, messenger appointed on compassionate

ground after 4 years of service on medical ground of defect

in eyes is justified or not. (10) The case law of Manabendra

Kr. Choudhary vs. First Labour Court & other [1990 (61)

F.L.R. 560] is alos not applicable (11) The case law of new

India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manphool Singh and

others (2008 11 CLR 56) is a good law that opinion of

larger bench is to be followed but how this case law will be

applicable in the instant case. The 1st party’s lawyer could

not convince to this Tribunal. There is no question of

conflict between two judgements on any question of law

or interpretation of statute. In the instant case crux of the

case is error of judgement in medical examination of

workman which is not a question of law or interpretation

of statute. (12) The case law of state of U.P. vs.

Rameshchandra Trivedi 1976 SCC (L&S) 542 on Article

311 (C) is not applicable in the instant case.

19.

It has been argued on behalf of the 2nd party that

the defect shown by the medical officer of K.P.T. is not at

all any disease that Shri Rameshchandra cannot perform

duty of messenger and if the management of K.P.T. would

have got examined Shri Rameshchandra before

appointment as being done in regular cases the present

situation should not have come that employee is removed

after serving satisfactorily for 4 years. It has been argued

that once a senior Doctor has declared Ramesh unfit, the

decision will not be changed by other Doctor as it is the

same department whereas the relevant certificates

submitted by the workman are sufficient to establish that

he is fit for the post of messenger on which he worked

such a long period. It has been further argued that since

service of Rameshchandra has been terminated illegally,

so, the acceptance of terminal benefits of Rs. 5,562.90 by

Rameshchandra is due to ignorance of rules and

regulations and it do not prevent him to ask for justice and

reinstatement into service since it was a compassionate

appointment case and not direct recruitment case. On the

other hand, it has been argued that since the workman

Rameshchandra had accepted the terminal benefits

comprising of gratuity, retrenchment compensation and

one month notice pay so now the workman 2nd party

Union is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.

20.

Upon consideration of the materials on the record

as discussed above and also considering that the case

laws relied upon by the 1st party do not fit in the facts and

circumstances of the instant case. This Tribunal is of

considered opinion and therefore, find and hold that the

action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in

termination the services of Shri Rameshchandra K. Rajgor.

On medical ground of defect in eyes is unjustified and

illegal. So the ISSUE NO. III is decided against the 1st

party (management of Kandla Port Trust).

21.

ISSUE NO. I : From the discussion and consideration

in the foregoings while giving findings to ISSUE NO.III it

has been seen that the workman Rameshchandra was under

constant struggle to get the defect of eyes rectified by

availing treatment from Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai till

August, 1991 and was making last representation to the

management of K.P.T. on 19.11.1991 for his reinstatement

on regular post of messenger vide Ext.23 and receiving

reply of K.P.T. dated 13.12.1991 (Ext.24) and thereafter

raising of dispute by the Union (Kandla Port Karmachari

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4227

Sangh) dated 05.03.1992 to A.L.C. (Centre) Adipur, Kutch

(Ext.25) sufficiently establishes that there is no latches

and delay in raising the Industrial Dispute. So such

argument of the 1st party is not tenable that 5 years delay

is raising dispute go to the root in defeating of the 2nd

party’s claim. So the case laws relied upon by the 1st party

(2006 11 CLR 908 ) Anantrai Gordhandas Jethwa Vs. Gujarat

Electricity Board, 2012 1 CLR762 –state of Gujarat and

another vs. Kalidas & another and 2007-11-LLJ S.C. 813

(Director, Food and supplies, Punjab and another Vs.

Gurmit Singh on point of delay and latches are not

applicable in the instant case. The case law of Narendra

Kumar Chandla Vs. State of Harayana and other (1995-

Lab I.C. 309) relied upon by the 1st party rather support

the case of the 2nd party. On point of physical disablement

of workman that employer should adjust him in a post

where he could suitable discharge his duties. The workman

Rameshchandra had performed the duty of messenger

(class iv) with utmost satisfaction to the employer having

no any complaint as to defect in his eyes and so on report

of Doctor of K.P.T. that he is unfit was not desirable for

the 1st party to snatch his bread earning for the family

whose father serving to the K.P.T. died in accident resulting

in his appointment on compassionate ground. So, I find

and hold that the reference is maintainable.

22.

ISSUE NO. II : In view of findings to ISSUE No. i

and iii in the foregoings, I further find and hold that the

2nd party has valid cause of action to raise Industrial

dispute in this case.

23.

ISSUE NO. IV : The case laws relied upon by the 1st

party reported in 2006 (108) F.L.R. 619 (G.S.R.T.C. Vs.

Shankarbhai Maljibhai Sandhwa) does not fit in the instant

case because it has been held while deciding ISSUE No iii

that termination of Rameshchandra by the management of

K.P.T. is quite illegal and unjustified. So the acceptance of

terminal benefit by Rameshchandra has no bearing in the

eye of law and he may be directed to refund the terminal

benefit on his reinstatement. The facts of the given case

laws on the factum of tendering resignation but resignation

not withdrawn before it was accepted so it was held no

relationship of master and servant. But in the instant case

relationship of master and servant was existing due to

illegal termination and even on acceptance of terminal

benefit by Shri Rameshchandra is not going to defeat his

right to the post of messenger and so the action of the 1st

party will not fall under the provisions of section 2(00)(bb)

of the I.D. Act, 1947.

24.

As per discussions and consideration made above,

I further find and hold that the workman Shri

Rameshchandra K. Rajgor is entitled for reinstatement to

the post of messenger with full back wages and continuity

of service and consequential benefits.

The reference is allowed. However, no order as to

any cost.

The 1st party is directed to reinstate Shri

Rameshchandra K. Rajgor to the post of messenger on

which he was working till his termination and is further

directed to pay the back wages and granting him continuity

of service with consequential benefits, within two months

of the receipt of copy of award failing which the back

wages will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1583-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks-,u-th-lh-

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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

748@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@53@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1583.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 748/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of ONGC Limited and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

12/5/2014.

[No. L-30012/53/2001-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26th November, 2013

Refernce: (CGITA) No.748/2004

Reference (ITC) No. 34/2001 (Old)

The Executive Director,

ONGC, WRBC, Makarpura Road,

Baroda (Gujarat) 390009

4228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Party Chief ,

ONGC Ltd, G.P. 25,

Makarpura Road,

Baroda-390009 (Gujarat)....First Party (Management)

And

Their Workman

Bhupendra Khushl Parmar

At & Post: Pardi, Ambheta

Taluka: Hasol

Dist.: Bharuch (Gujarat)

….Second Party (Workman)

For the First Party

: Shri Mahendra K. Patel,

Advocate

For the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-30012/53/2001 (IR(M)) dated

07.11.2001 , in exercise of powers conferred by clause (D)

of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Dispute act, 1947, referred the dispute for

adjudication to Industrial tribunal Baroda on the terms of

reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

Geophysical party No. 36 and No. 25, ONBC Ltd,

Baroda, in terminating the services of Shri Bhupendra

Khusal Parmar without giving specific reasons is

legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to and from which

date and what other directions are necessary in the

matter?"

In spite of notice from this Tribunal when the case

record received on transfer by the order of M.O.L. from

the court of state of Industrial Tribunal, the 2nd party

workman failed to appear and to lead evidence in support

of claim, whereas the 1st party is appearing to make contest

in this case.

Earlier the 2nd party submitted statement of claim

(Ext.3) when the case record was pending before Industrial

Court , Vadodara, stating therein that he was working as

unskilled workmen from 02.12.1997 in the 1st party

organisation and was continuing before he was removed

illegally on 18.05.1998 and he worked continuously for

120 day. Then he again worked in Geophysical party No.

36 from 10.12.1999 but again he was removed from work

on 15.05.2000 and he completed 120 days of work. He asked

the 1st party to reinstate him in the work but all went

invain. Then raised industrial dispute. The action of the

1st party to terminate him without complying with the

provision of section 25F is illegal and that the 1st party

also contravened section 25H in not calling him for work

and kept new person in the work. Claim is for reinstatement

with back wages and any other relief to which he is found

entitled.

The contention of the 1st party as per written

statement in Ext.6 is that the 2nd party was engaged in

field party on purely temporary basis and his service was

to be terminated at any time. He was engage for specific

work for specified period. The reference is not maintainable

and the 2nd part workman is not entitled to any relief.

The w.s .was filed on 31.10.2003 since thereafter the

workman side upon whom onus was to prove its case,

failed to adduce evidence in this case. The statement of

claim is not substantive evidence rather it is only pleading

which requires proof on the basis of evidence, documents

and oral. But the workman side did not adduce evidence

in spite of long pendency of the case and also repeatedly

proper notice to him.

The 2nd party workman has lost interest in this

reference case so his claim as per statement without

supportive evidence has no leg to stand.

As such this reference is dismissed. The terms of

reference is answered in favour of the 1st party.

Let two copies of the award be sent for publication

u/s. 17 of the I.D. Act to the appropriate Government.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1584-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks-,u-th-lh-

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; vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

55@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@17@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

LabourCourt, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of ONGC Limited and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

12/5/2014.

[No. L-30012/17/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4229

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad, dated 21st November, 2013

Reference (CGITA) No. 55/10

Reference (I.T.C.) No. 26/10

The Group General Manager,

ONGC Ltd., Mehsana Asset, Palavasna,

KDM Bhavan, Palavasna,

Mehsana (Gujarat) -384002

M/s. B.S. Chaudhary & Co. ,

7 Urmi Shopping Centre,

Near B.K. Cinema , Workshop,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

M/s. Mahalaxmi Industrial Corporation,

1-112-A GIDC, Phase -1,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

……First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Choudhary Jayantilal Ramsangbhai

Through the President,

Uttar Gujarat Kamdar Association

At & Po-Punasan, Karanvas Taluka

Mehsana (Gujarat)

…..Second Party

For the First Party No. 1

: Shri Yogi Kishor Gadhia,

Advocate

(K.V. Gadhia Associates)

For the First Party No. 2 & 3 : None

For the Second Party (Union) : None

AWARD

The Central Government/Minstry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its Order No. L-30012/17/2009-IR (M)) dated

03.06.2010 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 referred

the dispute for adjudication to the tribunal on the terms of

reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. B.S

Choudhary & Co. a contractor of Oil and natural gas

Corporation Ltd., Mehsana, in terminating the

services of Shri Choudhary Jayantilal Ramsangbhai

w.e.f. 01.08.2004 is just and legal? What relief the

workman concerned is entitled to and from which

date?”

Notice to all the parties was issued on 25.06.2010

from Industrial Court, Ahmedabad when the case record

was pending therein. The 1st party No.1 (ONGC Ltd.)

principal employer appeared on 02.12.2010 executing

Vakilpatra in favour of the K.V. Gadhia Associates,

Advocates. Thereafter on receipt of record from Industrial

Court to this C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court fresh notice was

issued to party along with 2nd party Union. But all went

invain neither the Union nor the concerned workman 2nd

party appeared in this case in spite of several adjournment

whereas 1st party No.1 attending the case on dates.

So there is reason to believe that the 2nd party Union

and concerned workman are not interested to contest this

reference. So the S.P. has failed to submit statement of

claim. The 1st party contractors No. 2 & 3 also failed to

appear in this case. Since the burden is upon the 2nd

party workman/ Union to prove that termination of

workman Jayantibhai was not justified by the contractor

(M/s. B.S. Choudhary & com.) so the 2nd party has to

face the consequences that there is no merit in the

reference.

As such this reference is dismissed and the term of

the reference is answered in favour of the immediate

employer contractor (1st party).

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1585-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks-,u-th-lh-

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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

165@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@11@99&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 165/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of ONGC Limited and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

12/5/2014.

[No. L-30011/11/99-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 27th November, 2013

4230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference : (CGITA) No-165/2004

Reference (ITC) No. 61/1999 (Old)

The Executive Director,

ONGC, WRBC, Makarpura Road,

Baroda (Gujarat)-390009

M/s. Shramik Co-opearative Ltd.

Priyadrashini , Op.. Novino,

Makarpura Road,

Baroda

.…..First Party

And

Their Workman

Through the Union

The General Secretary,

Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union

434/46, Gandhivas Naka

Gujarat Stadium Road, Sabarmati ,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380005

….Second Party

For the First party

: Shri Kishor V. Gadhia, Advocate

Shri Mahendra K. Patel, Advocate

For the Second Party : Mr. V.S. Parashar , G.S (G.P.E.U)

Miss Santoshben Bhendwal,

General Secretary (G.P.E.U)

AWARD

The Central Government/ Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its Order No. L -30011/11/99-IR (M) dated

16.02.1999 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 referred the dispute for

adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

on the terms of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the contract between the management of

ONGC Ltd., Baroda and the contractor M/s Shramik

Co-operative Ltd. is sham and bogus contract

entered into between the parties as a camouflage to

avoid the provisions of contract Labour (Regulation

& Abolition) Act, 1970 and the notifications issued

there under?”

“Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum

employees Union, Ahmedabad in respect of 10

contractual workman namely S/Shri M.A. Malik ,

R.F. Thakor , Dilip Singh S., Umesh R. Khatik , N.M.

Tadvi, A.G. Rathod, Ritesh B. Saini , Jyotikumar J. ,

Ajay R. Levedia and Greneralsingh Kalesingh

engaged through the contractor M/s. Shramik Co-

operative Ltd. in the establishment of ONGC Ltd. for

treating these contractual workman as permanent

employees of ONGC Ltd. in their respective category

from the date of their joining either with ONGC Ltd.

or with the contractor or from the date of prohibition

of their employment as contract labour i.e. 08.09.1994

is legal and justified? If so, to what relief these 10

contractual workmen are entitled to and what other

directions are necessary in the matter?”

“Whether the demand of the Union in respect of

these above mentioned 10 contractual workmen for

making the payment of scale of pay, DA, VDA, HRA

and other fringe benefits including bonus/Ex-gratia

at par with the permanent employees of the ONGC

Ltd. is legal and justified? If so, to what relief these

contractual workmen are entitled to and from which

date?”

The case of the S.P. Union as per statement of claim

(Ext.3) filed on 15.03.1999 is that the job of 10 workman

involved, in the reference is of perennial nature, ONGC is

a resourceful company and can pay legitimate time scale

wages, perks and perquisite to workmen, but the ONGC

by adopting dubious methods and by proper arrangement

of contract, has deprived the workman from their legitimate

benefits. There is no cooperative society in fact the

workman of this reference are not member of cooperative

society, they are not contractual workmen rather they have

been working with ONGC as helper. The cooperative

society is a brain child of ONGC to camouflage against the

real employment of the workman with ONGC, Baroda. The

concerned workmen have been driving different type of

vehicles including vibrators of G.P. 61 of ONGC, Baroda.

The vehicle driver all belongs to ONGC, Baroda involved

in highly dangerous operations like explosion, earth

vibrating etc. Log books are maintained for each vehicles

driven by the workman, the workmen are doing the same

and identical job as that wages without T.A., D.A., H.R.A.

etc. The Govt. of India vide notification has prohibited the

employment of contract labour in the category of drivers/

Helpers from 08.09.1994, but ONGC in the garb contractual

worker in continuing to take works of Helper/Driver from

the concerned workmen. On these scores, prayer is to

allow the reference holding that the concerned workmen

are the employees of ONGC Ltd. and for granting time

scale of pay and other fringe benefits as that of direct and

regular employees of ONGC Ltd. from the date they have

been engaged in the G.P. 61 under ONGC, Baroda.

As against, this the 1st party No. 1(ONGC, Baroda)

filed a reply (Ext.15) dated 15.09.1999 on preliminary

objection of non-maintainability of the reference also

praying therein to decide the preliminary issue and to

dismiss the reference.

The 2nd party Union also filed rejoinder (Ext.19) to

such preliminary objection of the ONGC (1st party No.1)

that since reference order has been referred by the

appropriate Govt. for adjudication and so no question of

deciding preliminary issue ignoring the evidences and

materials to be adduced by the parties in this case and so

filing of preliminary objection by ONGC, Baroda is only

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4231

by way of delaying tactics and prayed to reject the

preliminary objection of the ONGC, Baroda.

The ONGC, Baroda again submitted counter

affidavit (Ext.20) to the rejoinder of S.P. Union making para

wise comments.

Thereafter hearing argument and on submission of

written argument (Ext.21) on behalf of the ONGC, Baroda

(1st party No. 1 on 22.10.1999, an order dated 14.09.2000

was passed in reference I.T.C. 61/99 by Shri P.R. Desai,

then member, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad rejecting the

preliminary objection of ONGC (vide Ext.15) and the record

was ordered to be kept on hearing of the reference on

merit. The 1st party No. 1 challenged the order before the

Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No, 1726 of 2001 and

interim order was passed by the Hon’ble court as to stay

of further proceeding in reference I.T.C. No. 61/99 by order

dated 07.03.2001.

Thereafter the case record received in this C.G.I.T

cum Labour Court and numbered as Reference (C.G.I.T.A)

no.165/2004 and notice were sent to the parties for

appearance dates were being adjourned for filing w.s. by

the 1st party. Then again due to vacant post of presiding

officer of C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, the record was

transferred to the state Industrial Tribunal by the order of

MOL, New Delhi on 09.04.2008 and again case record

transferred to Industrial Court, Vadodara on 05.11.2009.

And again the case record returned back to this CG.I.T.-

cum-Labour Court by the order of M.O.L., New Delhi and

received in the month of November 2010. The case was

running for leading evidence by the 2nd party (Union).

It may not be out of place to mention that as per

application of the 2nd party for interim relief (Ext.4) on

15.03.1999 along with filing of the statement of claim (Ext.3)

on the same day, order bellow Ext. 4 was passed directing

for maintaining status quo till 30.03.1999 and thereafter

period of interim order of status quo was being extended

from date to date and lastly it was extended vide order

dated 16.07.1999 till filling w.s. and reply. But in this case

the 1st party have not filed written statement to the

statement of claim and the 1st party No. 2 (Contractor)

neither appeared at any stage of this reference case nor

filed reply/w.s.

The case record had been adjourned for 19/02/2014

leading evidence by the 2nd party. Then on 27.11.2013 the

2nd party Union through General Secretary of Gujarat

Petroleum Employees Union Miss Santoshben Bhendwal

appeared on behalf of the workman involved and filed an

application (Ext. 27) for taking the matter on board today,

another application (Ext.28) for producing the documents

with list of workman who want to avail benefit under

settlement. Another application Ext.29 was filed for passing

order as to deleting names of 8 workman from the reference

yet another application (Ext.30) was filed regarding

remaining two workman N.M. Tadvi and Generalsingh

Kalesingh to the effect that Shri N.M. Tadvi is now in the

job with the G.E.B and Shri General Singh has attained the

age of superannuation and so now entire reference is not

maintainable as the matter is settled in the terms of fair

wages policy.

10.

Heard the General Secretary of the Gujarat Petroleum

Employees Union and Shri Mahendra K. Patel, Advocate

for the O.N.G.C. Ltd (1st party No.1) perused the record

and the four applications filed on behalf of the 2nd party

Union viz Ext.27.28.29 and 30 and also the three documents

filed with list Ext.28 –Ext.28/1 is the list of 8 workmen of

this reference case (1.) Mukhtar Hussian Malek (2.)

Rameshbhai F. Thakor (3.) Dilipsingh Sudhirsingh (4.)

Umesh Ramgulab Khatik (5.) Asfakal Ghulam Rasul (6.)

Ritesh Banwarilal Soni (7.) Jyotikumar J. and (8.) Ajaybhai

R. Levadia –their names appearing at Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,

8 and 9 respectively in the order of reference, sent by the

appropriate Govt. for adjudication Ext. 28/1 contains on

letter head of the Union and signed by G.S Miss

Santoshben Bhendwal and it was seen/noted by Shri M.K.

Patel, Advocate for the 1st party No. 1. Ext. 28/2 is Zerox

copy of the memorandum of settlement arrived at under

section 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 before Conciliation officer

and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer on

18.07.2012, signed by the contractors, Employers of ONGC

Ltd., Ahmedabad, Ankleshwar, Mehsana, Baroda, Cambay

sub Asset western on shore Basin and contract workman

represented through Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,

Ahmedabad and other Union –Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh,

ONGC Mazdoor Sangh, EMS-Employees Mazdoor Sabha,

Mehsana. The terms of settlement are 35% increase in

wages of contract labour w.e.f. 01.04.2012 plus payment of

enhance wage of Rs. 50 as per order dated 15.02.2001 of

Dy. CLC (C) Mumbai, group insurance for contract labour,

P.F. gratuity, leave with wages etc., ESIC coverage and for

withdrawal of pending court/ Tribunal case relating to

demand for regularisation and revision of wages. As per

Ext.28/3 the eight contract workman have authorised Ms.

Santoshben Bhendwal G.S. Gujarat Petroleum Union to

represent in this reference case for filing withdrawal pursis

(Ext.29).

11.

As per Ext. 30 the General Secretary Ms. Santoshben

Bhendwal on the letter head of the Union (G.P. EU) has

prayed that out of remaining two contract workman –N.M.

Tadvi has left the job of contract worker and has joined in

the job with the G.E.B and Generalsingh has attained the

age of superannuation (60 years) and so now the entire

reference case is not maintainable since the matter is settled

in terms of memorandum of settlement t (Ext.28/2) as to fair

wages policy.

12.

As per terms of settlement No. 1(i) after attaining

the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years the contract labour

can be removed. Since one of the contract workman namely

4232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

General Singh has already attained the age of 60 years, so

he is out of courts. Likewise another workman N.M. Tadvi

has joined in job with G.E.B. so he is also out of court in

this reference case. The remaining 8 contract workman as

per list Ext.28/1 and signing authority letter Ext.28/3 have

accepted to get the benefits of the memorandum of

settlement dated 18.07.2012 (Ext.28/2) so there remains no

any disputed points to be adjudicated as per the schedule

of the terms of reference.

13.

Accordingly the withdrawal pursis (Ext.29) and

pursis (Ext.30) regarding the reference case not

maintainable are allowed and this reference is dismissed.

This is my Award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1586-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSaxuht vkWj

(bafM;k) 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 42@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 12@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&27012@4@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/

2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Manganese Ore (India) Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-27012/4/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/42/2009

Date: 21.03.2014

Party No.1(a)

: The Chairman-Cum-Managing

Director, M.O.I.L.,

“MOIL Bhawan”, 1-A Katol Rd.,

Nagpur-440013.

Party No.1(B) : The Mines Manager,

Kandri Manganese Mines of MOIL,

Tq. Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur.

Versus

Party No. 2

: The General Secretary,

Bhartiya Manganese Mazdoor,

Sangh, Chikla-Jode Sadak,

PO-Gobarwahi, Teh. Tumsar,

Distt. Bhandara.

AWARD

(Dated: 21st March, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of MOIL and their workman, Shri P.H.

Mandale, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-27012/4/2009-

IR (M) dated 27.01.2010, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management Manganese

Ore (India) Ltd., in dismissing the services of Shri

Pradeep Harichand Mandale w.e.f. 25.07.2006 is legal

and justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to?”

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman Shri P.H.

Mandale, (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of

claim and the management of MOIL, (“party no.1” in short)

filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that in pursuant to his application

dated 19.01.2000, the party no.1 by its order dated

04.05.2000, appointed him as a piece rated workman and

there were stipulations in his appointment order, stating

that he would be temporary and on probation for a period

of six months and he was posted at Waka Mine and

according to the direction given in the appointment order,

he joined duties at Ukwa Mine and rendered unblemished

service and worked to the satisfaction of his superior

officers and during his service tenure, he came to be

transferred from Ukwa mine to Kandri Mine and he worked

at Kandri mine w.e.f. 19.07.2004 and though he performed

his duties sincerely, party no.1 always found faults in his

work and did not leave a single opportunity to falsely

implicate him in commission of misconduct and to punish

him by obtaining the statement of guilt from him and party

no.1 always acted high handedly in colourable exercise of

power and whenever, he refused to give any statement of

guilt, he was threatened of losing his services and he had

not committed any misconduct, much less one of

absenteeism and while working at Kandri Mine, he was

not keeping good health and was required to go to the

doctor every now and then for treatment and due to the

same, sometimes he was required to take leave and

whenever he was remaining absent, party no.1 was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4233

deducting wages for that day and party no.1 was aware of

his ill health, as he was taking treatment in the hospital of

the mine and the party no.1 submitted the charge sheet

dated 25.03.2006 on the allegations of his remaining absent

for 60 days during December, 2005 to February, 2006

without any intimation and permission amounting to

misconduct as per clause 29 (B) (V)(IX)(XV) of the certified

standing order and a departmental enquiry was

contemplated against him and on 16.05.2006, the enquiry

officer held the proceeding to go into the charges and he

was pressurized by party no.1 to accept the charges and

he having left with no other alternative had to accept the

guilt and within a day’s time, the entire departmental

proceedings were completed and the enquiry officer

submitted his report to the Authority and pursuant to the

submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority

issued the 2nd show cause notice to him on 22.05.2006,

directing to submit his explanation within a period of 10

days and he submitted his reply on 23.06.2006 and holding

his reply not to be satisfactory, the disciplinary authority,

by order dated 22.07.2006, dismissed him from services

w.e.f. 25.07.2006 and the impugned order dated 22.07.2006

is not sustainable in law and cannot be termed as dismissal

order, as the same was not signed by any authority, much

less the Mine Manager of Kandri Mine and even if it is

assumed that the dismissal order was signed by the mine

manager as posed by party no.1, still then, the dismissal

order is not sustainable since the same was signed by a

person, who was not authorized to sign the said dismissal

order as the Mine Manager was not the appointing

authority and the appointing authority was the General

Manager (Personnel) and the dismissal order passed by

the person subordinate to the appointing authority is not

sustainable.

It is further pleaded by the workman that on the

very first day i.e. 16.05.2006 of the enquiry officer compelled

him to admit the charges and to give his statement

accordingly, failing which, he would have to face the

consequences and the enquiry officer did not give him

sufficient opportunity to put forth his case or even to take

the assistance of a fellow worker to defend him in the

enquiry and the enquiry was not conducted impartially

and the same was vitiated and as such, the dismissal order

which was based on the report of such illegal enquiry is

not sustainable and is liable to be declared as illegal and

even otherwise also, the dismissal order is bad in law,

since the punishment of dismissal from service imposed

upon him for the alleged misconduct of absenteeism is

not proportionate and the same is shockingly

disproportionate and his absence was for bona-fide

reasons and cannot be termed as misconduct.

The workman has prayed to declare the impugned

dismissal order dated 22.07.2006 as illegal and bad in law

and to set aside and quash the same and to reinstate him

in service with continuity and back wages.

The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the workman was appointed as piece rated

worker and was posted at Ukwa Mine as temporary

workman on probation of six months and the workman

often absented from duty and during the period from

January, 2001 to June, 2002, as many as four charge sheets

were issued to the workman and after conducting

departmental enquiry into the charges covered by each

charge sheet, he was awarded punishment, since the

charges were proved in each enquiry and on every

occasion, by taking lenient view of the matter, it awarded

minimum punishment of suspension only and the workman

was transferred to Kandri Mine on his own request and at

Kandri Mine also, the workman often absented from duty

as was being done by him at Waka Mine and between July

2004 to November, 2005, the workman absented himself

from duty, for which, two charges sheets were issued and

enquires were conducted into each charge sheet and

punishments of suspension for two days and one day

were imposed respectively and since, the workman inspite

of such punishments, absented himself from duty from

December, 2005 to February, 2006 for 60 days, charge sheet

dated 25.03.2006 was submitted against him and the

workman admitted the charges in the departmental enquiry

held for this purpose and as such, punishment of his

dismissal from services was passed and he was dismissed

from services w.e.f. 25.07.2006. It is also pleaded by party

no.1that as the workman remained absent without any

application for leave, his wages were liable to be deducted

in accordance with clause 69 of the certified standing order

and continuous absence from duty is a misconduct under

the certified standing order and the departmental enquiry

was conducted after following the due procedure as

provided in the standing order and on the basis of the

enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, the Mines

Manager of Kandri Mine issued the final order and the

enquiry conducted against the workman is just, fair and

proper and the workman voluntarily, unconditionally and

out of his free will admitted the charges before the enquiry

officer and before the punishment was imposed, second

show cause notice was issued to the workman on

22.05.2006, proposing the penalty of dismissal alongwith

the copy of the enquiry report and the workman submitted

his reply on 23.06.2006 to the second show cause notice,

accepting his guilt and asking for pardon and the

disciplinary authority after considering the reply submitted

by the workman and his past conduct, by order dated

22.07.2006 dismissed the workman w.e.f. 25.07.2006 and

the penalty of dismissal commensurate with the acts of

misconduct and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from

services, after holding of a departmental enquiry, the

fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was taken

for consideration as a preliminary issue and by order dated

06.01.2014, the departmental enquiry conducted against

4234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance

to the principles of natural justice.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

Learned Advocate for the workman that the enquiry

conducted against the workman is not fair and proper and

the workman remained absent due to his illness and

pregnancy of his wife and his absence was not deliberate

and the document filed by the workman on 17.12.2012

clearly shows that the workman as well as his wife were

taking treatment from the doctor of the hospital attached

to MOIL and the management was well aware of these

facts, but inspite of the same, charge sheet was issued by

the party No.1 against the workman and the punishment

of dismissal for the charge of absenteeism is shockingly

disproportionate and the workman on the very first date

of the enquiry was forced by the Enquiry Officer to accept

the charges and the workman was a class IV employee

and he is not literate and the Enquiry Officer should have

given opportunity to the workman to engage some

competent person to represent him and such opportunity

was not given and for the same, the enquiry conducted

against the workman and the punishment imposed against

him is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice

and the order of dismissal received by the workman was

not signed by anybody and as such it has no meaning in

the eyes of law and the dismissal order was issued by the

Mine Manager, who is not competent to issue the same,

as he is not the appointing authority of the workman and

therefore, the order of punishment is liable to be set aside

and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service

with continuity and full back wages.

Per contra, it was submitted by the Learned

Advocate for the party No.1 that the departmental enquiry

has already been held to be legal, proper and in accordance

with the principles of natural justice by order dated

06.01.2014 and the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer

are based on the evidence on record of the enquiry and

the workman admitted the charges voluntarily without any

influence or coercion and second show cause notice

alongwith the copy of the report submitted by the Enquiry

Officer was issued to the workman and in his reply, the

workman again admitted the charges and requested for

being pardoned and the punishment of dismissal awarded

is proportionate to the misconduct proved and the same

is not shockingly disproportionate and there is no scope

for the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment.

In support of the contentions, the Learned Advocate

for the party No.1 placed reliance on the decision reported

in (2008) I SCC-224 (L & T Komastu Vs. Uday Kumar).

It is to be mentioned here that by order dated

06.01.2014, the departmental enquiry conducted against

the workman has already been held to be legal, proper and

in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is

also to be mentioned that at the time of deciding the

preliminary issue of the fairness of the departmental

enquiry, the submissions made by the Learned Advocate

for the workman regarding the conduction of the

departmental enquiry by an officer of party No.1, that the

workman was forced to admit the charges and the workman

should have been given opportunity to engage some

competent person to represent him in the departmental

enquiry have already been considered and answered, so,

there is no question of considering the said submissions

again.

So, far the submission made regarding issuance of

the final order of dismissal by the Mine Manager is

concerned, from the materials on record, it is found that

the Mine Managers in charge of the Mines have been

declared as the Disciplinary Authority and have been

delegated with the power of imposing the major

punishment in regard to the employees holding non-

executive posts. Admittedly, the workman was an

employee of party No.1 holding non-executive post, so,

the issuance of the order of punishment of dismissal from

services against the workman by the Mine Manager

cannot be said to be illegal or improper. Hence, I find no

force in the contention raised by the Learned Advocate

for the workman on that score.

So far the question of perversity of the findings of

the Enquiry Officer is concerned, on perusal of the

materials on record and taking into consideration the

submissions made by the Learned Advocates for the

parties, it is found that the workman during the course of

the departmental enquiry admitted the charges voluntarily

and did not adduce any evidence in his defence. It is also

found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based

on the materials on record of the enquiry and not on any

extraneous materials. So, the findings of the Enquiry Officer

cannot said to be perverse.

10.

The only question remains for consideration is as to

whether the punishment imposed against the workman is

so harsh or so disproportionate to the charge proved, that

it warrants or justifies interference. It is well settled by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of decisions including in

the decision cited by the Learned Advocate for the party

No.1 that, “ The discretion which can be exercised under

section 11-A is available on the existence of certain facts

like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of

the misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the

court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances

which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past

conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour

Court to reduce the punishment.”

Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court as mentioned above to the present case in

hand, it is found that grave misconduct of habitual

absenteeism has been proved against the workman in a

properly conducted departmental enquiry and the past

also, the workman had been found guilty of unauthorized

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4235

absenteeism several times and as such, the punishment of

dismissal of the workman from services cannot be said to

be harsh or shockingly disproportionate, so as to interfere

with the same. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management Manganese Ore

(India) Ltd., in dismissing the services of Shri Pradeep

Harichand Mandale w.e.f. 25.07.2006 is legal and

justified.The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1587-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSaxuht vkWj

(bafM;k) 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 98@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 12@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&27011@03@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Manganese Ore (India) Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-27011/03/2007-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/98/2007

Date: 28.03.2014

Party No. 1

: The General Manager (P),

Manganese Ore (India),

3, Mount Extension, Sadar

P.O. Box No. 34

Nagpur-440001

Versus

Party No. 2

: The Vice President,

MOIL Kamgar Sanghatan,

C/o Shri Ramavatar Devangan,

MOIL Staff Quarters,

Near Durga Mandir, Katol Road,

Nagpur-440013.

AWARD

(Dated: 28th March, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. and the 26

workmen (as per list attached), for adjudication, as per

letter No.L-27011/03/2007-IR (M) dated 03.12.2007, with

the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. in not appointing 26

workmen of M/s. Bharat Gold Mines is in violation

of the terms of settlement dated 20.01.2003 between

the management of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. and

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh? If not, to what relief the

workmen are entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union, “MOIL Kamgar

Sangathana”, (‘the union” in short), filed the statement of

claim on behalf of the 26 workmen and the management of

MOIL, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the 26 workmen as presented by the

union in the statement of claim is that the party No.1

engaged several contract labourers in their project, “Bharat

Gold Mines Limited” (“BGML” in short) at Balaghat and

as the said project was closed, several workers were

deprived of work, so the Secretary General of the union

raised an industrial dispute on 02.01.2001, before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Chhindwara,

(“ALC” in short) claiming absorption of all the workers

engaged in BGML and the said dispute was discussed

before the ALC on different dates and both the parties

were advised to discuss and try to come to a mutual

understanding, in the interest of the workers and the

company and the dispute was discussed and it was

submitted by the union that party No.1 should absorb all

the workers engaged by BGML, as they had worked for

more than 10 years in the said project and party no.1 was

continuing the work, which BGML was carrying out and

the said dispute was finally settled on 20.01.2003 and it

was decided that the workers who were engaged by BGML

would be observed, on the basis of physical condition,

medical fitness and their working experience with particular

reference to shaft sinking work etc and thereafter, party

no.1 absorbed 92 workers of BGML on different dates in

phased manner, but discarded the claim of the present

workmen for their absorption, without any justification

and without any lawful and reasonable cause and in view

of the settlement dated 20.01.2003, the party No.1 was

under obligation to absorb all the workers without any

4236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

discrimination, partiality and favoritism, but the party No.1

adopted the tactics of pick and choose, thereby adversely

affecting the claim of the workmen and violated the terms

of the settlement dated 20.01.2003 and though it (union)

made representation to party No.1 for absorption of the

workmen, party No.1 did not pay any heed, so, the dispute

was raised by it before the ALC and on failure of the

conciliation, failure report was submitted by the ALC to

the Central Government and the Government in its turn

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication and

the party no.1 has engaged more than 500 to 1000 labours

on contract basis for the work of permanent nature, who

are engaged directly with the work of production of the

company and therefore, it cannot be said that work and

post are not available with the management and the

workman are entitled to be absorbed in permanent post, in

view of the settlement dated 20.01.2003.

The union has prayed for the absorption of the

workmen in pursuance to the settlement dated 20.01.2003

with consequential benefits including arrears of salary.

The party No.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that a dispute was raised by the then recognized

union, namely RMMS, over the issue of absorption of

BGML workers engaged at their Balaghat Mines, before

the ALC and after prolonged discussion, a settlement was

arrived at u/s. 12 (3) of the Act between the parties on

20.01.2003 containing inter-alia the procedure and

modalities for recruitment of the Ex-BGML workers on ad-

hoc and temporary basis in the company and after the

settlement, 91 workers, whose names appeared in the list

enclosed with the settlement were given employment, after

following the procedure laid down in the said settlement

and those 92 workers were some of the workers, who had

applied in response to a notification issued for the said

purpose and their selection was made after ensuring of

their satisfying the eligibility criteria and after giving

employment to those 92 workers, the implementation of

the settlement was completed and nothing remained to be

done under the same and the said settlement was ceased

to be in operation in terms of Section 19 of the Act.

It is further pleaded by the party No.1 that the union

has not given the details about the 26 workmen, such as

when they had been employed and period of work etc.

and the settlement dated 20.01.2003 was for a specific

purpose and it was not a declaration of policy to give

employment to the BGML workers and the dispute raised

by the union seeking benefit under the settlement dated

20.01.2003 is without any substance and (party No.1) is a

public sector undertaking , under the administrative control

of Ministry of Steel and is an “instrumentality of State”

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of

India and all the constitutional norms and limitations are

as much applicable and binding on it and it has its own”

Recruitment Rules” and if it was to accede the demand of

the union, then it would have amounted to new mode of

recruitment, outside the scope of its Recruitment Rules

and after a lapse of so many years, it is not logically correct

on the part of the union to raise the dispute, more so, after

six years from the date of settlement and such an action

will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

of India and such an action is not permissible and the

workmen are not entitled to any relief.

In support of their respective claims, both the parties

have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on

documents.

Shri Ramavatar Kanhaiyalal Devangan, the General

Secretary of the union has been examined as a witness on

behalf of the union. In his examination-in-chief, which is

on affidavit, this witness has reiterated the facts mentioned

in the statement of claim. However, in his cross-

examination, this witness has admitted that the settlement

dated 20.01.2003 was with the union RMMS and in the

annexure attached to the settlement dated 20.01.2003,

names of 92 persons were mentioned and those 92 persons

were called for by the management for interview and they

were recruited by the management and all of them were

employed by MOIL and the 26 workmen are not members

of their union and they have not filed any documents

before this Tribunal in support of the engagement of the

26 workmen in BGML and BGML project has already been

closed.

One Shri Nitin Yeshwant Pagnis, Chief(Personnel)

of party No.1 has been examined as a witness on behalf of

the party No.1. The evidence of this witness is also on

affidavit. In his evidence, the witness for the party No.1

has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement.

It is to be mentioned here that the evidence of this

witness has remained unchallenged, as none appeared on

behalf of the union to cross-examine him and order of “No

Cross” of the witness was passed on 16.01.2014. It is also

necessary to mention here that as none appeared on behalf

of the union on 16.01.2014, order was also passed to

proceed with the reference exparte against the petitioner.

At the time argument, it was submitted by the

Learned Advocate for the party no.1 that the Tribunal has

no jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference and the

settlement dated 20.01.2003 was with RMMS union for 92

workers as per the list attached to the said settlement and

after employment of those 92 workers in phase wise, the

settlement dated 20.01.2003 was completely implemented

and the same did not survive and as such, there is no

question of claiming employment by anybody else, basing

on the said settlement and there is nothing on record to

show that the 26 workmen were engaged in BGML and in

absence of the same, they are not entitled to ask for

employment and BGML has already been closed and apart

from the same, in view of the principles enunciated by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4237

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2006 (4)

SCC-1 (Secretary, State of Karnatak Vs. Umadevi) also,

the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Perused the record including the evidence adduced

by the parties. There is no legal evidence on record to

show that the 26 workmen were engaged in BGML. On

perusal of the settlement in question, it is found that the

same was specifically for the employment of 92 workers as

per the list attached to the same. It is also found that the

said settlement was for the employment of the workers

having good working experience related to shaft sinking.

It is to be mentioned that no claim has been made by

the union in the statement of claim that the 26 workmen

were having good working experience relating to shaft

sinking or that their names were included in the list or that

the settlement was also in respect of the said 26 workmen.

It is the admitted case that the 92 persons, whose names

were included in the list attached to the settlement dated

20.01.2003 were employed by party No.1 phase wise in

terms of the said settlement. So, there is no question of

employment of the 26 workmen by party No.1 as per the

settlement dated 20.01.2003 and the said 26 workmen are

not entitled for employment under the settlement dated

20.01.2003. Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of Manganese Ore

(India) Ltd. in not appointing 26 workmen of M/s. Bharat

Gold Mines is not in violation of the terms of settlement

dated 20.01.2003 between the management of Manganese

Ore (India) Ltd. and Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh. The 26

workmen are not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

List of Workers attached to this case

(1) Shri Dharma Urkude Uike

(2) Shri Santosh Kumar Ghedudas Meshram

(3) Shri Chhunilal Ghudam Rathore

(4) Shri Rajendra Kumar Tikaram Brahme

(5) Shri Badanlal Natthulal Deshare

(6) Shri Pancham Tulsiram

(7) Shri Ashok Kumar Tularam Bhelave

(8) Shri Subrat Hanuman

(9) Shri Bhagchand Tarachand

(10) Shri Suresh Kunwarlal

(11) Shri Shrikumar Govind Prasad

(12) Shri Naresh Bakshi Shinde

(13) Shri Ganesh Chhunilal Jaiwanshi

(14) Shri Dhaniram Phoolsingh

(15) Shri Harilal Poonaji

(16) Shri Ramesh Kumar Tejlal

(17) Shri Lokpal Kanhaiya

(18) Shri Sunil Baldeo

(19) Shri Bhhopchand Haralal

(20) Shri Sakharam Mayaram

(21) Shri Saddu Mangal

(22) Shri Sukhlal Prataplal

(23) Shri Madanlal Bhaiyalal

(24) Shri Ishwari Prasad Raghuji

(25) Shri Tekchand Vikram Temre

(26) Shri Gulab Mohd. Noor Mohd.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1588-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj gkWd dkxksZ

l£ol izkbosV 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;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 49@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 12@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11011@1@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. HAWK Cargo Service Private

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-11011/1/2010-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110032

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 49/11

Sh. Rajinder Prasad & Other

Versus

A.A.I, M/s. HAWK CARGO

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-11011/1/2010-IR(M) dated

16.06.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication :-

4238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

HAWK Cargo Service Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the

services of workmen Sh. Rajinder Prasad Sharma

and 9 others (list enclosed ) is legal and justified?

To what relief the workmen are entitled for?

On 08.07.11 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as ID No. 49/2011 and claimants were

called upon to file claim statement within 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 workmen/claimants not filed

claim statement but Sh. Rajinder Prasad workman moved

an application for withdrawal on 2910.2013. Wherein he

mentioned as follows:-

That the above noted ID is pending adjudication

before this Hon’ble Tribunal and fixed for hearing

for today i.e 29.10.13.

That the claimant applicant wishes to withdraw the

present case as a case between the same parties

regarding same cause of action is pending

adjudication before CGIT-I , Karkardooma Court and

at the stage of claimants evidence and hence the

applicant wants to withdraw the present case.

Prayer :—

In view of the submissions made above it is

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be

pleased to allow this application to permit the applicant to

withdraw the present case. Other Workmen neither

appeared nor filed claim statement nor management filed

response.

On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The

proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded further.

Hence proceeding of the case are liable to be dropped and

no dispute award is liable to be passed. Which is liable to

be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-22/04/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1589-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks-,u-th-lh-

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;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

108@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@10@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O. 1589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of ONGC Limited and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-30011/10/2001-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B.KATAKE, B.A.LL.M, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/108 of 2001

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF OIL & NATURAL GAS

CORPORATION LTD.

The Executive Director

O.N.G.C. Ltd.

Vasundhara Bhavan, Bandra (E),

Mumbai-400051.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary

Transport and Dock Workers Union,

P.D’mello Bhawan, P.D’mello Road,

Carnac Bunder, Mumbai.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. G.D. Talreja,

Representative.

FOR THE WORKMEN:

Mr. A.M. Koyande,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 28th February, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-30011/ 10 /2001-IR (M)

dated 23.04.2001 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:

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., Mumbai in not accepting the demands issued

by Transport and Dock Workers Union, Mumbai

vide their Strike Notice dated 7/8/2000 (except demand

No.3, 5, 16, 4 & 21) is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4239

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second

party union filed their statement of claim at Ex-10.

According to the second party they are the employees of

the first party engaged through various labour contractors

to carry out their work which is regular in nature. The

union is consistently demanding to abolish the practice

of contract labour and for regularization of workers in the

service of the first party who are engaged by the contractor.

There was also writ petition filed before Hon’ble High

Court wherein Hon’ble High Court has given direction to

the first party to continue these contract labourers

employed by respective contractors.

In the year 1991 union has served the first party

with a strike notice demanding abolition of contract system

and absorption of all contract labourers in the regular

service of the first party. After the strike the first party

signed MoU dated 15/01/1992 regarding wages and other

service conditions. It was on the basis of wage structure

of dock workers. The second MoU was signed between

union on behalf of the contract workers and first party on

12/07/1995 on the basis of Dock Workers’ Wages for the

period 01/04/1994 to 31/12/1997. After expiry of the said

period, the union served the management with fresh charter

of demands dt. 01/12/1998 and made various demands

including demand of wage revision, leave, etc. of contract

labourers at par with respective corresponding category

of regular employees of ONGC. There was no amicable

settlement reached at. On the other hand the officials of

ONGC resorted to various unfair labour practices.

Therefore the union served a strike notice dated 07/08/2000

on the management. The dispute was taken to conciliation

officer. As there was no settlement, the conciliation officer

sent failure report to the Ministry. Therefore the Central

Govt., Ministry of Labour & Employment sent the reference

to this Tribunal. The union therefore prays to allow the

reference and direct the management to grant the demands

of the union.

The first party management vide its application

Ex.-11 contended that the representatives of Transport

and Dock Workers Union had boycotted the conciliation

proceeding before the RLC (C) Mumbai. However other

three unions of contract employees arrived at an amicable

settlement on 29/12/2000, with the first party. The said

settlement took place in conciliation proceeding before

RLC (C), Mumbai. By this settlement the wages of the

contract workmen were revised and other benefits were

given to them. ONGC has given undertaking to that effect.

Subsequently they received letter dated 14/05/2001 from

Under Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour that,

in view of MoU arrived at between the Unions representing

majority of contract workmen and first party that, there

was no case for referring the demand for adjudication.

The settlement was signed u/s 18 (3) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 on 29/12/2000, before RLC (C) in conciliation

proceeding and the same is binding on all the contract

workmen in the undertaking of ONGC Ltd. including the

members of the second party union. Therefore they pray

that the reference does not survive and the same be

disposed of.

Unfortunately this application dt. 7/5/2002 may be

due to over sight or by some misunderstanding, was not

considered by my Ld. Predecessor. It seems that,

inadvertently he passed the order that, the same will be

heard alongwith the main reference. Thereafter the Written

Statement was filed on behalf of the first party at Ex-15.

By this exhaustive 18 pages-written statement the first

party has categorically denied the claim of the union and

explained all the facts and circumstances. The zest there

of and the only relevant pleading is that, there was

settlement signed on 29/12/2000 before RLC (C), Mumbai

in conciliation proceeding. Therefore under Section 18 (3)

of the I.D. Act 1947, the same is binding on all contract

workmen engaged by the first party, including the workmen

of second party union. Therefore the reference is not

tenable. Thus they pray that the reference be dismissed.

The second party Union, vide its Rejoinder Ex-16

denied the averments in the written statement and repeated

the contents in the statement of claim.

Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. Issues

Findings

No.

Whether the reference is tenable

in the light of Settlement dt.

29/12/2000 in conciliation

proceeding?

No.

Whether the action of manage-

ment of ONGC Ltd., in not

accepting the demand of Trans-

port and Dock Workers Union

Mumbai, vide its Strike notice

dated 7/8/2000 is legal and justified?

Yes.

What relief the union is entitled to?

They are not

entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

Issue No. 1 :

In the case at hand the facts are not disputed that

the second party union as well as two other unions had

given strike notice and had made number of demands in

respect of their pay, allowances and other facilities and in

respect of the terms and service conditions. Fact is also

not disputed that there was conciliation proceedings

before ALC (C) and second party union was also one of

4240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the parties to the conciliation proceedings. It is also an

admitted fact that, on 29/12/2000 there was settlement in

conciliation proceeding before RLC (C). The said

settlement was signed under Section 12 (3) of I.D. Act,

1947, by the management and other unions. The fact is

also not disputed that, the said settlement was not signed

by the second party union. Therefore according to the

second party union the settlement is not binding on them.

They have given away their other demands. However

according to them few demands raised by them were not

considered in the conciliation proceedings and they are

pursuing for those few unfulfilled demands and this

reference is thus well tenable.

In this respect the main and only contention raised

on behalf of the first party is that, the settlement was

signed before RLC (C) during the conciliation proceeding.

Therefore u/s 18 (3) of the I.D. Act 1947, the said settlement

is binding on all workmen including the members of the

second party union though it is not signatory to the

settlement. In the circumstances according to the first

party the reference does not survive. According to it as

the demands are resolved as per the settlement, thus the

reference is not tenable. Hence they pray that the reference

be rejected with cost. Short and the only question for my

determination herein is, as to whether the settlement during

conciliation proceeding signed by the other unions is

binding on the members of the second party union also?

The fact is not disputed that they were party to the

conciliation proceeding however they had refused to sign

the settlement.

10.

In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the

second party union that, few demands raised by them

were not considered in the said settlement. Therefore the

second party union has not signed the said settlement,

thus it is not binding on them. Therefore, according to

them the action of the first party was not justified, in not

considering few of their demands mentioned in the

reference. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv. for the

second party resorted to the Kerala High Court ruling in

Monthly rated workmen of Peirce Leslie & Co. Ltd., Cochin

V/s. Labour Commissioner & Ors. 1967 I LLJ 789 wherein

the Hon’ble Kerala High Court while interpreting the

binding nature of Section 18(3) observed that;

“……A settlement arrived at in the course of

conciliation proceeding has an extended operation

beyond the parties to the settlement. But that does

not mean that any agreement arrived at in the course

of conciliation proceeding without the concurrence

of all the disputants is a settlement as contemplated

by that Section. The very word “Settlement” will

postulate such a concurrence.”

11.

In this respect it is submitted on behalf of the first

party that, the settlement arrived at during the conciliation

proceeding is not only binding on the members of the

union who were parties to the settlement but is also binding

on all the workmen working in the company and even the

future workmen. In this respect Apex Court ruling can be

resorted to, in Ramnagar Cane & Sugar Co. Ltd. V/s. Jatin

Chakravorty & Ors. 1960 III Cri LJ 1384 (Vol. 61 CN 487).

wherein, on the point Hon’ble Apex Court observed that;

“That, inevitably means that the respondent would

be bound by the said settlement even though they

may belong to the rival union. In order to bind the

workmen, it is not necessary to show that the said

workmen belong to the union which was a party to

the dispute before the conciliator. The whole policy

of Section 18 appears to be to give an extended

operation to the settlement arrived at in the course

of conciliation proceeding and that is the object with

which the four categories of persons bound by such

settlement are specified in Section 18 sub-section

3.”

12.

Another Apex Court ruling is exactly on the same

point in National Engineering Industries V/s. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 469. The facts of that case

were identical to the set of facts of the case at hand. In

that case five unions were parties to the conciliation

proceeding however four out of five unions of workmen

have signed the settlement with the management in

conciliation proceedings. The Hon’ble Court in that case

held that the said settlement arrived at during conciliation

proceeding had binding effect under Section 18 (3) of the

Act not only on the members of the signatory union but

also on the remaining workmen who were represented by

the fifth union which, though, having taken part in

conciliation proceedings refused to sign the settlement.

In this ruling the scope and the binding nature of Sec. 18

(3) of I. D. Act 1947 is well explained by Hon’ble Apex

Court.

13.

The ratio laid down in the above referred case is

squarely applicable to the case at hand as the facts are

identical and the same point is before me for my

determination. In the light of the ratio laid down in the

above ruling which squarely attracts to the set of facts of

the present case, I hold that the settlement signed in

conciliation proceeding in this case is very well binding

even on the members of the second party union who had

refused to sign the same.

14.

In the light of the scope and binding nature of

Section 18 (3) and the interpretation by Hon’ble Apex

Court it is clear that, the submissions on behalf of the

second party is against the spirit of Section 18 (3) of I.D.

Act. In the light of the above Apex Court rulings, the Kerala

High Court ruling cited herein above by the Ld. Adv. for

the second party does not extend any help to them. From

the language of Section 18 (3) and clear and unambiguous

interpretation thereof by Hon’ble Apex Court in the above

referred rulings, I am convinced that, the settlement signed

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4241

before Conciliation Officer is binding on all the workmen

including the members of the second party union. Thus I

hold that the reference is not tenable. Accordingly I decide

this issue no.1 in the negative.

Issue No. 2 :

15.

In the light of above discussions it is clear that there

was settlement between the management and two out of

three unions. It is decided in issue no.1 above that the

said settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation

proceedings is binding on all workmen including the

members of union who though had taken part in the

conciliation proceedings and had not signed the

settlement. As settlement is binding on all, in respect of

their common demand, the question of considering the

demands of these workmen separately does not arise.

Therefore it needs no further discussion to decide this

issue no.2 in the affirmative.

16.

While parting with the award it would not be out of

place to point out how this proceeding is unnecessarily

protracted for more than 12 long years, which could have

been disposed of within couple of months. Initially the

first party had also given application(Ex-11) to that effect

to dispose of the reference as there was settlement before

conciliation officer and as per Section 18 (3) of I.D. Act it

has binding effect on all the workmen. It seems that, my

ld. Predecessor thought it usual application given merely

to protract the matter or get the charges thereof from the

company. Thus it seems he had passed the order ‘This

will be heard along with final hearing’. However it seems

that, the point was not pressed seriously on behalf of the

first party, as it is done after a gap of 12 years. This is the

state of affairs, at the cost of ex-chequer the un-necessary

litigation was being fought for over 12 years. The Company

which is a Govt. undertaking must have spent few lakhs of

rupees.

17.

An Officer of the first party seems to have studied

the case and realized that the litigation is being protracted

unnecessarily for years together. Therefore the concerned

officer has not only filed fresh application to dispose of

this reference but has also passed purshis that they do

not want to lead any evidence. This is an eye opening

case. In last 12 years there was wastage of time and money

of the company, the other side and valuable time of this

Tribunal as well. The question is as to why the point was

not pressed 12 years back as it is done now? Another

serious question is; Who is responsible for the same?

Next question is; How much amount is spent in these

12 years by O.N.G.C. on this unnecessary litigation? The

ld. adv. of the first party had taken number of dates at

every stage. He filed lengthy written statement, filed

number of applications. He remained absent and ‘no cross’

order was passed and he got it set aside and cross examined

the witness at length unnecessarily for about two-three

dates. He has also filed affidavit of the witness of first

party. Though late, the vigilant officer of the company

took the right decision and filed the application and

requested to stop further proceeding and also passed

purshis that they do not want to lead any evidence as the

reference can be disposed of only on law point. The

sincere efforts of the concern officer, who gave full stop

to this unnecessary litigation, must be appreciated. Such

an officer deserves for the same. I would also like to

recommend for some reward to her from the company. In

fact it was the duty of the advocate concerned to press

the law point even without filing pleadings. He failed to

do it and the company was required to spend huge amount

and valuable time unnecessarily.

18.

In this respect I would also like to direct the company

to enquire into the matter and to recover the unnecessary

litigation expenditure over twelve years from the concerned

who are responsible for protracting the matter

unnecessarily. I would also direct the concerned officers

of the Company and the Audit Department to verify other

proceedings of the company and to check whether they

are also protracted like the matter at hand. I remember in

some other reference same set of company and advocate

were directed to pay heavy cost for adopting delay tactics.

Such tendencies should be checked firmly as it not only

causes loss to the company or State Exchequer but also

adversely affects the work of the Tribunal due to waste of

its time in such matters. The Audit Department should

take some stringent steps against such tendencies. I hope

they would take proper care hence forth and I would not

get any opportunity to write anything in this respect in

future. Copy of this award be sent to Audit Department

for necessary action and they should take necessary

action to stop such practices causing harm to the company

and this system as well. With this, I dispose of this

reference and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference stands rejected with no order as to costs.

Date : 28.02.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1590-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cksdkjks LVhy

fyfeVsM (lSy) 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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 9@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43011@9@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

4242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1590.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Bokaro Steel Limited (SAIL) and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-43011/9/2011-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT U/S 33(A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

COMP. NO. 9/2013

(Arising out of Ref. 50/2011)

Ministry’s Order No. L-43011/9/2011 IR(M)

D.C.Gohain

General Secretary

Jharkhand Karntikari Mazdoor Union

....Complainant

Vs.

C.E.O

M/s. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (SAIL)

Adm. Building

Bokaro Steel City Bokaro

......Opp. Party

Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding officer

Appearances :

For Complainant

: Sri K. K. Mishra, Advocate

Sri D.C.Gohain Rep.

For Opp. Party

: Sri D. Mukherjee Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry:—Steel

Dated : 8/4/14

AWARD

The present complaint arises out of Ref. case

No. 50/2011. The Reference case is for regularization of

contract labourer who are rendering services to the

management through contractors. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the workman, the management during

the pendencey of the reference case is planning or even

disengage some of the workmen. Therefore prays

protection.

This Tribunal without passing any interim order in

the reference case disposed the complaint case observing

that the management shall not disengage any workmen

who are rendering services to the management and who

are listed workmen in the reference case . If it is so needed

for any other reason, the management to remove the same,

taking permission of this Tribunal.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1591-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/z lhesaV~l

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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

52@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Andhra Cements Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-15025/1/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 4th day of April, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 52/2004

Between :

Sri Y. Tirumala Rao,

D.No.55-4-38/2,

Sivalayam Street,

Isukathota,

Visakhapatnam – 530 002

..….Petitioner

AND

The Works Manager,

Andhra Cements Limited,

(Visakha Cement Works)

Durganagar Post,

Visakhapatnam – 530 029

….Respondent

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4243

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: Sri B.V. Rao, Representative

For the Respondent : M/s. C. Raghu, M. Raghavender

Reddy, N. Bojjaiah, S. Kanaka Raju,

B. V. Anjaneyulu & Ch. Visweswara

Rao, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed by Sri Tirumala Rao, the

workman/Petitioner invoking Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for a declaration that the

impugned oral termination dated 1.10.2003 is bad in law ab

initio void and can not be justified and also for declaration

that Petitioner is continued to be in service without

interruption whatsoever and consequential reinstatement

with continuity of service and attendant benefits.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows:

Petitioner was appointed as a car Driver of the

respondent Management on 1.11.1999. He was not issued

with any appointment order at that time. He continuously

worked in that capacity. At the time of his appointment

his wages were Rs.2000 pm as the other drivers who are

similarly employed but drawing higher wages, he made

repeated requests for enhancement of his wages and

thereon the Management has raised his wages to Rs.2500

pm with effect from February, 2003. Whereas the wages of

other drivers are Rs.8035 pm at that time and it was revised

upward from time to time. The Management’s indifferent

attitude in ignoring his wage revision on par with other

drivers made the Petitioner to approach statutory

authorities. He was not even extended with statutory

employment benefits like Provident Fund, ESI scheme,

overtime wages etc.. His representations before factory

inspectors ESI corporation, PF Organization and State

Labour Department caused irritation to the Management

resulting into summary termination of his services on

1.10.2003. The said termination is illegal, abintio void and

arbitrary. It amount to victimization and unfair labour

practice. Hence, the petition.

The Respondents filed counter with averments in

brief as follows:

There is no relationship of employee and employer

between the Petitioner and respondent. Petitioner is not

a workman on the rolls of respondent company. Petitioner

was never engaged/employed to do any work much less

driving of the car of the industry. Respondent is a public

limited company having its registered office at Hyderabad

and a factory at Visakhapatnam engaged in the business

of manufacture of cement. The officers of the respondent

are entitled to certain benefits namely, HRA, servant

allowance, car driver allowance etc., at certain rates

depending upon the cadre/grade of the officer and the

said allowances are reimbursed on submission of the

relevant claim/voucher by the concerned officer. In the

instant case Sri K. Pratap Varma, Regional Manager,

Marketing engaged the Petitioner as his personal driver

for the Ambassador Car No.ABU 9446. The contract of

employment was between the said Sri Pratap Varma in his

individual capacity and the Petitioner only. Salary was

paid by said Sri Pratap Varma and he was reimbursed the

said amount by the respondent company. Petitioner’s name

does not figure in the respondent company’s rolls as he is

not a workman of the respondent company. It appears

that taking advantage of a certificate dated 25.1.2001 issued

by said Sri Pratap Varma Petitioner is falsely contending

that he is a workman of the respondent and he has been

wrongly terminated from service by the respondent.

Mr. K. Pratap Varma was never authorized nor he is

competent to issue such certificate. The officers

authorized by the respondent company to issue the

certificates on the Personal Manager and Works Manager.

Thus, the certificate dated 25.1.2001 has no relevance.

Further, the said certificate does not give to any

understanding that Petitioner worked for respondent

company. There is no evidence to show that Petitioner is

a workman. Therefore, question of adjudicating the matter

does no arise. The contentions of the Petitioner that he

has been engaged as car driver for the respondent on

1.11.1999 and continuously worked, that on repeated

requests the Management raised his wages from Rs.2000

to Rs.2500 with effect from February, 2003 are all false.

Since Petitioner is not a workman of the respondent

company question of his services being terminated by

the respondent does not arise. Petition is liable to be

dismissed with exemplary costs.

To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner he

examined himself in his defence and marked Ex.W1 to W39.

On behalf of the respondent Management MW1 was

examined and no documents were marked.

Heard the arguments of either party.

The points that arise for determination are:

Whether the Petitioner is a workman and Whether

there is relationship of employee and employer

between the Petitioner and the respondent?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs

sought for?

Point No. I :

It is the contention of the Petitioner that he has

been working as Car driver for the respondent company

since 1.11.1999 and that as he made representations to the

relevant authorities complaining that the respondent is

not extending various statutory benefits to which he is

entitled to, his services were abruptly terminated by the

respondent.

4244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Whereas, it is the contention of the respondent

that Petitioner never worked for the respondent as Car

driver and that there is no relationship of employee and

employer between the Petitioner and the respondent

company. Further, they are contending to the effect that

Petitioner has been the personal driver of one Sri K. Pratap

Varma, the marketing manager of the respondent company,

who was entitled for car driver allowance and that

respondent company merely reimbursed the wages paid

to the Petitioner by said Sri K. Pratap Varma towards Driver

Allowance, to which said officer was entitled to.

Now, it is to be verified whether the contentions of

the Petitioner are established or that of the respondent,

by the evidence adduced on record.

10.

In support of his contentions that he worked for the

respondent company as car driver Petitioner could produce

Ex.W38 and W39 the C-Book and Insurance certificate

pertaining to the Ambassador Car bearing No.ABU 9446.

A perusal of these two documents reveal that the

Ambassador Car bearing No. ABU 9446 is registered in

the name of Andhra Cements Ltd., i.e., respondent

company. Thus, the said car is owned by the respondent

company only but not by Sri K. Pratap Varma, the Marketing

Manager of the respondent company. Respondent

categorically admitted in their counter that Petitioner has

been the driver of Ambassador Car No. ABU 9446, which

means, Petitioner has been driving the car owned by the

respondent company. Whereas it is not the contention of

the respondent that Ambassador Car No. ABU 9446 has

been provided for the personal use of Sri K. Pratap Varma

the Marketing Manager. In the absence and proof of any

such contention, what one can reasonably understand is

that the car owned by the respondent company will be

used for the benefit and purpose the said company’s

business only. Therefore, it is reasonable for one to

understand that the person who was driving the said car

was rendering services to the owner of the said car i.e.,

respondent company only, unless and otherwise is proved.

No such proof is made available on record.

11.

Further, Petitioner is relying upon Ex.W1, the

certificate issued on the letter head of the respondent

company by Sri K. Pratap Varma as respondent company’s

authorized signatory. The said certificate dated 25.1.2001

is to the effect that Petitioner has been working with the

respondent company as car driver from 1.11.1999 on purely

temporary basis and that his performance during the said

period has been satisfactory.

12.

It is an undisputed fact that Sri K. Pratap Varma has

been the marketing manager of the respondent company.

In their counter the respondent company has claimed that

said person got no authority to issue Ex.W1 certificate

and therefore the said certificate got no relevancy. While

MW1 was under cross examination, he stated that Mr. K.

Pratap Varma was given power and authority in writing

and that he would produce the said written power and

authority before the court. But he failed to produce any

such document. The context of this reference to the written

power and authority of Sri K. Pratap Varma, the Marketing

Manager of the respondent is evidently made to establish

limitations of the authority given to the said person. But

by non-production of the said document on the part of

the respondent inspite of MW1 undertaking before the

court that he would produce the same, what one can

reasonably infer is that there are no such limitations

imposed. In this context, the fact that said Sri K. Pratap

Varma has signed Ex.W1 as authorized signatory for the

respondent company on the letter head of the respondent

company is to be taken note of.

13.

The above discussion of the material on record

clearly makes out that Petitioner has been working as driver

for the car owned by the respondent company and

therefore, it is to be taken that he has been under the

employment of the respondent. Further, respondent failed

to establish that the car which Petitioner has been driving

and which is owned by the respondent company has been

kept for the exclusive use of Sri K. Pratap Varma and that

Petitioner has been the personal driver of Sri K.Pratap

Varma. These facts when considered together with the

contents of Ex.W1 one can reasonably understand and

believe that Petitioner has been driver of the respondent

company and that there is relationship of employee and

employer between them.

14.

Further more, there are number of documents

produced before the court by the Petitioner to show that

he has been representing to the respondent company

authorities time and again seeking for payment of wages

to him on par with the other drivers of the respondent

company. Ex.W12 is copy of inter office memo pertaining

to the respondent company in which proposal for

enhancement of marketing car driver’s salary has been the

subject dealt with. Petitioner is described as “working as

car driver, marketing, since November, 1999 for ABU 9446,”,

in this document. It is further averred in this document

that Petitioner’s performance is satisfactory, that his salary

was being reimbursed by vizag branch In-charge for

Rs.2200 pm that the salary for other car drivers at factory

increased by Rs.400 pm with effect from 1.2.2003 and that

therefore, it was proposed to consider the case of this

marketing car driver for enhancement of salary. On this

proposal the Managing director of the company has

passed an order enhancing the salary of the Petitioner by

Rs.300 pm with effect from 1.2.2003. Ex.W13 is the

consequential proceeding issued raising the pay of the

Petitioner who has been described in this document also

as, the marketing department’s driver. Thus, it is clear

that Petitioner was being treated as marketing department

driver by the respondent company but not as the personal

driver of one Sri K. Pratap Varma, as being claimed by the

respondent in this proceeding.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4245

15.

Documents are produced by the Petitioner which

can prove that even during the year 2003 he received

wages for his services as driver. Thus, it can safely be

held that Petitioner could discharge his burden of proving

that he has been an employee of the respondent even

after the year 2003 and that he stopped working since his

services were abruptly terminated by the respondent.

When once, such ample record is produced before the

court by the Petitioner it is for the respondent

Management, who will be in custody of the entire record

which can show the nature of relationship between them

and the Petitioner and the circumstances in which Ex.W12

and 13 have been issued whereunder Petitioner has been

described as marketing department’s driver, to produce

such relevant record to establish their claim before the

court. Their conduct in not producing even a piece of

paper before the court indicates that, they are purposefully

avoiding to produce the said record, because if they

produce the same, the said record would be adverse to

their contentions.

16.

In view of the fore gone discussion of the material

on record, it can safely be held that there is relationship of

employee and employer between the Petitioner and

respondent and that Petitioner is a workman.

This point is answered accordingly.

17.

Point No. II :

In view of the finding given in Point No.I above,

Petitioner is a workman. Evidently he is not working for

the respondent since the year 2003. It is the contention

that it happened so since his services were terminated by

the respondent company abruptly with effect from

1.10.2003, since he was making representations to various

and relevant authorities complaining that respondent

company is not extending various statutory benefits to

which he is entitled to. Whereas respondent company is

denying the very existence of employee and employer

relationship between the Petitioner and the respondent

company. For the reasons given supra while deciding

Pont No.1 above, the said contention is not acceptable.

Making such contention, on the part of the respondent

company which is not acceptable, itself indicates that

respondent company is making efforts to evade their

liability under law while retrenching the employee.

Respondent has not complied with the mandatory

requisites provided in Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 while retrenching/removing the Petitioner/workman.

With this regard there is no dispute. In such circumstances,

as per the various binding legal precedents governing

this area, Petitioner is to be ordered to be reinstated into

service and in such circumstances, he is entitled for

continuity of service and other attendant benefits as well.

As to the back wages are concerned since he has not

worked for the respondent company, since 1,10.2003, he is

to be granted some compensation for denial of earning

opportunity only. Rs.10000 is reasonable compensation

so to be awarded.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, petition is allowed. The termination of

services of the Petitioner as Driver of the respondent

company with effect from 1.10.2003 is hereby declared as

illegal and unjustifiable and the same is set aside.

Petitioner shall be reinstated into service forthwith, with

continuity of service and all attendant benefits, except for

back wages. He shall be paid Rs.10000 (ten thousand

rupees only) by the respondent towards compensation

for denial of earning opportunity by abruptly terminating

his services.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 4th

day of April, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Y. Tirumala Rao

MW1:

Sri K. Giridhar

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Service certificate No.ACL:MKTG:VSP:2001

dt.25.1.2001

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of WW1’s representation to

Respondent dt.20.7.2003

Ex.W3:

Office copy of Telegram to Regional Director,

ESIC dt. 8.9.03

Ex.W4:

Office copy of Telegram to DCL,

Visakhapatnam dt.8.9.2003

Ex.W5:

Office copy of representation to management

by WW1 dt.14.9.03

Ex.W6:

Office copy of Telegram to management dt.

16.9.2003

Ex.W7:

Office coy of notice by DCL to management

dt. 2.9.2003

Ex.W8:

Office copy of Telegram to management dt,

29.12.2003

Ex.W9:

Photostat copy of certificate of registration

of Car No.ABU.9446

Ex.W10:

Photostat copy of particulars of vehicle in

Ex.W9

Ex.W11:

Photostat copy of particulars of vehicle in

Ex.W9 dt.5.8.2000

Ex.W12:

Photostat copy of ICM dt.15.3.2003

enchancing workman’s salary by Rs.300 PM

as approved by MD.

4246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W13:

Photostat copy of lr. No. ACL:ESTB:HO:2003

dt. 8.4.2003

Ex.W14:

Photostat copy of lr. of approval for Ex.W13

dt. 9.4.2003

Ex.W15:

Photostat copy of salary authorization order

for the m/o May, 2003 dt. 6.6.2003

Ex.W16:

Photostat copy of salary payment voucher

for May, 2003 dt. 6.6.2003

Ex.W17:

Photostat copy of salary payment voucher

for April, 2003 dt. 5.5.2003

Ex.W18:

Photostat copy of salary payment voucher

for February, 2003 dt. 8.4.2003

Ex.W19:

Photostat copy of salary authorization order

for m/o February, 2003

Ex.W20:

Photostat copy of salary payment voucher

for February, 2003

Ex.W21 to

Ex.W34:

Photostat copies of salary payment vouchers

and salary authorization orders for different

months and years

Ex.W35:

Photostat copy of Gate pass cum challan

issued by Respondent for CAr No. ABU 9446

dt. 20.6.2003

Ex.W36:

Photostat copy of Gate pass-cum-challan

issued by Respondent for CAr No. ABU 9446

dt.26.5.2002

Ex.W37:

Photostat copy of Gate pass-cum-challan

issued by Respondent for CAr No. ABU 9446

dt. 10.1.2001

Ex.W38:

C-Book of the car No. ABU 9446

Ex.W39:

Insurance certificate pertaining to car

No. ABU 9446

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1592-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fgUnqLrku ¯td

fyfeVsM 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

69@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@31@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Hindustan Zinc Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-29011/31/2002-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 18th day of February, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 69/2004

(I.T.I.D. No. 54/2002, transferred from Industrial

Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam)

Between :

The General Secretary,

Visakha Zinc Workers Union,

C/o Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,

Jakkula Sambamurthy Bhawan,

Visakhapatnam – 530026.

...Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,

Zinc-Lead Smelter,

Visakhapatnam – 530 015.

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: Sri K. Bala Krishna, Advocate

For the Respondent : M/s. D.V. Subba Rao &

D.V. Somayajulu,Advocates

AWARD

In pursuance of the claim made by the Visakha Zinc

Workers Union (herein after be referred to as Petitioner

Union) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

Order No. L-29011/31/2002-IR(M) dated 8.8.2002 referred

the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 against the management of M/s. Hindustan

Zinc Ltd., for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Visakhapatnam which was transferred to

this Court in view of the Government of India, Ministry of

Labour’s order No.H-11026/1/2001-IR(C-II) dated

18.10.2001 bearing I.T.I.D. No. 54/2002 and renumbered in

this Court as I.D.No.69/2004 on such transfer.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4247

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Visakha Zinc Workers

Union, Visakhapatnam for arriving at per day wages

on the monthly wages by dividing with that of 26

days instead of 30 days as done by the management

of M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Visakhapatnam for

considering Sundays/Weekly Off days for the

purpose of calculating continuous service in respect

of workmen of Lead Unit who opted VRS is legal

and/or justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

Union is entitled?”

On receipt of the case file on transfer, this Tribunal

has registered and numbered it as I.D. No.69/2004 and

issued notices to both the Petitioner Union and the

management.

Petitioner Union filed their claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

The circular dated 26.12.2000 issued by the

management relating to Zinc Lead Smelter in

Visakhapatnam was not examined. The same circular dated

22.12.2000 was issued and copy of it was pasted in the

notice board for ready reference. A copy of the Special

Voluntary Retirement Scheme-II which will govern terms

and conditions of voluntary retirement scheme if opted

for is also pasted on the Notice Board. The management

has given a very short period which is less than a week

excluding holidays for exercising the option deliberately

and thus, the workmen were to act in haste in exercising

their option to retire from service. It was not a special

voluntary retirement but, it was in fact depriving the

workmen of their job. Workmen moved this court in this

regard and the matter is now pending also before the

Hon’ble High Court of A.P., being taken there by the

management. The workmen are continuing to be in service

in the Respondent company. They are entitled to all the

benefits i.e., those which were clearly stated by the

workmen in their representation to the ALC(C),

Visakhapatnam in reference to the letter dated 12.12.2001.

The workmen have filed the details like total number of

workmen (102), their names, employee numbers,

designation, date of appointment as casual, date of

permanent appointment, ex-gratia for 60 and 30 days,

computation of 240/120 days, travel allowance, ex-gratia

for casual service, Gift 2000-2001, 20 years gift and the

total. The Court may take notice of all these details as part

of their claim statement and to answer the reference.

Respondents filed their written statement with the

averments in brief as follows:

Closure of Lead Plant and removal of workmen

working in that plant on voluntary retirement scheme as a

result of closure was challenged by the union and the

matter is stayed by Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

in WP No.184379 of 2001 WP No. 33410 of 2001 & Batch

(22 cases), WP No.7657 of 2002 to 7680 of 2002 filed by

the management. The stay is in force. Therefore, the

claim petition herein in which the claims made by the

union are interlinked with the matters referred in the Writ

petitions is not maintainable as it is sub-judice. The claim

statement is not correct. Management has already

submitted the true facts relating to the matter before the

Tribunal. The circular dated 26.12.2000 was issued by the

management after examining and exploring the possibility

of re-deployment of the workmen working in the Lead

Plant, in other plants of the company. Consequently

closure with the approval of Government of India in terms

of Sec. 25(O) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The circular

in question was issued in accordance with the conditions

mentioned by the Government while according approval

vide its letter dated 22.12.2000 for closure of the Lead

Plant. A copy of the said Government’s letter along with

copy of Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme-II is pasted

on the notice board of the company. The last day for

receipt of the applications from the employees who opt

for voluntary retirement scheme in terms of the said scheme

is indicated as 24.1.2001 in the circular dated 22.12.2000

but not as 24.1.2001 as alleged in para-3 of the claim

statement. Thus, more than a month’s notice was given

to the workmen to opt for the said scheme. But not less

than the one week as claimed in by the workmen. It is a

special scheme. As it was extended to the workmen

working in other plants of the company. Since, the

workmen in Lead Plant have been removed in terms of

voluntary retirement scheme-II consequent to its closure

and the workmen have received the benefits of said

scheme, the question of their continuing in service of the

company does not arise. Thus, they are not entitled to

any benefits as claimed in the letter dated 12.12.2001

addressed to ALC(C), Visakhapatnam regarding the

payment of ex-gratia and service computation of 240/120

days in respect of casuals who have been absorbed on

permanent rolls. The terms of the voluntary retirement

scheme are very clear that for the purpose of ex-gracia, the

average days salary is worked out by dividing the monthly

salary by 30 days and the service as casual will not be

taken and only the date of their service as badli/permanent

will be taken for the purpose of service computation.

Interpretation of Sec.4(2) of the Payment Of Gratuity Act

will not apply for calculation of ex-gratia compensation.

For this purpose monthly wages are not required to be

divided by 26 as claimed by the workmen union. Regarding

the claim of disturbance allowance/transportation

allowance, these payments are subjected to the rules of

the company and have been paid to the workmen who

complied with these rules. These are the matters to be

decided in trial by way of evidence. so also, the claim with

regard to payment of 20 years gift to those workmen who

completed 20 years of service. Regarding the claim for

payment of 2000-2001 Gift, this claim relates to performance

linked annual incentive for the said year. The workmen

4248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

who opted for voluntary retirement during the year 2000-

2001 are not eligible for this gift as per the policy taken by

the management and the same was communicated to all

concerned by way of circular dated 11.10.2001. Therefore,

the workmen are not entitled for the same. The claim

statement is not maintainable as the matter is sub-judice.

Even if it is maintainable only on two issues as referred by

the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide their letter

No.L-29011/31/2002-IR(M) dated 8.8.2002 for adjudication.

The other claims are to be rejected.

Thereafter with the permission of the Tribunal

Petitioner union filed rejoinder on behalf of the workmen

with the averments in brief as follows:

Petitioner union submit that option of the Lead Unit is not

legal and justified and 30 days made by the management

and non-taking into account the Sundays and weekly offs

days for the purpose of calculation of continuous service

in respect of workmen of Lead unit is not correct. The

incidental issues in favour of the workmen may also be

decided in their favour.

Thereafter with the leave of the court, Petitioner

union filed additional claim statement which has been

received on 27.12.2006.

Petitioner union filed additional claim statement with

the averments in brief as follows:

The claim for the workmen do not affect judgement

dated 18.2.2003 rendered in WP No. 25745 of 2001 and

batch by Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. In the

said writ petitions question of validity and impact of the

Circular dated 24.12.2001 is not dealt with and therefore, it

remains to be considered by this Tribunal. The demands

made by these workmen are well within the scope of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is well settled law that all

the issues incidental to the aspects specified in the

reference order for adjudication fall within the jurisdiction

of the Labour Court or Tribunal as the case may be which

are empowered to determine questions which go to the

root of their jurisdiction and that on the determination of

such points would depend the question as to whether the

Labour Court or Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon the points referred to it for adjudication.

To substantiate their contentions for Petitioner

union WW1 and WW2 were examined and Ex.W1 to W6

were marked. Since Respondent have not chosen to cross-

examine the witnesses inspite of giving due opportunity,

this courts has forfeited the right to cross-examination

these witnesses viz., WW1 and WW2 by the management

by virtue of orders dated 21.7.2011 and 7.2.2012

respectively. On behalf of the management MW1 was

examined and Ex. M1 to M4 were marked.

Heard arguments of either party. Written arguments

are also filed for either party and the same are considered.

The points that arise for determination are:

Whether the demand of the Petitioner union for

arriving at per day wages on the monthly wages by

dividing with that of 26 days instead of 30 days as

done by the management of M/s Hindustan Zinc

Ltd., Visakhapatnam is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the demand of the Petitioner union for

considering Sundays/Weekly Off days for the

purpose of calculating continuous service in respect

of workmen of Lead Unit who opted voluntary

retirement scheme?

III.

To what relief the concerned Union is entitled?

10.

Point No. I:

As can be gathered from the material on record the

Lead Unit of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., has been closed with

the permission of Government of India and giving due

notice to the union of workers as required under law. As

per the conditions of the closure and to meet the

requirement of law the management has formulated a

Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the workers of

the said closed Lead Unit and issued Ex. M2 notice.

Ex. M2 is the said notice issued by way of circular dated

26.12.2000. This circular is annexed with Annexure ‘B’

containing the scope, applicability, definition of various

terms of eligibility competent authority and application

details, monetary benefits under its rules, procedure and

some general issues which are all pertaining to Special

Voluntary Retirement Scheme-II. As per this annexure ‘B’

it enumerates monetary benefits available under this

scheme, gratuity for each completed year of service or

part there off in excess of six months as admissible under

the gratuity Act/Rules applicable to the concerned

workman is provided for. That means the ex-gratia is to be

calculated in terms of Gratuity Act, 1972 applicable. The

validity of this circular cannot be disputed with, since it is

issued in the interest of the workers only, but not

otherwise.

11.

The contentions of the Petitioner that Ex. M2 circular

is not valid, as sufficient opportunity has not been granted

to the workmen to exercise this option etc., are not correct.

A month’s time has been granted, which is more than

sufficient. The same has been appreciated in the writ

proceedings also.

12.

Whereas while calculating the ex-gratia amount

payable to the workmen the daily wage has been arrived

at by the management by dividing the monthly salary by

30 days. It is the claim of the Petitioner that this calculation

is incorrect and daily wage is to be arrived at for this

purpose by calculating the monthly wages by 26 days as

provided in the Gratuity Act.

13.

Explanation to Sec.4(2) of the Payment of gratuity

Act, 1972 reads that

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4249

“In the case of a monthly rated employee, ‘the fifteen

days’ wages shall be calculated by dividing the

monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-

six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen.”

14.

In this context, it is to be stressed that as already

observed above clause 7(4) of Annexure ‘B’ to Ex.M2

circular clearly says, that the gratuity is to be paid as

admissible under the Gratuity Act, which means that it is

the understanding of the management that ex-gratia amount

is to be paid complying the provisions of Gratuity Act. If

it is so, the contention of the Petitioner that calculation of

daily wages done by the management is incorrect and

that the same is to be arrived by dividing the monthly

wages by 26 days but not by 30 days is to be accepted.

15.

In their written arguments, the management has

specifically claimed that Gratuity Act is not applicable to

the present claim when it is specifically mentioned in

clause 7.4 of Annexure ‘B’ to Ex.M2 circular, that the ex-

gratia is to be paid as admissible under the Gratuity’s Act,

their contention in this regard now being made, can not

be taken as an acceptable and probable contention. As

already observed above, Gratuity Act is to be applied and

therefore, while arriving at the daily wages of the monthly

rated employees, the monthly wages are to be divided by

26 days but not by 30 days.

16.

Thus, demand of the Petitioner union for arriving at

per day wages on the monthly wages by dividing with

that of 26 days instead of 30 days as done by the

management of M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Visakhapatnam

is legal and justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

17.

Point No.II:

It is the contention of the Petitioner that the

Sundays and weekly off days are to be considered as part

of service while calculating continuous service of the

workmen of Lead Unit who opted for voluntary retirement

scheme. The public holidays and weekly off days during

the service of the workmen will certainly be part and parcel

of the service of the workman as such, holidays will be

earned by him by virtue of his service. They can not be

taken as non-working days by any stretch of imagination.

They are part of service only for all purposes and therefore

they are to be counted for continuous service.

18.

While defining continuous service in Sec.2A of the

Payment of Gratuity Act, even the absence due to lay off,

strike or lock out or cessation of work not due to any fault

of the employee has been asked to be taken as continuous

service. Whereas public holidays and weekly offs are the

days earned by the workmen on full wages for the

uninterrupted and continuous work done by him during

which such days fall. Thus, they certainly will become

part of continuous service.

19.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it can safely be

held that the demand of the Petitioner union for considering

Sundays/weekly off holidays for the purpose of calculating

continuous service in respect of workmen of the Lead

Unit, who opted for voluntary retirement scheme is held

as legal and justified, and thus the demand of the Petitioner

union for considering Sundays/Weekly Off days for the

purpose of calculating continuous service in respect of

workmen of Lead Unit who opted for voluntary retirement

scheme is held as legal and justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

20.

Point No.III:

In view of the findings reached in Point Nos. I and

II, the workmen of Lead Unit of Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,

Visakhapatnam who opted for voluntary retirement scheme

as mentioned in Ex.M2 circular are entitled for arriving at

their per day wage on the monthly wages, by dividing

with that of 26 days instead of 30 days. Further, they are

entitled for considering Sundays/weekly off days for the

purpose of calculating their continuous service.

21.

Apart from the above mentioned reliefs the Petitioner

union is seeking for several other reliefs in their claim

statement like, Travel Allowance, Gift 2000-2001, 20 years

gift etc. It is the claim of the Respondent management

that all these claims are outside the purview of the reference

and therefore such claims can not be entertained. In this

regard, it is the contention of the Petitioner that all these

claims are questions raised in the reference and therefore

they also can be entertained. This contention does not

have any force. The reference is very specific and to the

point. The two aspects which are covered by points No.I

and II above, alone have been referred to for answering

by this Tribunal under the reference. While answering

this reference this court can not go beyond the scope of

the reference. Further, at any stretch of imagination,

payment of travel allowance, ex-gratia for casual service,

gifts etc., can not be taken as incidental to the questions

raised in the reference i.e., calculation of daily wages and

consideration of Sundays and weekly off days for the

purpose of continuous service. These are very distinct

and different aspects and therefore they can not be

entertained at all while answering the present reference.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result:

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The demand of the Petitioner union, for arriving at

per day wages on the monthly wages of the workmen of

Lead Unit of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Visakhapatnam who

opted for voluntary retirement scheme, by dividing the

month with 26 days instead of 30 days is held as legal and

justified. Respondent management shall make calculation

of per day wages accordingly, while arriving at the ex-

gratia amount to be paid to the said workmen and shall

make payment accordingly.

4250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further, the demand of the Petitioner union for

considering Sundays/weekly off days for the purpose of

calculating continuous service in respect of workmen of

Lead Unit who opted voluntary retirement scheme is held

as legal and justified. Respondent management shall make

calculation of continuous service of these workmen

accordingly and shall make payment of various monetary

benefits to the said workmen basing on such continuous

service arrived at, only.

If payment of any monetary benefits are already

made by arriving at per day wages and continuous service

contra to the above findings, calculations shall be correctly

made and the difference amount shall be paid to the

workmen of Lead Unit who opted for voluntary retirement

scheme forth with.

The claims made by the Petitioner union over and

above the reference are hereby rejected as they are beyond

the scope of the reference.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 18th

day of February, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1:

MW1:

Sri Ch. Raghavendra Rao

Sri Karasi Rama Rao

WW2 :

Sri Vegentla Vijaya Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of details showing total no.

of workman and other particulars

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of lr. to ALC(C), Visakhapatnam

dt. 26.12.2001

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of lr. to The General Manager,

HZL, Visakhapatnam dt. 29.9.01

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of lr. to ALC(C), Visakhapatnam

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of lr. to ALC(C), Visakhapatnam

dt.31.7.2001

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of circular reg. Special

voluntary retirement scheme-II dt.26.12.2001

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photostat copy of circular dt.26.12.2000

Ex.M2:

Photostat copy of Lr. No.L-29024/1/2000-

IR(Misc) dt. 22.12.2000

Ex.M3:

Photostat copy of circular dt.11.10.2001

Ex.M4:

order passed in WP No.25475 of 2001 and

batch

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1593-—vkS|ksfxd vf/fu;e] 1947(1947 dk

14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Lokfr baVjizkbtst 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@2009) izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43011@3@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s Swathi Enterprises and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-43011/3/2008-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Friday, the 28th March, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 38/2009

(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 Swathi Enterprises and their workmen)

BETWEEN

The Secretary

: 1st Party/

Swathi Enterprises Thozhilalar

Petitioner Union

Sangam Branch, Salem-636001

AND

Sri G. Mudiyarasan

: 2nd Party/

Managing Director,

Respondent

M/s Swathi Enterprises

6/215G, Arumugham Colony,

Salem-636005

Sri G. Sridhar, Lease Holder,

: 2nd Party/

Swathi Enterprises,

2nd Respondent

Umayalpuram Post,

Attur Taluk, Salem

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4251

Sri C. Manikandan,

: 2nd Party/

Lease Holder,

3rd Respondent

Swathi Enterprises

Umayalpuram Post,

Attur Taluk, Salem

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

: M/s Arunachalam Associates,

Petitioner Union

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s R. Parthiban, Advocate

1st Management

For the 2nd Party/

: Set ex-parte

2nd Management

For the 2nd Party/

: Set ex-parte

3rd Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-43011/3/2008-IR(M) dated

27.02.2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Swaathi Enterprises in terminating 23 workmen (List

enclosed) is justified? To what relief the workmen

are entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 38/2009 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner and First Respondent entered

appearance through their respective counsel and filed their

Claim and Counter Statement respectively. Second and

Third Respondent remained ex-parte.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The First Respondent is the Managing Partner of

M/s Swati Enterprises, a quarrying organization and is

also a licensed holder to quarry granite. He has been

quarrying block granites from Umayalpuram Village of

Salem District from 1988 onwards. The lease granted to

the First Respondent for quarrying was renewed from time

to time. The lease was renewed for a period of 20 years by

order of the Labour Department dated 15.04.2004. The First

Respondent has been quarrying from an area of about

2.11 hectares from 1988 onwards. Though a number of

workers were employed by the Respondent continuously

to do the quarrying work, they are paid monthly wages

calculated at daily rated wages. Though the work was

continuous, none of the workers are made permanent or

regularized. The workers involved in this dispute have

been working for the First Respondent in the quarry starting

from the dates shown in the annexure to the Claim Petition.

The First Respondent has been exploiting the workers by

refusing to pay the statutory benefits. The First

Respondent has failed to implement many of the provisions

of Labour Welfare Act. Incorrect particulars regarding the

workers are furnished by the First Respondent to the

Labour Department. Due to such unjust treatment the

workers formed an association, they were threatened to

dissolve the association. The First Respondent dismissed

23 workers of the petitioner Sangam between 01.07.2006

and 10.07.2006. Seven of them were subsequently

reinstated in service by the settlement of 17.08.2006.

However, the 23 workers of the Sangam were again

dismissed on 01.10.2006. In the meanwhile, the First

Respondent issued notice for illegal transfer of the quarry

run by the First Respondent. The request of the Petitioner

Sangam to reinstate its members were not considered by

the First Respondent. He appointed the Second

Respondent as a benami contractor. When the workers of

the Petitioner Sangam went to the quarry to do the work

they were threatened and intimidated. The Second

Respondent had also filed a suit against the members of

the Petitioner Sangam. The First Respondent then

cancelled his contract with the Second Respondent and

entered into contract with the Third Respondent for mining

at the quarry. Second and Third Respondents are only

pseudo contractors. The service of the members of the

Petitioner Sangam named in the annexure to the Claim

Statement were terminated from 01.10.2006. The termination

of the employees without notice pay would amount to

retrenchment under Section-25F of the Industrial Dispute

Act. The concerned workers are entitled to be reinstated

in the service of the First Respondent with all benefits. An

award may be passed accordingly.

The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

The concerned workers were working as daily wage

labourers with the First Respondent in connection with

the mining operations carryied on in the patta land

belonging to him. They formed a Sangam as Swati

Enterprises Thozhilalar Sangam. They had not been

working during the period from 1988 to 2004. The

Government had granted permission to quarry granite from

the patta lands of the First Respondent for a period of 20

years by order dated 15.04.2004. Quarry operations were

re-started by the First Respondent on 07.05.2004 on the

basis of this renewed lease. The concerned workers had

joined with the First Respondent in its mining operations

as daily wage workers after this. All the above 22 workers

possess agricultural lands. During their employment in

their agricultural lands, they would not come to work. The

First Respondent had been maintaining statutory records

like Wage Registers, Payment Registers, etc. From 2004

onwards nearly 20-30 workers were put to work everyday.

The First Respondent was maintaining Attendance

Registers, Payment Registers, etc in respect of each and

every worker who came as daily wage earner. During 2006,

the quarrying operations suffered huge loss. So the

Respondent leased out quarrying to the Second

4252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondent. When difference of opinion rose between

the First and Second Respondent, the quarrying operation

was closed by the Second Respondent. So he leased out

the quarry to the Third Respondent. The Second and Third

Respondents never engaged the concerned workers. The

First Respondent had closed quarrying operations in

his patta lands on 08.11.2011 and this was intimated to

the competent authorities. The allegation that the First

Respondent was trying to exploit the workers and was

refusing to pay them the statutory benefits is not correct.

The concerned workers had not worked for 240 days

continuously in a calendar year. The averment in the Claim

Statement that the termination of the employment would

amount to retrenchment under Section-25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act is not correct. The petitioner or

its workers are not entitled to any relief. The petition is to

be dismissed.

Respondents 2 and 3 are brought in the party array

by the petitioner though they are not party to the reference.

The case of the petitioner is that the First Respondent had

leased the right to quarry on the basis of the permission

granted to him initially to the Second Respondent and

then to the Third Respondent. These two Respondents,

though served with notice, had remained absent and had

been set ex-parte.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WWs 1 to 3 and MW1 and the documents marked as

Ext.W1 to Ext.W30 and Exts.M1 to Ext.M13

The points for consideration in the case are:

(i)

Whether the action of the management in terminating

the service of 23 workers is justifiable?

(ii)

What is the relief to which the concerned workers

are entitled?

The points

The petitioner, Swati Enterprises Thozhilalar Sangam

is said to be affiliated to Salem District Granite Workers

Union. The petitioner has raised the dispute on behalf of

22 workers said to be working in the quarry “Swati

Enterprises” of which the First Respondent is the

Managing Director. It is alleged by the petitioner that the

First Respondent had terminated the service of 23 workers

who are its members, whose list is annexed to the Claim

Statement. According to the petitioner, though all these

22 workers had been working in the quarry belonging to

the First Respondent for a considerably long period, they

were not made permanent. They were being exploited by

the First Respondent. Benefits legally due to them were

being denied to them. On account of this, the petitioner

union was formed. Earlier the First Respondent is said to

have dismissed some workers but they were subsequently

taken back on negotiation. Later the First Respondent has

served notice of closure to the Union and had terminated

these workers from service.

It is admitted by the First Respondent in the Counter

Statement that the workers named in the list attached to

the Claim Statement were working in his quarry. However,

according to him they started to work only in 2004, after

his permit for quarrying was renewed for a period of twenty

years. According to the First Respondent, he ran into loss

in the year 2006 and decided to transfer the quarry work to

the Second Respondent. So he has served notice of closure

to the Union. The lease in favor of the Second Respondent

was subsequently terminated and the right to quarry was

leased out to the Third Respondent. Now, this also seems

to have come to an end. The stand of the First Respondent

is that water had got inundated in the quarry and mining

work could not be continued resulting in closure of the

quarry in the year 2011. According to First Respondent,

now no quarrying is going on in the quarry at all. He had

surrendered the Sales Tax Registration Certificate and had

given closure intimation to the authorities also.

10.

In the list attached to the Claim Statement, the

petitioner had given the date on which each of the

concerned workers had started to work in the quarry of

the First Respondent. The Secretary of the Sangam had

been examined as WW1 and two workers were examined

as WW2 and WW3 respectively. In the affidavit in lieu of

chief examination furnished by these workers, they have

reiterated their case in the petition. On the side of the

First Respondent, MW1 who is said to have been working

as Manager of the quarry has been examined.

11.

The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA VS. MOHAN LAL DEVI CHAND

SHAH reported in AIR 1966 SC 189 to argue for the position

that a mine defined in Minimum Wages Act includes a

quarry also. However, it has not been disputed by the

First Respondent that quarrying work is work in a mine

and therefore when period of continuous service is being

calculated under Section-25B(2) 190 days work will be

sufficient to make out a period of one year of continuous

service.

12.

The Claim Statement refers to various dates on which

the 22 workers in respect of whom dispute is raised has

joined the First Respondent establishment. To prove his

case the Secretary of the Petitioner Union and two

workers are examined also. The Secretary examined as WW1

is not a worker. The Union was formed only in 2006 since

the workers felt that their grievance are not attended to by

the First Respondent. WW1 is not in a position to give the

joining date of each of the workers. Though, WW2 and

WW3, two of the workers are also examined they are also

not in a position to state on which date other workers

named in the list alongwith the Claim Statement have joined

the Respondent. As it is apart from the assertion in the

Claim Statement itself there is nothing to prove that the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4253

concerned workers had joined the establishment on the

respective dates stated in the Claim Statement.

13.

It is admitted by the First Respondent in his Counter

Statement that all the 22 workers were working in his

establishment. According to him they started to work

only after he restarted his quarrying operations on getting

lease for quarry for a period of 20 years. He has stated in

the Counter Statement that he started the work on

07.05.2012 after he got permission on 15.04.2004 and it

was subsequently, the 22 persons had joined as Daily

Wage Workers in the mining operations. Thus it is clear

from the admission of the First Respondent that the 22

persons have started to work at least in May 2004. Of

course, MW1 has stated in his affidavit that the workers

have worked for a period of 5-7 years as Daily Wage

Workers and there was no continuity. This witness has

started to work with the First Respondent in the year 1991.

However, even this admission of MW1 is not of any help

for the reason that there is no way to find out on which

date each of the workers have started to work. So the case

of the First Respondent that they joined his establishment

in May, 2004 is to be accepted.

14.

There is a contention for the First Respondent that

there is no evidence regarding the date on which each of

the workers have worked last also. However, this

contention is against his case in the Counter Statement.

What he has stated in the Counter Statement is that due

to financial loss he was not able to continue the quarrying

operations and he had given lease to the Second

Respondent to do the quarrying work. Ext. M4 is the notice

of closure issued by the First Respondent on 01.10.2006.

The very case of the petitioner is that they have been

working with the First Respondent until 30.09.2006 and

when they went for work on 01.10.2006, they were turned

out. When this case is read alongwith with Ext. M4, it is

very much clear that all the workers were terminated from

service on 30.09.2006.

15.

There is a contention for the First Respondent that

the petitioner has not established that any of the workers

had completed the required period of work days. He has

referred to the decision of the Apex Court laying down the

manner in which 190 days as per Section-25 D(1) or 240

days as per Section-D(2) of the Act is to be calculated.

The Apex Court has stated in the decision MOHAN

LAL VS. MANAGEMENT OF M/S BHARAT

ELECTRONICS LTD. reported in AIR 1981 SC 1253 that

the date of termination of service which is complained of

as retrenchment is to be ascertained and after this it is to

be ascertained whether the workman had rendered service

for a period of 240 days or 190 days as the case may be

within the period of 12 months prior to the date of

termination. The counsel has also referred to the decisions

of the Apex Court in RANGE FOREST OFFICER VS. S.T.

HADIMANI reported in 2002 3 SCC 25 and RAJASTHAN

STATE GANGANAGAR MILLS LTD. VS. STATE OF

RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2004 8 SCC

161 in support of his argument that the burden lies on the

workman to prove that he had worked the required days

during the relevant period.

16.

According to the First Respondent the workers were

not continuity working for him. They used to be absent

whenever they were having agricultural operations in their

locality. In the absence of attending work continuously,

they were not able to complete the required period to bring

it under Section-25B(2) of the Act.

17.

The very case of the First Respondent in the Counter

Statement is that he has been maintaining Attendance and

Wage Registers, etc. However, these documents were not

produced by him at the initial stage of the case. At the fag

end, he has produced certain attendance registers and

wage registers and these were marked as Ext. M8 to

Ext. M13. These are purported to be of the period from

May, 2004 to May, 2006. It has been pointed out by the

Counsel for the Petitioner that these documents could not

be accepted as genuine documents. He has referred to the

fact that all the pages of these documents are seen prepared

at one stretch. In fact on a perusal of these documents it

could be seen that though these are of a period of 2 years

the entire thing is written in a single hand at one stretch.

So the credibility of these documents is very much at stake.

In spite of this fact it could be seen that even as per these

documents most of the workers had completed work of

190 days preceding their date of termination on 30.09.2006.

Even though it is stated in the Counter Statement that all

the registers are maintained properly, the First Respondent

has not produced the register pertaining to the period

from May to September, 2006. Even though the

genuineness of the document are doubtful the fact that

even as per these documents the petitioners had been

working for more than 16 days each month which will be

sufficient to make out continuous service for one year

would show that concerned workers had been working in

the establishment not at the whims and fancy but were

doing work regularly on almost all the working days except

for absence at times. The counsel for the petitioner has

stated that if the holidays are also calculated the period of

190 days to make out continuous service for one year

would be made out even as per Exts. M8 to M13. However,

this argument of the counsel could not be accepted since

there is no case for the workers that they were getting

wages on the holidays also. Only if wages were paid on

holidays, those days could be calculated for the purpose

of Section-25(B)(2) of the Act.

18.

It has been pointed out by the Counsel for the

Petitioner that for the purpose of reinstatement it is not

necessary that the workers should have been in

continuous service for a specified period. Once it is

established that they were working in the establishment

4254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and were turned out they will be entitled to be restored to

the original position by reinstatement, it is pointed out.

19.

The case of the First Respondent is that the quarries

are not operated upon. It is admitted by the First

Respondent that the Third Respondent to whom the quarry

had been leased out had entrusted it back to him. However,

according to him, he had not been operating the quarry

after this. He has produced copy of a letter to Asstt. Sales

Tax Commissioner marked as Ext. M5 to show that he has

surrendered his Sales Tax Registration Certificate.

According to him, closure intimation has been given to

the respective authorities of the Government also. Ex. M6

is produced to show this. According to the First

Respondent, water has got into the mine and quarrying

had become impossible. He has also produced Ext. M7

series, certain photographs in support of this. These

photographs are not proved at all. There is no evidence to

show that these pertain to the quarry of the First

Respondent. Apart from that the permission granted to

the First Respondent for quarrying is in respect of more

than 1.10.5 hectares of land. If a portion of the land has

become in undated in water that does not mean the entire

quarry could not be operated upon. Again, Ext. M5 and

Ext. M6 are not sufficient to show that the quarry is closed.

The case of the witnesses examined on behalf of the

petitioner is that the quarry is still functioning. This

evidence on the side of the petitioner is not rebutted by

the Respondent. Though MW1 is examined on behalf of

the First Respondent, this witness is not competent to

speak about the present state of affairs. According to this

witness, he had left the service of First Respondent on

01.10.2006. So he does not know what happened to the

establishment after this date. He is not competent to speak

about Ext. M5 and Ext. M6. The First Respondent who is

the Managing Partner of the establishment has not

come forward to give evidence. When the circumstances

are considered there is no reason for the First Respondent

to give up quarry operation. It has been pointed on behalf

of the petitioner that the First Respondent has been trying

to deny work to the concerned workers on one or other

pretext after they have formed the union and it was in this

attempt he had initially leased the quarry to the Second

Respondent and then to the Third Respondent. Even as

admitted by the First Respondent the quarry is now back

in his hands. There is no acceptable evidence to show

that it is now not functioning. So the concerned workers

who were admittedly working with the First Respondent

at the time when he is said to have leased the quarry to the

Second Respondent is entitled to be reinstated. For

reinstatement it is not necessary that the workers should

have been regular workers. Even casual labourers are

entitled to reinstatement if they are eligible.

20.

It is clear that the workers had been in continuous

service with the First Respondent for at least 2 years

preceding the date of termination. There is no case for the

First Respondent that any retrenchment compensation

have been given to the concerned workers before they

were terminated from service. If the First Respondent is

not willing to reinstate the workers, he is bound to pay

retrenchment compensation to them.

21.

It view of my discussion above, the First Respondent

is directed to reinstate the 22 workers named in the list

attached with the Claim Statement. In the alternative, the

First Respondent shall pay each of the 22 workers

Rs. 25,000 towards compensation.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 28th March, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/

: WW1, Sri P. Paramasivam

Petitioner Union

WW2, Sri A. Rajaji

WW3, Sri C. Asokan

For the 2nd Party/

: MW1, Sri Ramesh Kannan

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

10.03.1990

‘Registration Certificate of the

Petitioner Union

Ex.W2

05.04.1990

Certificate of Firm Registration of

the Respondent

Ex.W3

11.07.2006

Representation

from

the

Employees to the 1st Respondent

for their reinstatement (5 series)

Ex.W4

25.07.2006

Representation

from

the

employees to the 1st Respondent

for their reinstatement (5 series)

Ex.W5

17.08.2006

12(3) settlement in respect of

reinstatement of an Employee

Ex.W6

16.09.2006

Demand of Bonus by the

Petitioner Union to the 1st

Respondent

Ex.W7

16.09.2006

Letter from the Petitioner Union

to the Joint Commissioner (EPF)

for registration of EPF scheme

Ex.W8

01.10.2006

Closure notice by Management

under Section 25 FFA of ID Act

alongwith Form Q

Ex.W9

04.11.2006

Letter from the Petitioner Union

to the 1st Respondent

Ex.W10

13.12.2006

Affidavit and Injunction Petition

filed by the 2nd Respondent in IA

No. 1591 of 2006 in OS No. 535 of

2006 before the District Munsif,

Attur

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4255

Ex.W11

Counter filed by the employees in

the Swathi Enterprises in IA No.

1591 of 2006 in OS No. 535 of 2006

before the District Munsif, Attur

Ex.W12

10.01.2007

VAT Certificate issued by the

Commercial Taxes Department to

the First Respondent Manage-

ment

Ex.W13

18.01.2007

Letter of Dy. Director Geology and

Mines to the Petitioner Union

under RTI Act

Ex.W14

22.01.2007

Statement of dispute raised under

2K before the Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner, Chennai on the

dismissal of 23 employees with list

of employees

Ex.W15

25.01.2007

Letter of the resignation of

Anbumani, Member of the Union

to the Petitioner Union

Ex.W16

19.06.2007

Letter from the Govt. of India

under RTI Act, to the Petitioner

Union furnishing list of workers

of Management

Ex.W17

14.10.2007

Cancellation of the contract

agreement between the 1st and

2nd Respondent

Ex.W18

15.10.2007

Contract agreement by the 1st

Respondent with the 3rd

Respondent

Ex.W19

24.10.2007

Reply of the management to the

Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(Central)

Ex.W20

10/2007

Suit filed by the 3rd Respondent

in Os No. 428 of 2007 before the

District Munsif, Attur

Ex.W21

06.11.2007

Affidavit and injunction petition

filed by the 3rd Respondent in IA

No. 1414 of 2007 in OS No. 428 of

2007 before the District Munsif,

Attur

Ex.W22

12.01.2008

Representation of the Union to the

Secretary to Govt. of India,

Labour Department, New Delhi

Ex.W23

25.02.2008

Industrial Dispute raised under

Section-2K of the ID Act,1947 by

the petitioner before the ACL,

Chennai against dismissal of 22

workers

Ex.W24

10.3.2008

Counter filed by the 1st

Respondnet before the ACL,

Chennai, Chennai-6

Ex.W25

05.06.2008

Failure report on conciliation

Ex.W26

15.09.2008

Contract agreement between the

1st and 3rd Respondent

Ex.W27

15.10.2008

Letter of Govt. of India to the

Petitioner Union declining to refer

for adjudication

Ex.W28

27.02.2009

Letter from the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour referring the

issue of dispute to Tribunal

Ex.W29

05.08.2011

Order passed in WP No. 7894 of

2009

Ex.W30

30.11.2011

Order passed in WA No. 2235 of

2011.

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

08.03.1988

Lease for quarrying was granted

by District Collector for a period

of 5 years (Ex. M1)

Ex.M2

02.02.1994

Lease was granted by Govt.

authorities for a period of 10 years

(Ex. M2)

Ex.M3

15.04.2004

Lease was granted by the

authorities for a period of 20 years

(Ex. M3)

Ex.M4

01.10.2006

Notice of closure was issued by

the 1st Respondent (Ex. M4)

Ex.M5

02.04.2012

Central Sales Tax Registration

Certificate was surrendered by the

First Respondent

Ex.M6

31.08.2012

Closure intimation was duly given

to the respective authorities of the

Govt. by the 1st Respondent

Ex.M7

29.11.2013

Photographs taken in the

quarrying site

Ex.M8

Wage Register from May, 2004 to

March 2005

Ex.M9

Attendance Register from April,

2005 to April ,2006

Ex.M10

Attendance Register from May,

2006 to Oct., 2006

Ex.M11

Attendance Register May, 2004 to

March, 2005

Ex.M12

Wages Register from April, 2005

to April, 2006

Ex.M13

Wages Register from May, 2006

to October, 2006

4256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1594-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Mkyfe;k

baVjus'kuy 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;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

18@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@62@99&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2000)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s Dalmia International and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12/5/2014.

[No. L-29011/62/99-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 17th January, 2014

PRESENT : SHRI S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 18/2000

I Party

Shri A R M Ismail,

General Secretary,

Bellary Dist. Mining & Mineral Transport Workers Union,

No. 368, III Cross, Ramanjineyanagar,

BELLARY – 583 104.

II Party

M/s. Dalmia International,

Iron Ore Division,

Post Box No. 63, N C Colony,

HOSPET – 583 203.

Appearances :

I Party

: Shri Muralidhara, Advocate

II Party

: Shri B C Prabhakar/KGN Prasad,

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government on submission of Failure

of Conciliation Report by ALC(C), Bellary on the dispute

raised by Sh. A R M Ismail, President, Bellary District

Mining and Mineral Transport Workers Union in

connection with refusal of work to the contract workers

by the Management Bharatnarayanana Haravu Iron Ore

Mines of M/s. Dalmia International, Hospet vide order

No. L-29011/62/99-IR(M) dated 24.01.2000 made this

reference for adjudication with following schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Dalmia International, in terminating the contract

in respect of 5 contractors w.e.f. 12-8-1998/16-8-1998

is justified? If not, to what relief the contract

workmen/ contractors are entitled?”

On receipt of the reference while registering it in

CR 18/2000 when notices were issued to Sh. ARM Ismail,

General Secretary, Bellary Dist. Mining & Mineral

Transport workers Union, No. 369, III Cross,

Ramanjineyanagar, Bellary – 583 104 (hereinafter referred

as I Party) and to M/s. Dalmia International Iron Ore

Division, Post Box No. 63, N C Colony, Hospet – 583 203

(herein after referred as II Party) they entered their

appearance through their respective advocates and I Party

filed his claim statement on 11.08.2004, whereas, the

counter statement of the II Party under the signature of H

Sathyanarayana, Officer in charge came to be filed on

31.01.2005.

The I Party in his claim statement asserts that the

Bellary Dist. Mining & Mineral Transport workers Union

is a trade union registered in the year 1995 under the Trade

Unions Act, 1926 dedicated to the upliftment of workers

employed directly or in the guise of contract labour in

various mining establishments in the district of Bellary

and the II Party being a mining establishment engaged in

the mining and sales of Iron Ore had employed 100

workmen and another 100 workmen in the guise of Contract

Labour under five labour contractors who did not possess

valid licences from the competent authority under the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and the

so called contract labours had been working for nearly 30

years in the II Party mines carrying on the work of breaking,

sizing and stacking Iron Ore which is the perennial work

who have been issued with identity cards, medical cards

by the Mines Manager of the II Party and their work used

to be supervised by the management as such they were all

in reality the workmen of the II Party and the five

contractors were sham. Therefore, the I Party Union

immediately after its formation when took up the issue of

those workers in the guise of contract workers to get the

social and economic justice same was not being liked by

the II Party/management conflict between the parties

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4257

developed which ultimately strained the industrial

relations. In the meanwhile the Hon’ble Supreme Court

since injuncted mining activities carried out in Forest limits

the II Party/management declared lay-off in respect of the

entire work force during 1997 and during this period the

workmen joined the I Party Union and the management

annoyed of the same discontinued the payment of lay-off

compensation to the workmen and later the case before

the Supreme Court when resolved II Party Management

resumed mining operations from 13.04.1998 allowing only

some technical staff to resume work and subsequently

other permanent workers and even the so-called contract

labours and immediately after resumption of the operations

since some skirmishes took place between the management

and the so called contract labours because of insulting

and obnoxious behaviour of management functionaries

towards the female workers, the management placed some

23 workmen under suspension without any justification

which led to serious industrial relations problems as a

result the workmen constrained to go on strike from

22.04.1998. It is further alleged as the workmen used to

assemble at the foot of the hill which was far away from

the mining operations at the top of the hill, the II Party

Management obtained injunction from the Civil Court

restraining the workmen from conducting agitations etc.

near the mining and office premises and also filed criminal

cases against the office bearers and active members of the

Union and resorted to various kinds of unfair labour

practices to coerce and intimidate workmen to give up

their membership of the I Party Union and issued charge

sheet on false and baseless allegations to several office

bearers and activists of I party Union, initiated enquiry

and dismissed them from service. It is further alleged the

Central Government by order dated 09.03.1999 prohibited

continuance of strike by the workmen which reached the

hands of the I Party workman on 22.03.1999 and pursuant

to the said order the workman called off strike and went to

report for work but the so-called contract workers were

not admitted to report for duty on the ground that the

management had terminated the contract of the labour

contractors during the period of strike and that their

service were no more required. Then the I Party Union

raised the dispute before ALC(C), Bellary and as he

submitted Failure of Conciliation dated 12.11.1999 this

reference being made. With these averments it is

requested to pass an Award holding that the II Party was

not justified in terminating the five contractors w.e.f.

12.08.1998/16.08.1998 so as to bring an end to the services

of the workers of the contract labour who were in reality

the workers of the II Party and that they are entitle to the

benefits of reinstatement w.e.f. 25.03.1999, continuity of

service, full backwages and other consequential benefits.

Interalia, the II Party in its counter statement

contended that it being a Public Limited Company

Registered under the Company Act with its Head Office at

Dalmiyapuram, Tiruchy, Tamilnadu having the lease over

an area of 819 acres since 1953 at Hospet which is known

as BRH Mines was mining Iron Ore and transporting it by

engaging about 105 workmen which include Office Staff,

Drillers, Blasters, Heavy Equipment Operators, Dumper

Driver etc., and had engaged five contractors viz., Sh. A. S.

Dharmalinga, Sh. B. Arumugham, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Smt.

Hanumakka and Sh. A Krishna for the work of sorting,

sizing and stacking the Iron Ore who had valid licence

under the Act and they had engaged in all 95 labourers

paying wages to attend the said work and that those

contract labourers were being covered under PF, the

contractors were remitting the contributions and

supervising their work as such the dispute espoused by

the I Party in respect of those contract labours is not

maintainable there being no relationship of Employee and

Employer between those contract labourers and the II

Party, the reference itself is bad. It is further contended

the five contractors named above used to submit their

bills every week in respect of contract works carried out

by them and the II Party was making payment to the

contractors on volume or weight basis and never on the

basis of the labour engaged. It is further contended that

the workmen of the II Party numbering about 105 including

clerical staff organizing themselves had formed the Union

under the name and Style of Iron Ore Workers Union and

Registered the same in the year 1975 and the same was

being recognized by it/management several settlements

were entered into with the said union extending several

benefits from time to time the last one being in the month

of January 1996 which was in operation till October, 1998,

whereas, the contract labourers numbering about 95

working under the above named five contractors had

organized and formed a separate union for themselves in

the name and style of “Dalmiya Employees Union” and

were negotiating with their employers i.e., the contractors

and entered into several Bipartite Settlement and Tripartite

Settlement before the ALC(C) and for the first time in the

year 1998 the I Party Union claimed some of its workmen

including contract labourers having joined it started its

illegal activities. It is further contended as per the order of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court it stopped all Mining Activities

from January, 1997 declaring lay-off and subsequently after

persuasion took temporary permission to work for about

six months from April, 1998 pending final decision and as

the mining activity was not carried out for several months

and it had to ensure safety by using excavators and bull

dozers it lifted lay off to extent of workers needed for the

said work from 13.04.1998 and after five days permitted all

its workmen including the contract labourers to resume

work from 18.04.1998 but abruptly on 21.04.1998 the

members of the I Party Union including the contract

labourers resorted to agitation without notice and blocked

and closed the main gate of the mines and also gheraoed

the officers, foremen and clerical staff blocking the entry

and exit road to mines created chaous under the leadership

4258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of Sh. ARM Ismail and came in the way of its mining

operation and from 22.04.1998 all the five contractors

unilaterally and without giving any notice stopped the

work entrusted to them and later refused to take any action

on their erring labourers and on the other hand stood

behind their labourers by encouraging in their illegal acts,

the dispute regarding justification of strike was referred

for adjudication to this court which was numbered in C R

14/1999 and in that matter excepting the issue relating to

subsistence allowance other issues involved were

amicably settled and a Joint Memo was filed according to

which the I Party Union gave up their claim for wages for

the strike period. It is further contended that the

contractors after stopping the work unilaterally without

giving any notice and refused to commence their contract

work even stopped coming to their Administrative Office

aiding and abetting their striking labourers, after waiting

for nearly four months left with no other alternative it

terminated their contracts on 12.08.1998/16.08.1998. Thus,

it is contended since the five contractors who had

undertaken the work of sorting, sizing and stacking the

Iron Ore due to the non co-operation and indulging in the

illegal strike by the labourers engaged by them whose

cause the I Party Union claims to be espousing having

abandoned their contract work and having regard to the

same it has terminated the contracts with them, if at all

those contractors have not given work to their labourers

or terminated their services in contravention of the

provisions of Section 25(f) of Industrial Dispute Act, they

have to proceed against them and that the II Party is in no

way responsible for the same. Thus, the II Party pray for

rejection of the reference.

After completion of the pleadings, when the matter

was posted for evidence the learned advocate appearing

for the II Party while filing the affidavit of Sh. P. M.

Balasubramanian the General Manager reiterating the

contents of Counter Statement and Sh. H. Sathyanarayana,

Officer in Charge under whose signature the counter

statement is filed examining them on oath as MW 1 and

MW 2 respectively in the evidence of MW 1 got exhibited

Ex M-1 to Ex M-114 and in the evidence of MW 2 Ex M-115

to Ex M-118 the detailed description of which are narrated

in the annexure. Interalia, the learned advocate appearing

for the I Party while filing the affidavits of Sh. Savarimuthy

N C, Sh. Joseph claims to be workmen under the guise of

the labour contract and of Sh. ARM Ismail, President of

the I Party Union examined them on oath as WW 1, WW 2

and WW 3 respectively and in the evidence of WW 1 got

exhibited Ex W-1 to Ex W-6 series, Ex W-7 and in the

evidence of WW-3 Ex W-8 to Ex W-13 the detailed

description of which are narrated in the annexure.

After close of the evidence and hearing of the

arguments in part the learned advocate appearing for the

I Party filed a Memo to the effect that in view of the closure

of the operations of the mines w.e.f. 01.08.2000 the relief

sought for by the I Party Union in respect of the labours

worked under the guise of contract labours being restricted

to payment of closure compensation under Section 25 (f)

of the ID Act . To this memo the learned advocate

appearing for the II Party filed his reply stating that for the

detailed reasons stated in the counter statement the

contracts with five contractors engaged for sorting, sizing

and stacking the Iron Ore under whom the workmen for

whose cause the I Party has raised dispute being

terminated in the year 1998 itself i.e. on 12.08.1998/

16.08.1998 in respect of them while closure of the operations

of the mines w.e.f. 01.08.2000 there was no obligation for

the II Party to pay closure compensation to them as

provided under Section 25(f) of the ID Act.

With the above pleadings, evidence and Memo filed

by the I Party counsel the arguments addressed by the

learned advocates appearing for both sides were heard.

Since the reference schedule is as to whether the

action of the management of M/s. Dalmia International, in

terminating the contract in respect of 5 contractors w.e.f.

12.08.1998/16.08.1998 is justified, the pleadings, evidence

adduced by the I Party and the arguments addressed by

the learned advocate for the I Party that the Contractors

where Sham and that the labourers for whose cause the I

Party has raised this dispute were actually the employees/

workmen under the II Party is outside the scope of this

reference and I may say this is a futile exercise on the part

of the I Party. It appears in this connection after completion

of the pleadings and the examination-in-chief of WW 1 on

my learned predecessor expressing his opinion that there

is no scope to consider the five contractors were Sham,

the learned advocate appearing for the I Party came up

with an application on 05.07.2006 under Section 11 of the

ID Act to get corrigendum to the Order of Reference in the

place of the present schedule as to “Whether the Second

Party/Management is justified in refusing work to the

contract labourers engaged by the five contractors w.e.f.

12.08.1998/16.08.1998 and if not, what relief the Contract

workmen/Contractors are entitled?” my learned

predecessor having regard to the objection filed to the

said application after hearing the arguments addressed

by the learned advocates for both sides passed a detailed

order dismissing the said application giving reasons as to

why this tribunal cannot ask the ministry to issue such a

corrigendum by order dated 19.02.2007 and forwarded the

copy of the said order to the Central Government by way

of reminder to the two representation allegedly made by

the I Party Union dated 10.04.2004 and 13.09.2002 but the

Central Government since did not issue any corrigendum

or gave any reply the schedule to the reference remained

as it is as to “whether the action of the management of

M/s. Dalmia International, in terminating the contract in

respect of 5 contractors w.e.f. 12.08.1998/16.08.1998 is

justified? If not, to what relief the contract workmen/

contractors are entitled?” the only point that arises for my

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4259

consideration is “Whether the II Party is justified in

terminating the contract in respect of the five contractors

w.e.f. 12.08.1998/16.08.1998 and if not to what relief the

contract workmen are entitled to?” .

The II Party which has pleaded/contended in its

counter statement that it had entrusted the work of sizing,

sorting and stacking the blasted Iron ore to five contractors

viz., Sh. A. S. Dharmalinga, Sh. B. Arumugham, Sh. Suresh

Kumar, Smt. Hanumakka and Sh. A. Krishna were making

payments to them on volume or weight basis and never

on the basis of the labour engaged by them and they in

turn used to make payment to the labourers engaged by

them for the said work besides swearing to the same by

the General Manager produced the documentary evidence

like Bills submitted by the contractors Ex M-115, 116, 117

and 118 series and extract of B Registers maintained by

the said contractors regarding distribution/payment of

wages to the labourers employed by them at Ex M-70 to Ex

M-78. Further in support of their contention that the

workers engaged by them when indulged in the illegal

strike and they could not convince them to work and on

the other hand stood support for them and abandoned

their contract unilaterally and refused to take any action

against their erring labourers left with no alternative they

terminated their contracts on 12.08.1998/16.08.1998 besides

swearing to the said fact by the General Manager they

have produced the termination letters issued to them at Ex

M-110 to Ex M-114 which suggest that they terminated

the contract with A. S. Dharmalingam, A. D. Suresh Kumar,

Smt. Hanumakka we.f. 12.08.1998 and of Sh. Arugmugam

and A. Krishna w.e.f. 16.08.1998 wherein they have

incorporated the same reasons for terminating their

contracts. These contractors having not raised any voice

or dispute against termination of their contracts it has to

be presumed that they have accepted it. When the

contractors engaged for the work of Sizing, Sorting and

stacking the blasted iron ore did not take any action against

the labourers engaged by them for the said work when

they indulged in illegal strike and on the other hand

indirectly supported them, there was no other go for the II

Party/management to terminate their contracts as done in

the present case. Therefore, absolutely I find no error being

committed by the II Party in terminating the contracts of

five contractors under whom the labourers for whose cause

the I Party Union has raised this dispute. As already

adverted to by me above the I Party without making any

pleading as to how the termination of those contractors is

not justified went on to plead and lead evidence the said

contractors were sham and the labourers engaged for the

work of sizing, sorting and stacking were direct labourers

under the II Party itself for which there is no scope as

already adverted to by me having regard to the schedule

of the reference. Therefore, the I Party failed to rebut the

evidence adduced by the II Party justifying their action of

terminating the five contractors engaged by them for the

work of sizing, sorting and stacking the blasted Iron Ore.

When these labourers were working under five contractors

and were paid wages by them if at all after their contracts

with II Party were terminated they failed to provide them

work or terminated their services without compliance of

the mandatory provisions of Section 25(f) of the act their

remedy in that regard is against the contractors and not

against the II Party which may be a Principle Employer

when they were working or engaged in their Mines. Since

the evidence on record suggest the II Party had terminated

the contractors w.e.f. 12.08.1998/16.08.1998 admittedly the

operation of the Mines by the II Party came to be closed

w.e.f. 01.08.2000 as on that date the contract labourers

were not working in the mines of the II Party as such there

was no obligation on their part to pay or see to pay the

compensation required to be paid as contemplated under

Section 25(f) of ID act as such even as requested for in the

Memo filed by their counsel on 14.02.2011 there cannot be

any direction to the II Party to pay them closure

compensation under Section 25(f) of the ID Act to these

contractors labours. In the upshot of the above, I arrived

at conclusion that the management of M/s. Dalmia

International is justified in terminating the contract in

respect of five contractors engaged by it for the purpose

of sizing, sorting and stacking the blasted iron ore w.e.f.

12.08.1998/16.08.1998 and that the labourers engaged by

them are not entitle for any relief from the management of

M/s. Dalmia International. In the result, I pass the following :

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding that the action of

the management of M/s. Dalmia International, in

terminating the contract in respect of 5 contractors w.e.f.

12.08.1998/16.08.1998 is justified and that the workmen

engaged by those contractors are not entitle for any relief

from the management of M/s. Dalmia International.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 17th January, 2014)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE–I

Witnesses examined on behalf of Management:

MW 1 – Sh. P. M Balasubramanian, General Manage

MW 2 – Sh. H. Sathyanarayana, Officer-in-charge

Witnesses examined on behalf of Workman:

WW 1 – Sh. L. C. Savarimuthu

WW 2 – Sh. Joseph

WW 3 – ARM Ismail

Documents exhibited on behalf of the Management:

Ex. M-1

: Letter dated 31.05.1996 of ALC returning the

amended Certificate of Registration

4260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. M-2

: Registration Certificate bearing No. 7/71 dt.

20.9.1971 issued by ALC, Bellary to the Second

Party – Dalmia International, under Contract

Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970

Ex. M-3

: Letter dated 5.1.1998 issued to Smt.

Hanumakka by the Licensing Officer and the

Asst. Labour Commissioner, Renewing the

Licence upto 30.1.1999 and Licence

Ex. M-4

: Letter dated 5.1.1998 issued to A. S.

Dharmalingam by the Licensing Officer and

the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Renewing the

Licence upto 27.1.1999 and Licence

Ex. M-5

: Letter dated 12.3.1998 issued to Sri Suresh

Kumar by the Licensing Officer and the Asst.

Labour Commissioner, Renewing the Licence

upto 11.4.1999 and Licence

Ex. M-6

: Letter dated 12.3.1998 issued to B. Arumugam

by the Licensing Officer and the Asst. Labour

Commissioner, Renewing the Licence upto

8.4.1999 and Licence

Ex. M-7

: Letter dated 12.6.1997 issued to A. Krishna by

the Licensing Officer and the Asst. Labour

Commissioner, Renewing the Licence upto

10.7.1999 and Licence

Ex. M-8

: Police Complaint dated 22.04.1998 lodged by

the second party with the Circle Inspector of

Police, Sandur, regarding Gherao, detention

Ex. M-9

: FIR No. 657505 dated 22.04.1998

Ex. M-10 : Police Complaint dated 23.4.1998 lodged by

the Second Party with the Circle Inspector of

Police, Hospet regarding Apprehended

Violence

Ex. M-11 : Police Complaint dated 23.4.1998 lodged by

the Second Party with the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Gadiganoor seeking Police Protection

Ex. M-12 : Police Complaint dated 29.04.1998 lodged by

the second party with the Circle Inspector of

Police, Sandur complaining Blockade of way

at PKL

Ex. M-13 : Police Complaint dated 7.5.1998 lodged by the

Second Party with the Circle Inspector of

Police, Hospet regarding Blockade at Hospet

Office, N C Colony

Ex. M-14 : Police Compliant dated 17.5.1998 lodged by

the Second Party with the Circle Inspector of

Police, Hospet regarding Illegal Blockade at

Hospet Office and Locking up of the Premises

of the Second party

Ex. M-15 : Police Complaint dated 19.5.1998 lodged by

the second party with the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Inspector of Police, Gadiganur,

regarding threatening the workers not to allow

the Mines for work

Ex. M-16 : FIR No. 0423413

Ex. M-17 : Police Complaint dated 19.5.1998 lodged with

Police Sub Inspector, Gadiganur and FIR

Ex. M-18 : Police Complaint dated 2/11-5-1998 lodged by

the Second Party with the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Gadiganur, regarding blockade at PKL

Village near Ganesh Temple Premises

Ex. M-19 : FIR No. 653244 dated 11.6.1998

Ex. M-20 : Police Complaint dated 4.7.1998 lodged by the

second party with the Circle Inspector of

Police, Hospet regarding Picketing at Hospet

Office of the Second Party by the first party

union from 6.7.98

Ex. M-21 : Copy of the letter dated 1.7.1998 issued by

the first party union to the second party,

regarding picketing of Office of the Second

Party

Ex. M-22 : Police Complaint dated 17.7.1998 lodged by

the second party with the Superintendent of

Police, Bellary, regarding Blockade at PKL by

the Secretary of AITUC at PKL

Ex. M-23 : Police Complaint dated 17.7.1998 lodged by

the second party with the Circle Inspector of

Police, Sandur regarding continued blockade

at PKL by supported of Sri Md. Ismail said to

be the Secretary of AITUC, a copy of Dy.

Commissioner and Dist. Magistrate, Bellary;

Superintending of Police, Bellary, Sub-

Inspector of Police Gandiganur and Sandur

Ex. M-24 : Police Complaint dated 14.1.1999 lodged by

the second party with the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Gadiganur, regarding obstruction at the

road leading to the Mines at PKL near Temple

premises

Ex. M-25 : Police Complaint dated 26.2.1999 lodged by

the second party with the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Hosept regarding strike

Ex. M-26 : Police Complaint dated 19.6.1999 lodged by

the second party with the Deputy

Superintending of Police, Hospet regarding

gherao at Hospet Office Premises by Sri Md.

Ismail from 21.6.1999

Ex. M-27 : Police Complaint dated 19.6.1999 lodged by

the Second Party with the Circle Inspector of

Police, Hospet, regarding gherao at Hospet

Office Premises by Sri Md. Ismail from

21.6.1999

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4261

Ex. M-28 : Police Complaint dated 19.6.1999 lodged by

the Second Party with the Superintendent of

Police, Bellary, regarding gherao at Hospet

Office Premises by Sri Md. Ismail from

21.6.1999

Ex. M-29 : Police Complaint dated 9.12.1999 lodged by

the second party with the Circle Inspector of

Police, Sandur, regarding illegal and atrocious

blockade by a Section of workmen residing

the quarters of the second party

Ex. M-30 : Police Complaint dated 8.9.2000 lodged by the

second party with the Superintendent of

Police, Bellary regarding totally unjustified

agitation by Shri A R Ismail of Bellary District

Mines & Minerals Transport Workers Union,

etc.

Ex. M-31 : The Appeal made by the management on

4.5.1998

Ex. M-32 : The Appeal made by the Personnel Officer of

the second party management on 11.5.1998

Ex. M-33 : The Appeal made by the Personnel Officer of

the Second Party Management on 15.5.1998

Ex. M-34 : The Appeal made by the Mines Manager of

the Second Party Management on 11.6.1998

Ex. M-35 : The Appeal made by the Mines Manager of

the second party management on 14.6.1998

Ex. M-36 : The Appeal made by the Mines Manager of

the Second Party management on 18.6.1998

Ex. M-37 : Warning to all workers issued by the

Personnel Officer of the Second Party

Management on 13.7.1998

Ex. M-38 : Report made by the Second Party on 4.5.1998

to the Asst. Commissioner, Hospet, regarding

Labour Problem created by Sri Md. Ismail,

General Secretary, AITUC

Ex. M-39 : Report made by the second party on 10.5.1998

to the Taluk Magistrate & Tahsildar, Hospet,

regarding illegal blockage and locking up of

office of the second party

Ex. M-40 : Report made by the second party on 15.5.1998

to the Taluk Magistrate & Tahsildar, Hospet,

regarding illegal strike, Gherao, etc.

Ex. M-41 : Report made by the second party on 28.8.1998

to the Taluk Magistrate & Tahsildar, Hospet,

regarding anticipated danger to life and

property of the Second Party

Ex. M-42 : Report made by the Iron Ore Workers’ Union

dated 11.6.1998, to the Regional Labour

Commissioner (C), Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, Bangalore, regarding the

co-operation extended by the management to

the workers and also about the illegal and

unlawful activities of the members of the first

party Union

Ex. M-43 : Charge sheet dated 24.4.1998, 18.5.1998 and

20.6.1998 issued to Sri Rajendra Pillai (3

Charge Sheets)

Ex. M-44 : Charge Sheet dated 24.4.1998, 18.5.1998 and

20.6.1998 issued to Sri M Nagaraj (3 Charge

Sheets)

Ex. M-45 : Charge Sheet dated 18.5.1998 issued to Sri M

Basha

Ex. M-46 : Charge Sheet dated 24.4.1998, 18.5.1998 and

20.6.1998 issued to Sri Mossa Khan(3 Charge

Sheets)

Ex. M-47 : Charge Sheet dated 24.4.1998, 18.5.1998 and

20.6.1998 issued to Sri Shivan Kutti(3 Charge

Sheets)

Ex. M-48 : Charge Sheet dated 20.6.1998 issued to Sri H

G Shivamurthy

Ex. M-49 : Charge Sheet dated 24.4.1998 and 18.5.1998

issued to Sri Md. Ismail (2 Charge Sheets)

Ex. M-50 : Charge Sheet dated 20.6.1998 issued to Sri

Dakshinamurthy

Ex. M-51 : Charge Sheet dated 18.5.1998 and 20.6.1998

issued to Sri A Sattar (2 Charge Sheets)

Ex. M-52 : Charge Sheet dated 24.4.1998, 18.5.1998 and

20.6.1998 issued to Sri Jaffer Sadiq (3 Charge

Sheets)

Ex. M-53 : Charge Sheet dated 24.4.1998, 18.5.1998 and

20.6.1998 issued to Sri M Ganesh (3 Charge

Sheets)

Ex. M-54 : Charge Sheet dated 24.4.1998, 18.5.1998 and

20.6.1998 issued to Sri M Simpson (3 Charge

Sheets)

Ex. M-55 : Charge Sheet dated 1.12.1998 & 27.2.1999

issued to Sri Masthan (3 Charge Sheets)

Ex. M-56 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to Sri

Rajendra Pillai

Ex. M-57 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to Sri

M Nagaraj

Ex. M-58 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to Sri

M Basha

Ex. M-59 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to Sri

Moosa Khan

Ex. M-60 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to Sri

Shivan Kutti

Ex. M-61 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to Sri H

G Shivamurthy

Ex. M-62 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to Sri

Md. Ismail

Ex. M-63 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to Sri

Dakshinamurthy

Ex. M-64 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to Sri A

Sattar

4262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. M-65 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to

Sri Jaffar Sadiq

Ex. M-66 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to

Sri M Ganesh

Ex. M-67 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to

Sri Simpson

Ex. M-68 : Dismissal Order dated 4.2.1999 issued to

Sri Masthan

Ex. M-69 : Press Notification issued by the second party

in “Indian Express” about the threat of murder

of GM by the Union Leader

Ex. M-70 : Certified copy of the Sample B Register

maintained

the

Contractor

–

Smt. Hanumakka

Ex. M-71 : Certified copy of the Sample B Register

maintained

the

Contractor

–

Sri Dharmalingam

Ex. M-72 : Certified copy of the Sample B Register

maintained by the Contractor – A D Suresh

Kumar

Ex. M-73 : Certified copy of the Sample B Register

maintained by the Contractor – B Arumugam

Ex. M-74 : Certified copy of the Sample B Register

maintained by the Contractor – A Krishna

Ex. M-75 : Certified copy of the Sample Register of Wages

maintained by the Contractor Smt. Hanumakka

Ex. M-76 : Certified copy of the Sample Register of Wages

maintained by the Contractor Sri A D Suresh

Kumar

Ex. M-77 : Certified copy of the Sample Register of Wages

maintained by the Contractor Sri B Arumugam

Ex. M-78 : Certified copy of the Sample Register of Wages

maintained by the Contractor Sri A Krishna

Ex. M-79 : Certified copies of the settlements dated

9.12.1989 and 15.9.1994

Ex. M-80 : Certified copy of the Sample Bill dated

6.12.1996 submitted by the Contractor

Smt. Hanumakka

Ex. M-81 : Certified copy of the Sample Bill dated

6.12.1996 submitted by the Contractor- Sri A.S.

Dharmalingam

Ex. M-82 : Certified copy of the Sample Bill dated

6.12.1996 submitted by the Contractor Sri A.D.

Suresh Kumar

Ex. M-83 : Certified copy of the Sample Bill dated

6.12.1996 submitted by the Contractor Sri D.

Arumugam

Ex. M-84 : Certified copy of the Sample Bill dated

6.12.1996 submitted by the Contractor Sri A.

Krishna

Ex. M-85 : Certified copy of one Sample Transfer of

amount dated 10.08.1996, to the Account of

the above all 5 contractors by the Canara Bank,

Hospet

Ex. M-86 : Certified copy of one such Office Order dated

31.03.1998 put up by the above 5 Contractors.

Announcing the change in VDA

Ex. M-87 : Certified copy of the Complaint lodged by the

Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), against

the Contractors Sri A. Krishna, B. Arumugam,

Dharmalingam and Hanumakka, filed before

the JMFC Court, Kudligi, and Summons

issued by the said Court and penalty remitted

by the Contractors after admitting the offence

and the Receipt in that regard

Ex. M-88 : The Form-XII Register maintained by the

Second Party

Ex. M-89 : Certified copy of the Sample Leave Register

maintained by the Contractor Smt. Hanumakka

for the year 1996 in Form – G

Ex. M-90 : Certified copy of the Sample Leave Register

maintained by the Contractor Sri A.S.

Dharmalingam for the year 1996 in Form – G

Ex. M-91 : Certified copy of the Sample Leave Register

maintained by the Contractor Sri A.D. Suresh

Kumar for the year 1996 in Form – G

Ex. M-92 : Certified copy of the Sample Leave Register

maintained by the Contractor Sri B. Arumugam,

for the year 1996 in Form – G

Ex. M-93 : Certified copy of the Sample Leave Register

maintained by the Contractor Sri A. Krishna

for the year 1996 in Form – G

Ex. M-94 : Copy of the Office Order dated 10.04.1998

Issued by the General Manager of the Second

Party regarding resuming of duty from Monday

the 13th April, 1998

Ex. M-95 : Xerox copy of the Certificate Issued by the

Medical Officer of the Second Party to Sri

Seetharama Rao, the Mines Manager of the

Second Party

Ex. M-96 : Certified copy of the Bonus Payment Register

in Form-C maintained by the Contractor – Smt.

Hanumakka for the period from 1.4.96 to 31.3.97

Ex. M-97 : Certified copy of the Bonus Payment Register

in Form-C maintained by the Contractor – Sri

A.D. Suresh Kumar, for the period from 1.4.96

to 31.3.1997

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4263

Ex. M-98 : Certified copy of the Bonus Payment Register

in Form-C maintained by the Contractor –

Sri B. Arumugam, for the period from 1.4.96 to

31.3.1997

Ex. M-99 : Certified copy of the Bonus Payment Register

in Form-C maintained by the Contractor –

Sri A. Krishna, for the period from 1.4.96 to

31.3.1997

Ex. M-100 : Notice of Closure dated 27.5.2000 along with

the enclosure issued by the Second Party

addressed to the Secretary to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi

Ex. M-101 : Xerox copy of the Concillation Notice No. 5098

dated 16.2.98, issued by the ALC, Ministry of

Labour, Bellary

Ex. M-102 : Xerox copy of the Report of Failure of

Conciliation dated 28.5.1998

Ex. M-103 : Certified copy of the Charge Sheet dated

24.4.1998 issued to Sri Rangappa, by the

Contractor Smt. Hanumakka

Ex. M-104 : Certified copy of the Charge Sheet dated

20.6.1998 issued to Sri Antony Selvaraj, by

the Contractor Smt. Hanumakka

Ex. M-105 : Certified copy of the Charge Sheet dated

24.4.1998 issued to Sri Ananda, by the

Contractor Sri A.S. Dharmalingam

Ex. M-106 : Certified copy of the Charge Sheet dated

20.6.1998 issued to Mrs. Narayanamma, by the

Contractor Sri A.S. Dharmalingam

Ex. M-107 : Certified copy of the Charge Sheet dated

20.6.1998 issued to Mr. L.C. Savari Muthu , by

the Contractor Sri A.S. Dharmalingam

Ex. M-108 : Certified copy of the Charge Sheet dated

18.5.1998 Issued to Mr. Raghavendra, by the

Contractor Sri B. Arumugam

Ex. M-109 : Certified copy of the Charge Sheet dated

20.6.1998 Issued to Smt. Palanlamma, by the

Contractor Sri B. Arumugam

Ex. M-110 : Termination Letter dated 12.8.1998 issued to

Sri A.S. Dharmalingam terminating the

Contract

Ex. M-111 : Termination Letter dated 12.8.1998 issued to

Sri A.D. Suresh Kumar terminating the

Contract

Ex. M-112 : Termination Letter dated 12.8.1998 issued to

Smt Hanumakka terminating the Contract

Ex. M-113 : Termination Letter dated 16.8.1998 issued to

Sri Arumugam terminating the Contract

Ex. M-114 : Termination Letter dated 16.8.1998 issued to

Sri A. Krishna terminating the Contract

Ex. M-115 series: 96 Bills produced by contractor

Sh. Argumugam for the month of April

1995, May 1995, October 1995 and

December 1995

Ex. M-116 series: 90 Bills produced by contractor

Sh. A Krishna for the month of April

1995, May 1995, October 1995 and

December 1995

Ex. M-117 series: 103 Bills produced by contractor

Smt. Hanumakka for the month of April

1995, May 1995, October 1995 and

December 1995

Ex. M-118 series: 89 Bills produced by contractor

Sh. A Krishna for the month of April

1995, May 1995, October 1995 and

December 1995

Documents exhibited on behalf of the I party:

Ex. W-1 series

60 Nos. of Identity Cards

Ex. W-2 series

19 Nos. of Wage Slips

Ex. W-3 series

P F Annual Statement 60 Nos.

Ex. W-4 series

21 Nos. of P F Family Pension Forms

Ex. W-5 series

Letter dated 12.7.1995 issued by II

Party to Medical Officer with Identity

Card

Ex. W-6 series

Particulars of workmen with Photo in

17 sheets

Ex. W-7

Authorisation letter dated 19.09.2007

issued to Sh. Savari Murthy to give

evidence

Ex. W-8

Petition dated 09.03.1999

Ex. W-9

Petition dated 05.04.1999

Ex. W-10

Reply dated 28.04.1999

Ex. W-11

Reply dated 06.07.1999

Ex. W-12

Letter dated 27.01.2000

Ex. W-13

Factual Report dated 12.11.1999.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1595-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eksjeqxkvks iksVZ

VªLV ds izcaèkr=ak 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;&II] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 55@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22&05&2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&36011@4@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

4264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014

S.O. 1595.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 55 of 2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Mormugao

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 22/05/2014.

[No. L-36011/4/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/55 OF 2008

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF MORMUGAO PORT TRUST

The Chairman

Mormugao Port Trust

Mormugao Harbour

Headland Sada

Goa-403 804.

AND

Their Workmmen

The General Secretary

Mormugao Port & Railway Workers Union

Main Administrative office Building

Mormugao Port Trust

Headland, Sada

Goa-403 804.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Mr. M. B. Anchan,

Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

: Mr. G. Vijaychandran,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 3rd February, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-36011/4/2008-IR (B-II),

dated 01.09.2008 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:

“Whether the action of the management of

Mormugao Port Trust, Goa in not granting a paid

holiday on 2/6/2007 on account of Election to Goa

Legislative Assembly for all the workmen irrespective

of the shift in which they are working under the

People’s Representation Act, 1951 is legal and

justified? To what relief the workmen are entitled

for?”

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second

party union filed its statement of claim at Ex-3. According

to the second party the Govt. of Goa vide its notification

declared the polling day dated 02/06/2007 as paid holiday

being polling day for the General Elections to the

Legislative Assembly for the State of Goa. However

surprisingly the management issued arbitrary Office Order

restricting the polling day holiday only limited to polling

time between 7 hrs to 19 hrs. The management relied on

the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of

Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions dated 26/08/1999.

Therefore the workers in the second and third shift on

that day were marked absent for not reporting their

respective duties.The Union has raised the dispute before

ALC (C) as matter could not be settled. The ALC submitted

failure report to the Ministry. The Ministry therefore has

sent the reference to this Tribunal. The union therefore

prays that the circular issued by the management be set

aside and quashed and the polling day i.e. 02/06/2007 be

declared as paid holiday and the workers who were marked

absent be paid their wages of 02/06/2007.

The first party management resisted the statement

of claim of the Union vide their written statement at Ex-8.

According to them the Goa Government vide its

notification dated 17/05/2007 had declared holiday on

02/06/2007 being polling day for the General Elections of

Goa Legislative Assembly. The said office order laid down

specific guidelines for the purpose of declaring general

holiday on 02/06/2007 which inter alia declared that the

holiday was applicable only to those employees working

for the first shift and employees scheduled to work for the

second shift were to report for duty by 7.00 p.m. after

exercising their franchise. No holiday was declared for

employees working in the third shift. The said guidelines

were based on the MO no.12/18/99-JCA dated 26/08/1999

issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,

Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel and

Training. The management denied that the office order

was arbitrary. They also denied that all the workmen in

second and third shift were also entitled for paid holiday

on 02/06/2007. According to them their action of marking

the workmen of second and third shift absent was just

and proper. Therefore they pray that the reference be

dismissed with cost.

Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4265

Sr. Issues

Findings

No.

Whether action of management

No.

in not granting paid holiday on

02.06.2007 on account of election

to Goa Legislative Assembly for

all workers including workers of

second and third shift is legal

and proper ?

What relief the workmen are

As per order

entitled to?

below.

What Order?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Issue No. 1

In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the first

party that the office order was issued on the basis of

circular issued by Election Commission of India dated

6/4/1999. By this circular the Election Commission has

clarified that a holiday may be declared only for the shift

during which a poll is to be taken. Therefore they

submitted that the office order was just and proper and

the workmen of second and third shift cannot claim paid

holiday on 02/06/2007 when poll of General Election to the

Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa had taken place.

As against this it was submitted on behalf of the

second party that the said circular of Election Commission

was challenged before Bombay High Court in Writ Petition

No.283 of 1999. The said order has been placed on record

at Ex-23. The Hon’ble High Court by its order dated

23/02/2004 while quashing the said circular observed that :

“In that view of the matter, we strike down para 4 of

the said circular and make Rule absolute in terms of

prayer clause (bb) of the petition by holding that

para 4 of the circular being contrary to Section 135 B

of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is

quashed and set aside.”

Section 135 B of the aforesaid Act makes it abundantly

clear that the Legislators intended the day of poll to mean

full 24 hours. In the circumstances it is clear that the

action and office order of the management of MPT was

not just and legal by which they have not granted paid

holiday on polling day i.e. on 02/06/2007 to the workmen

of second and third shift and marked them absent.

Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in the negative and

hold that the workmen of second and third shift were well

entitled to the paid holiday on 02/06/2007 being polling

day. Accordingly I allow the reference and proceed to

pass the following order:

ORDER

(i)

The reference is allowed with no order as to cost.

(ii)

The action of MPT Goa in not granting paid holiday

on polling day i.e. 02/06/2007 to the workers of

second and third shifts is hereby declared illegal

and unjust.

(iii)

The management is directed to release the pay of

02/06/2007 to the workmen of second and third shift

who were absent and the workers who have

attended the duty on that day be paid overtime wages

for the work they have performed.

Date : 03/02/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1596-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

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

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;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 282@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22&05&2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@54@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014

S.O. 1596.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 282/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh 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 22/05/2014.

[No. L-12011/54/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.282/2013

Registered on 19.8.2013

The General Secretary,

Central Bank of India Employees Union (NZ)

(Regd) 146, Golden Avenue,

Phase-1, Jalandhar.

.....Petitioner

Versus

The Zonal Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Sector 17,

Chandigarh.

.....Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Ex parte.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

4266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on-3.4.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12011/

54/2013 IR(B-II)) Dated 8.8.2013, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the demand of the General Secretary,

Central Bank of India Employees Union (N.Z) (Regd),

146, Golden Avenue, Phase-1, Jalandhar (Punjab)

against the Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh for imposing of

alleged illegal and severe punishment of bringing

down by two stages in the scale of pay for a period

of three years without cumulative effect to

Mrs. Suman Suri, CTO, is just, valid & legal? What

benefit the workman is entitled for and what

directions are necessary in the matter?”

Notice was given to the Employees-Union several

times. Notice was again issued through registered cover

for 5.3.2014 and none appeared on its behalf on that day

and it was proceeded against ex parte.

Since the Union has been proceeded against ex parte

and no statement of claim has been filed. Being so, the

reference is answered against the Union and workman is

not entitled to any benefit. Let hard and soft copy of the

award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1597-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk 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;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1337@2007) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22&05&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@89@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014

S.O.

1597.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1337/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 22/05/2014.

[No. L-12012/89/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No.1337/2007

Registered on 13.11.2007

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra

Colony, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

Sh. Sompal, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

Sh. Rampal, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

Sh. Chandpal, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

Sh. Ramesh, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

Sh. Keshpal, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

Smt. Sarla Devi, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

Sh. Suresh Kumar, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra

Colony, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

Sh. Ravinder Kumar, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra

Colony, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

10.

Sh. Krishan Kumar, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra

Colony, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

11.

Sh. Som Prakash, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra

Colony, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

12.

Smt. Kailasho Devi though Usha, R/o H.No.1566,

Dadu Majra Colony, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

13.

Smt. Sunita, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

14.

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra

Colony, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

15.

Smt. Soma Devi, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

16.

Smt. Binnu Devi, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

17.

Sh. Pappu, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

18.

Smt. Antari Devi, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra Colony,

Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

19.

Smt. Shamo Devi, R/o H.No.1566, Dadu Majra

Colony, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

.......Petitioners

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4267

Versus

Deputy General Manager,

Canara Bank, Circle Office,

Sector 34, Plot No.1, Chandigarh

......Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Ashok Sharma Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

AWARD

Passed on-25.4.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

89/2004 IR(B-II)) Dated 3.9.2004, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Zonal Manager, Canara

Bank, Chandigarh in not paying the scale of wages

as full time, Sub-staff considering the long services

of the 19 part-time Sweepers (as per list annexed)

who claim to be doing more work than the prescribed

norms of the bank is just and legal? If not, what

relief the said workmen are entitled to and from

date?”

Notice was given to all the workmen as find

mentioned in the list attached with the reference and they

submitted separate statement of claims except Kailasho

Devi as she was dead when the reference was made.

The workman in their separate statement of claims

pleaded that they are working on daily wage basis as part

time employees with the respondent management and they

attend the following work daily:-

(a)

Sweeping and cleaning the floors, Corridors,

staircase, staircase landings, passages etc. the area

in a ground the building and inside the compound.

(b)

Dusting of the computers and printers, almirahs,

sofas, tables, chairs, cabins and other furniture

items, vehicles, doors, shutters, windows, glasses

of windows, silver panel, telephones and its wires,

wooden cabins, partitions, counters, railings, ceiling

fans and table fans, tubes, bulbs, electrical fittings,

external walls, verandah, corridors (Gallery),

compound, sweeping DGM, AGM, DM rooms and

other rooms, safe room, strong room, record room,

stationery room, conference hall, board room (Hall),

seminar hall, HO rooms, Urinals, wash basing etc.

and other generator room, store room, sport grounds

(badminton) furniture item;

(c)

Cleaning of sanitary block, lavatory, the floors and

tiled portions of the wall and wash basins, dinning

space, dinning table and chairs, water storage,

vessels, tumblers etc. and any other item requiring

better attention than sweeping and dusting with

such cleaning materials as may be provided as many

times a day and at such intervals as may be required

by the concerned managers, to keep the same clean

and tidy and free from bad colours.

(d)

Watering the plants, gardening and grass cutting

and attending to garden etc. if any.

(e)

Bringing the water for water coolers, coolers and

storage of water as required. As and when

required brings Tea/Coffee or Cold Drink and also

dusting.

(f)

Rack and jail.

They have further given the area maintained by them

which is as follows:-

Name

Total Area

Rajesh

22134

Sompal

23716

Rampal

23586

Chandpal

24037

Ramesh

21097

Keshpal

20199

Sarla Devi

20336

Suresh Kumar

11226

Ravinder Kumar

11226

Krishan Kumar

13143

Som Prakash

15774

Kailasho Devi through Usha

20336

Sunita

13072

Sanjay Kumar

11871

Soma Devi

15320

Binnu Devi

11226

Pappu

11226

Antri

11226

Shamo Devi

15607

They were working 8 hours per day and 45 hours in

a week but they were given less wages and they claimed

wages equivalent to full scale PTE as per the Circular issued

by the respondent management along with interest.

Respondent bank filed written statement admitting

that the workmen were engaged as part time employees

for sweeping/cleaning the branch/premises, dusting tables

etc. as pleaded by the claimants. That the workmen were

engaged strictly as per the working hour norms and were

never paid less wages at any point of time. That the

workmen were paid wages according to the scale in which

they are fitted as per norms of the respondent bank. It is

further pleaded that only the carpet area is to be considered

for giving wages and the other items i.e. roof, side walls

etc. are not to be taken into account for this purpose.

Further objection that the reference is not maintainable as

it do not fall within the definition of ‘industrial dispute’

being not espoused by the Union or by a substantial

number of employees. Respondent management also

pleaded the carpet area of the various workmen as follow:-

4268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Name

Carpet Area

Rajesh

5765

Sompal

8028

Rampal

5077

Chandpal

6069

Ramesh

6081

Keshpal

9034

Sarla Devi

5897

Suresh Kumar

2000

Ravinder Kumar

2534

Krishan Kumar

8669

Som Prakash

8669

Sunita

1900

Sanjay Kumar

2000

Soma Devi

3081

Binnu Devi

12556

Pappu

1600

Antari Devi

3700

Shamo Devi

1600

Since Kailasho Devi workman was dead when the

reference was made and her LRs made an application to

bring them on record and the same was declined vide order

dated 7.10.2005.

Workman Ramesh and workman Soma Devi also died

during the pendency of the reference and their LRs were

brought on record vide order dated 16.12.2009 and

17.11.2011 respectively.

Parties led their evidence.

Chand Pal, Suresh Kumar, Ram Pal, Sompal, Kesh

Pal, Rajesh Kumar, some of the workmen, appeared in the

witness box and filed their respective affidavits reiterating

their case as set out in the claim petitions.

On the other hand respondent bank has examined

Sh. P.K. Kohli, a Manager, who filed his affidavit reiterating

the case as set out in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Ashok Sharma Advocate appearing

on behalf of the workmen and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel

on behalf of management.

It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel

for the workmen that all the workmen worked as part time

employees whose working hours were more than

prescribed in the circular of the bank and they were cleaning

more area than required; but were not paid the wages as

per norms laid by the bank to which they are entitled. He

has further submitted that the bank intentionally did not

produce the record to establish that how much time the

workmen spent in the bank and therefore it be presumed

that they were working for more hours than required as

per the circular of the bank and as such they are entitled to

regular wages.

On the other hand it was argued by Mr. Zakhmi that

the workmen have exaggerated the area maintained by

them and even included the dusting of tables, chairs,

glasses and almirah etc. which do not fall within the

definition of ‘carpet area’ and the workmen were performing

the duties as per the terms of the circular and were

accordingly paid the wages and since there is no merit in

their averments, the reference be dismissed.

I have considered the respective contentions.

It is not denied that all the workmen were part time

employees whose job was sweeping and cleaning the

floors etc. as mentioned above. The bank has issued a

circular prescribing the norms for appointment of part time

employees and their wages and for the sake of

convenience, it is reproduced as follow :—

Area-in-use

Staff strength

Wages of PTE

Working hours per week

1000 sft & below

——

On consolidated

More than 3 hours but

wages of Rs.740/-

less than 6 hours

1000 to 1500 sft

15 or more

On 1/3 scale wages

6 to 13 hours

1500 to 2000 sft

Less than 25

On 1/3 scale wages

6 to 13 hours

1500 to 2000 sft

25 or more

On 1/2 scale wages

More than 13 hours to 19 hours

2000 to 4000 sft

Less than 40

On 1/2 scale wages

More than 13 hours to 19 hours

2000 to 4000 sft

40 or more

On 3/4 scale wages

More than 19 hours to 29 hours

4000 to 6000 sft

Less than 55

On 3/4 scale wages

More than 19 hours to 29 hours

4000 to 6000 sft

55 or more

One PTE on 3/4 scale wages

and one PTE on 1/3 scale wages

Above 6000 sft

Less than 55

-do-

Above 6000 sft

55 or more

1 PTE on 3/4 scale wages and

one PTE on 1/2 scale wages.

10000 sft or more

55 or more

Two PTEs on 3/4 scale wages.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4269

The correctness of the circular is not disputed. Thus,

as per this circular, the wages were to be paid by taking

into account the area in use as well as the staff strength

and also the working hours put in by the workmen e.g. if

the area in use is 1500 to 2000 sq.ft. and the staff strength

is less than 25 and the working hours are 6 to 13 hours; the

wages admissible were 1/3 of the scale wages; and if the

area was same and the staff strength was 25 or more and

the working hours were more than 13 hours, the wages

were 1/2 of the scale wages. Thus while fixing the wages

the bank has to take into consideration the area in use,

staff strength as well as the working hours of the

employees.

The workmen have given the area in their respective

claim petitions as reproduced in the above chart. Except

the statements of the workmen, there is no other evidence

for its corroboration. The area claimed by the workmen

was not measured at any point of time. The workmen have

included certain items i.e. cleaning of tables, chairs,

glasses, notice board, computers etc. and the same cannot

be treated as ‘carpet area’. In the circular of the bank, only

the ‘area-in-use’ is mentioned meaning thereby the floor

area which was to be maintained and it automatically

includes the tables etc. placed on it. Therefore, it cannot

be said that the workmen were cleaning more area than

required under the above said circular.

The bank has not produced the record relating to

entry and exit from the bank but the same do not serve any

purpose as if a person remained sitting in the bank for few

hours more, the same do not mean that he was performing

any duty relating to his employment. Therefore it is not

conclusively proved on the file that the workmen were

attending more area than prescribed under the above said

circular and working for 8 hours a day as pleaded by them.

Therefore the area mentioned by the management is

to be taken as true and binding on it. As per the admission

of the management the case of Rajesh, Sompal, Rampal,

Chandpal, Ramesh, Kesh Pal, Sarla Devi, Krishan Kumar

and Binnu Devi falls within Clause (g) and (h) of the above

said circular as the ‘carpet area was 5765, 8028, 5077, 6069,

6081, 9031, 5897 and 12556 respectively and they are

entitled to ¾ of the scale wages whereas they were paid

less.

The case of Soma Devi falls within Clause (e) of the

circular as the area covered by her was 3081 and she is

entitled to 1/2 of the scale wages whereas she was paid

only 1/3 of the scale wages.

Though the area of Som Prakash was 8669 but he

was already paid wages as per Clause (g) of the circular.

The workmen Suresh Kumar, Ravinder Kumar,

Sunita, Sanjay Kumar, Pappu, Antari Devi and Shamo Devi

are already getting the scale wages as per the circular and

they are not entitled to any relief.

The contention of the learned counsel for the

management that these are individual disputes raised by

the workmen and their cause is not taken up by the Union

or a number of workmen and therefore the present dispute

do not fall within the definition of ‘Industrial Dispute Act’

as defined under Section 2(K) of the Act. Suffice to say

that there are 19 workmen who are agitating regarding

their wages and therefore it can be safely concluded that

the present dispute is a dispute between the employer

and the workmen and falls within the definition of

‘Industrial Disputes’.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the

management that some of the workmen have settled the

matter with the management and they have been regularized

and their reference be dismissed. It has been stated that

the employees has been retained as full time house-keeper-

cum-peon and some of the workmen had given undertaking

to withdraw the present reference. Even if it is taken that

they have given any such undertaking, the same is not

binding on this Court until and unless they themselves

come forward to withdraw the reference. This court is

bound to decide the reference on its merits and not on

account of any settlement affected between the parties

out of the Court, as much as no workmen has come forward

to admit the said undertaking.

In result, the reference relating to workman Rajesh,

Sompal, Rampal, Chand Pal, Ramesh, Kesh Pal, Sarla Devi,

Krishan Kumar, Binnu Devi is accepted and it is held that

they are entitled to 3/4 of the scale wages; whereas Soma

Devi is entitled to 1/2 of the scale wages and it is ordered

that the difference be paid to them within three months of

the publication of the award failing which they shall be

entitled to the interest @6 per cent on the amount payable

to them from today till realization. However the reference

relating to Som Prakash, Suresh Kumar, RavinderKumar,

Sunita, Sanjay Kumar, Papu, Antari, Shamo Devi and

Kailasho Devi stands dismissed and they are held not to

be entitled to any relief. The reference is answered

accordingly.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1598-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u 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[;k 09@2012) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22&05&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@80@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

4270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014

S.O.

1598.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

22/05/2014.

[No. L-12012/80/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 23rd April, 2014

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 9/2012

(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 Indian Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri S. Ayyappan

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank,

359 Dr. Nanjappa Road,

Coimbatore - 641018

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

: Sri J. Suresh,

Petitioner

Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Management

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/80/2011-IR(B-II)

dated 30.01.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Indian Bank, Coimbatore in imposing the

punishment of “BE DISMISSED WITHOUT

NOTICE” upon Sri S. Ayyappan, Clerk/Shroff of the

Indian Bank, Gudalur Branch vide Order dated

05.04.2010 is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 9/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner appeared through Authorized

Representative and the Respondent through its counsel

and filed their claim and counter statement respectively.

The petitioner filed rejoinder after the counter statement

was filed.

The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are

these:

The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent

Bank as Clerk in June 1984. While he was working at

Gudalur Branch, he was dismissed from service. The

dispute is raised challenging this dismissal. While the

petitioner was working at Gudalur Branch he was placed

under suspension by letter dated 10.11.2008. This was

followed by a Charge Memo setting out five charges

against the petitioner. It was alleged in the Charge Memo

that the petitioner had unauthorizedly accepted cash being

loan proceeds on behalf of multiple borrowers under Salary

Loan to Tea Estate Workers. Though the loan proceeds

should have been paid individually the petitioner is alleged

to have accepted the loan proceeds of many borrowers

collectively and handed over the same to outsiders for

disbursement to the borrowers. It is further alleged that

the petitioner had evinced undue interest in getting loan

sanctioned to the persons known to him personally. He is

also alleged to have carried out activities of the bank

beyond reasonable time of branch functioning. Thirdly it

is alleged that the petitioner had assisted and participated

in the commission of serious of irregularities by the Branch

Managers of the Bank. Although he was aware of the

nature and extent of the irregularities being perpetrated

by the Branch Managers he had failed in his duty by not

bringing it to the knowledge of higher authorities but

had partaken in the commission of irregularities by them.

Fourthly, it is alleged that on 27.03.2008 he had posted in

the system and also made payment of the withdrawal slip

presented across the counter by the Third Party for

Rs. 1.00 lakh relating to the account of one Gowriamma.

The payment was made without obtaining the

authorization of the Branch Manager on the withdrawal

slip and in the absence of the Pass Book. The identity of

the presenter of the withdrawal slip was not verified also.

Lastly, it is alleged that the petitioner had filled up NSC

loan documents of M.T. Gopalan, the Manager on

27.03.2008 and the Manager had availed loan of Rs. 18,750

and the petitioner had posted the transaction in the

system. These are all said to have been done without the

signature of Sri Gopalan. The petitioner is alleged to have

connived with Sri Gopalan the Branch Manager in

unauthorizedly availing the loan. The petitioner had

submitted a reply denying the charges levelled against

him. Not satisfied with this reply the Respondent ordered

departmental enquiry. On conclusion of the enquiry, the

Enquiry Officer filed a report exonerating the petitioner of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4271

all the charges made against him. However, the Disciplinary

Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer’s findings in

respect of Charges 1 and 3, though concurred with the

findings in respect of other charges. After considering the

comments given by the petitioner the Disciplinary Officer

imposed the punishment of dismissal without notice on

the petitioner by order dated 05.04.2010. The appeal filed

by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was

rejected. It is thereafter the petitioner had raised the

Industrial Dispute. The petitioner has not committed any

of the offences alleged against him. The Disciplinary

Authority has grossly erred in disagreeing with the Enquiry

Officer and in finding the petitioner guilty of charges 1

and 3 levelled against him and imposing the punishment.

An order may be passed setting aside the order of

punishment and reinstating the petitioner in service.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The Respondent has branches throughout the

country including at Gudalur and Devarshola in Nilgiri

District. The bank advances several loans including

personal loan which is normally granted to persons who

have regular source of income by way of salary. Advances

to borrowers under this category are made without any

security. The employers of the borrowers take

responsibility of deducting the loan instalments from the

salaries. The loan papers should be processed in the

branch premises and cash disbursement should be made

directly to the parties in the branch premises. Even if loan

papers are executed from the place of work of borrowers,

disbursement of cash would be done from the Bank

itself. The petitioner had been working in Gudalur branch

of the Respondent from December 2007. In the early part

of October 2008 some Trade Unions complained that

Gudalur branch of the Respondent was committing fraud

on the workmen of tea estates in Nilagiri District. An

investigation was ordered and it was revealed that proposal

for loans came through an intermediary who had nothing

to do either with the bank or with the workmen of the

estate. Due to lapses and connivance of the Officers and

Staff of the Gudalur Branch, a large amount of cash by

way of personal loans were disbursed with the documents

being processed away from the branch. Loan amounts

were disbursed, not directly to the borrowers but to

unauthorized persons claiming to be on behalf of the

borrowers. It was in this context, disciplinary action was

initiated against the petitioner. Apart from collective

payments unauthorizedly made to persons other than the

borrowers other specific instances of irregularities on the

part of the petitioner were pointed out in the investigation

report. Based on the investigation report, a charge sheet

was issued to the petitioner levelling five charges. A

departmental enquiry was conducted on the charges. The

Enquiry Officer found that the charges are not proved.

However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the

findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that charges 1

and 3 are proved. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

The petitioner has frilled a rejoinder in answer to the

counter statement filed by the Respondent. The allegations

made in the counter statement are denied by the rejoinder.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and documents marked as Ex.W1 to Ext.W20 and

Ex.M1 to Ex.M6. No oral evidence was adduced on the

side of the Respondent.

The points for consideration in the case are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent 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

The incident resulting in the dismissal of the

petitioner from service occurred while he was working as

Clerk in the Gudalur Branch of the Respondent Bank. The

petitioner had joined the service of the Bank in 1984 and

was posted at Devarshola Branch. He was later transferred

to Masinagudi and then to Gudalur branch. The

investigation by the Officers of the Circle Office,

Coimbatore regarding the affairs of Gudalur Branch was

done on the basis of the complaint made by certain Trade

Unions affiliated to All India Organizations that the

workmen of the estates in Nilagiri District were defrauded

by the Bank. It was alleged by them that the Gudalur Branch

of the Respondent Bank was seeking to recover loans

which were not received by workmen. On investigation it

was revealed that the proposal for loans for workers

emanated through intermediaries who had nothing to do

with the bank or estates workmen. The investigation officer

reported that owing to lapses or connivance of the Officers

or Staff of the branch, a large amount of cash by way of

personal loans were disbursed with documents processed

away from the branch and payment itself made not directly

to the borrowers but to unauthorized person claiming to

be on behalf of the borrowers. By 2008, more than Rs. 125

lakhs were outstanding as loan. It was on the basis of this

investigation report the petitioner was placed under

suspension, charge memo issued to him and departmental

enquiry conducted on the charges.

Five charges were levelled against the petitioner by

the charge memo issued to him. The Enquiry Officer found

that none of the charges against the petitioner are proved

and submitted a report to this effect. However, the

Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer

on his finding regarding charges 1 and 3. He agreed with

the Enquiry Officer in his findings regarding the other

charges and exonerated the petitioner of the other charges.

On the basis of his findings on charges 1 and 3, the

Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of

dismissal from service on the petitioner.

4272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

The petitioner having been exonerated of 3 out of 5

charges levelled against him by the Enquiry Officer as

well as the Disciplinary Authority, there is no necessity to

consider those charges against the petitioner. Only charges

1 and 3 on which the petitioner was found guilty need be

considered. The first charge against the petitioner is

reproduced below:

“You had unauthorizedly accepted cash being loan

proceeds on behalf of multiple borrowers under

salary loan to Tea Estate Workers.

The said loan proceeds should have been paid

individually / directly to the borrowers and within

the bank’s premises, which you failed to adhere to.

You had undertaken to accept the loan proceeds of

many borrowers collectively and to disburse the

same outside the bank’s premises. Besides, you

had also handed over such loan proceeds to

outsiders for disbursement to salary loan borrowers

of tea estates which is highly irregular”.

11.

The Enquiry Officer had examined the Officer who

conducted the first investigation, the then Manager of

the Bank, a Clerk of the Bank and also the Officer who was

working in the Vigilance Department and made further

investigation to substantiate the case. 20 documents were

also marked on the side of the Management.

12.

The Authorized Representative has pointed out that

the charge against the petitioner itself is very vague and

not specific. It has been pointed out by him that the details

of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner could

not be made out from the charge memo. On going through

the charge memo it could be seen that there is enough

justification for making such an attack by the Authorized

Representative. The First charge which is now under

consideration as well as other charges are too general in

nature consequently becoming very vague. The gist of

the first charge is that the petitioner has accepted cash

being loan proceeds on behalf of multiple borrowers under

salary loan to tea estate workers. The charge does not

state who are the alleged borrowers. It does not even state

the workers of which estate is referred to. In the first charge

itself there is a reference that the loan proceeds were

handed over to outsiders. It is not specified to which

outsider the proceeds were handed over. In this respect,

the Authorized Representative has referred to ANIL

GILURKER VS. BILASPUR RAIPUR SHETRA GRAMIN

BANK AND ANOTHER reported in 2012 2 LLJ 20. In this

the Apex Court has held that the charges levelled against

a delinquent employee should be specific, definite and

giving details of incident which formed the basis of charge

and any enquiry on vague charges is unsustainable. It

was a case where it was alleged that the employee had

sanctioned loans to a large number of brick manufacturing

units by committing irregularities but did not disburse the

entire loan amount to the borrowers and misappropriated

a portion of the loan. The present case is one in parimateria

with the case referred to above. The allegations made are

too vague in nature, without revealing the details.

13.

Even with the available charge was the Respondent

able to substantiate the case against the petitioner? The

Enquiry Officer has noticed that the documents arrayed

against the petitioner do not contain any specific instances

of his making cash payment outside the premises of the

Bank. He felt that the report of the Investigating Officer is

on the basis of hearsay information. He also noticed that

the Investigating Officer who was examined as MW1 did

not state that the petitioner is the one who made payments

on various dates. The Enquiry Officer refused to rely

upon the evidence of other witnesses also for the reason

that they have not stated anything specifically about the

petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the

Enquiry Officer and found that the MW1 who submitted

the investigation report had deposed in the enquiry that

consolidated cash payments have been made to persons

other than the concerned borrowers on different dates.

He also relied upon a letter written by MW2, the Manager

to find that the petitioner has received payments relating

to loan disbursements to the employees of Athikkannu

and Parry Agro Industries Estates and had taken cash

outside the bank to make payment directly to them. He

has relied upon the evidence of other witnesses also in

this respect. In his investigation report (MEX-5 in the

enquiry) MW1 has stated that for almost two years the

Gudalur Branch had entertained loan proposals only

through intermediaries. MW2 was the Branch Manager

during this period. One Shaju George Thomas, an account

holder of Gudalur Branch is said to have acted as

intermediary. It is stated in the report that in the normal

course the Branch Manager must have directed the

prospective borrowers to visit the branch for execution of

the loan documents and disbursements in accordance with

the stipulated conditions.

14.

On a perusal of the evidence available in the enquiry

proceedings it could be seen that there is no material at all

to make out a case against the petitioner. MW1 has

submitted two investigation reports, these are seen marked

as MEX-5 and MEX-13 in the investigation proceedings.

The second report MEX-13 is regarding charge No. 4 of

which the petitioner is already exonerated and is not

relevant now. In MEX-5 it is stated that Shaju Thomas and

his men, after receiving the forms, had obtained signatures

of the workers in blank forms. These are said to have been

done with the explicit knowledge and consent of MW2,

the Manager. In the investigation report it is stated that at

times the petitioner had carried cash outside the branch

informing that he would make direct payment to borrowers.

He has also stated in the report that out of Rs. 131.82 lakhs

disbursed as loan, only a meagre amount has reached the

hands of the workers. In the next sentence itself what he

has stated is that this meagre sum also was not received

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4273

by them from the Bank but from Shaju Thomas, and that

the Manager, the petitioner and Balasubramaniam, another

staff of the Bank might have appropriated the balance

amount. Except for the reference to the petitioner on two

occasions in the report the entire report is against the

Manager of the Bank. Even though it is stated that at

times the petitioner used to carry the cash outside the

branch, MW1 has not stated on what basis this conclusion

is made. Again, though he has stated that the Manager,

the petitioner and others might have misappropriated the

amount it is not based on any solid material. This also is

only an assumption made by him. There is no material by

way of document to support this assumption.

15.

From the evidence of the MW2, the Manager it could

be seen that the entire incident was the result of

mismanagement by him or was a case of misappropriation

by him either with the connivance of others or not.

According to him, though initially loan amounts were

disbursed to the workers directly, later the company in

which the borrowers were working had represented that

their work was getting affected because of this and wanted

the loan payments to be made without affecting their work.

So they asked him to make payment to Shaju Thomas.

According to him either Shaju Thomas or his employees

used to come to the branch and take the cash payment.

On some occasions cash was handed over to him by the

petitioner outside the branch also, he has stated. It is

pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that MW2 himself

was under suspension during the time and he was also

facing enquiry. It is pointed out that it is only natural that

MW2 tried to wash off his hands by putting the blame on

the petitioner.

16.

The case of MW2 that the petitioner used to make

payment outside the premises is not supported by MW3

who was working as Clerk of the Bank. According to

MW3, MW2 had told him that the estate workers will not

get leave to come to the Bank. According to him he had

made payment to the person indicated by the Branch

Manager. He has further stated that out of the bank staff,

he has made payment to the petitioner and the petitioner

used to receive cash from him and go to the Branch

Manager’s cabin. The petitioner had got himself examined

in the enquiry proceedings. According to him, MW2 had

told him that there was arrangement in connection with

the payment of loan to estate workers. The Manager had

compelled him to make payment to the agent. He had told

him that he had obtained permission from the Circle Office

for such payments. On such assertion from the Manager

he had handed over the cash to the Branch Manager

himself.

17.

One document that has been referred to by the

counsel for the Respondent is MEX-1 in the enquiry

proceedings. This is a letter written by one Kumar to

the Superintendent of Police of Ootacamandu. In this he

has introduced himself as a former employee of Shaju

Thomas. It is stated in this letter that Shaju Thomas used

to send him to collect cash from the petitioner and out of

the amount received he used to make payment as instructed

by Shaju Thomas and the balance amount would be paid

to Shaju Thomas himself or to his wife. The author of this

letter is not seen examined in the enquiry proceedings. He

was not even questioned by MW1. In this background

there is no question of relying upon this letter at all. The

statement made in this letter could not be used as evidence

against the petitioner.

18.

It is a case where poor estate workers were defrauded

and lakhs of rupees were misappropriated on the pretext

of loans to the workers toiling in the tea estates of Nilagiri

District. However, the very evidence given by MW2 would

show that he is almost entirely responsible for the

happenings in the Branch. It must have been either with

the connivance of the other staff of the bank or by him

alone. However, there is no acceptable material available

to show the involvement of the petitioner in the whole

incident. The finding arrived at by the Disciplinary

Authority is not based on any material. He has relied upon

hearsay information and surmises to come to the

conclusion that Charge No. 1 is proved against the

petitioner. I find that the Disciplinary Authority has erred

in disagreeing with the Enquiring Authority and in arriving

at such a conclusion.

19.

The Third Charge in the Articles of Charge served

on the petitioner is extracted below :

“You had assisted and also participated in the

commission of various serious irregularities by the

Branch Managers of the Branch. Although you were

aware of the nature and extent of the irregularities

being perpetrated by the Branch Managers at various

stages, you had failed in your duty by not bringing

to the knowledge of the higher authorities. Instead,

you also partook in the commission of the

irregularities by them”.

20.

While discussing Charge No. 1, I have already found

that there is no material to prove the involvement of the

petitioner in the irregularities alleged. There is no material

also to show that the petitioner assisted the Manager in

committing the irregularities. So there is no question of

this part of the charge becoming against the petitioner.

21.

The second limb of the Third Charge is to the effect

that the petitioner, though aware of the irregularities

committed by the Branch Managers at various stages

failed in his duty to bring it to the knowledge of the higher

authorities. The Enquiry Officer has stated that there is no

evidence either documentary or oral showing that the

petitioner failed to bring the irregularities, whatever they

are, to the notice of the authorities. On account of this, he

has found that this charge against the petitioner is not

proved. The Disciplinary Authority has relied upon the

evidence given by the petitioner himself to disagree with

4274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

this finding of the Enquiry Officer and enter a finding of

guilt on the petitioner. While the petitioner was examined,

the charge sheet was put to him with particular reference

to Charge No. 3 and he was asked what he has got to say

regarding this. The petitioner has stated in answer to this

that he has joined Gudalur Branch in September, 2006 and

has reported to the RBS Chief Manager during October

2006 itself. The Circle Office is also said to have been

informed through one Yogesh who is a staff of the branch

and was a Union Committee Member. According to the

petitioner, the Union General Secretary has spoken to the

Circle Head, Coimbatore regarding the happenings of

Gudalur Branch also. Once the petitioner himself has gone

to the Circle Office and had spoken to the General Manager

about this. He has spoken to the General Manager at

Coimbatore also. He has contacted him by phone and the

Manager had once contacted him to know what is

happening in the Branch. He had reported the matter to

the Vigilance Officer also over phone. Referring to the

above evidence given by the petitioner, the DA has come

to the conclusion that the petitioner was very much aware

of the irregularities taking place in the branch. In fact when

the evidence of the petitioner is taken into account, one

could not say that he was not aware of the happenings.

The Disciplinary Authority has stated that though the

petitioner had claimed that he had informed many of his

superior officers about the irregularities there is no

evidence for the same. It was on this basis it was found by

the Disciplinary Authority that Charge No. 3 is proved

against the petitioner.

22.

It has been pointed out by the Authorized

Representative of the petitioner that the petitioner who is

only a Clerk which is in the lower hierarchy of the bank

could not be expected to put it all in writing and inform the

higher officials in writing about the irregularities. He has

pointed out that there is sufficient corroboration in the

material furnished on the side of the Management itself to

probabalize the case of the petitioner that he might have

informed the higher authorities about the misdeeds of the

Manager. The Authorized Representative has referred

to the evidence given by MW3 in this respect. MW3

has claimed that he had told Yogesh, the one who is

referred to by the petitioner also, and Yogesh had informed

the Circle Office about the happenings. MW3 has further

stated that he had heard the petitioner speaking over phone

complaining that the Manager is compelling him to do

loan work only and not allowing him to do any other work.

MW3 is a witness examined by the Management itself and

there is no reason not to rely upon the version of MW3.

23.

The report submitted by MW4 after investigation

itself would show that the superior authorities have been

lethargic, probably under the assumption that all is well

with the branch. In all probability they might have been

under the impression that MW2, the Branch Manager is

the one who was able to canvass a lot of loans and he

could not have done anything irregular. MW4 has stated

in his report that the Assistant General Manager of one of

the Tea Estate whose workers were defrauded had alleged

certain irregularities by the branch regarding disbursement

of loans to the estate workers and had also informed that

they were cancelling the undertaking to deduct monthly

instalments from the salary of the estate workers. During

investigation, MW4 was told by the said Assistant General

Manager that in spite of his letter to the Circle Office the

same has not been acted upon. Thus it could be seen that

even though a complaint had gone to the Circle Office

from a very authoritative source it was disregarded. If this

is so, it is to be assumed that the information given by the

petitioner regarding the activities of the branch also were

ignored. Merely because no written information was given

by the petitioner to the superior authorities, it could not

be stated that he had not given any information. There is

no basis for the disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority

on the finding of the Enquiry Officer on Charge No. 3 also.

I find that the Charge No. 3 also is not proved against the

petitioner.

24.

The Disciplinary Authority has imposed the

punishment of dismissal without notice on the petitioner.

The petitioner has claimed reinstatement with back wages.

In view of my findings above, the petitioner is entitled to

be reinstated in service. However, considering the

circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant back

wages to the petitioner.

25.

In view of my discussion above, an award is passed

as follows:

The Respondent shall reinstate the petitioner in

service within a month.

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 23rd April, 2014).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/

: WW1, Sri S. Ayyappan

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

: None

Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

19.01.2008

Charge Sheet No. CO:CBE:VG :

513 : 2008-09 issued to Sri S.

Ayyappan

Ex.W2

23.02.2009

Reply to the Charge Sheet

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4275

Ex.W3

06.06.2009

Letter from defence representative

J. Suresh to the Disciplinary

Authority

Ex.W4

11.07.2009

Reply by Asstt. General Manager/

Disciplinary Authority ref. no.

CO:CBE:VG:155:2009-10

Ex.W5

10.06.2009

10.08.2009

Proceedings of the departmental

11.08.2009

enquiry against Sri S.Aiyappan

Ex.W6

30.05.2009

List of Management exhibits

alongwith copies of management

exhibits and defense exhibit

Ex.W7

24.08.2009

Written brief of Presenting Officer

Ex.W8

29.09.2009

Defence summing up by the

Officer representative alongwith

enclosure

Ex.W9

20.10.2009

Findings of the Enquiry Officer

Ex.W10

15.12.2009

Letter from Assistant General

Manager/Disciplinary Authority

CO:CBE:VG:390:2009-10

disagreeing with the findings of

the Enquiry Officer

Ex.W11

25.01.2010

Comments on Enquiry Officer’s

findings and on disagreement by

AGM/Disciplinary Authority

Ex.W12

15.03.2010

Second show cause notice issued

by AGM/Disciplinary Authority

CO:CBE:VG:529:2009-10

Ex.W13

25.03.2010

Reply to the Second Show Cause

Notice

Ex.W14

05.04.2010

Speaking orders of Assistant

General Manager/Disciplinary

Authority,

Circle

Office,

Coimbatore

Ex.W15

13.05.2010

Appeal submitted by Sri S.

Aiyappan to Deputy General

Manager/Appellate Authority

Ex.W16

22.09.2010

Orders of the Deputy General

Manager/Appellate Authority

Ex.W17

27.10.2010

Petition under 2(A) of ID Act

Ex.W18

30.11.2010

Counter submitted by the

management for the ID

Ex.W19

03.02.2011

Rejoinder to the counter

submitted by Sri S. Aiyappan

Ex.W20

22.03.2011

Comments on rejoinder submitted

by Assistant General Manager,

Zonal Office, Coimbatore

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

12.06.2009

Reply from Vigilance Department/

Circle Office, Coimbatore

addressed to Mr. Suresh – DA to

Mr. S. Aiyappan

Ex.M2

20.07.2009

Letter from Ramabathran, Enquiry

Officer, to S. Aiyappan informing

that the enquiry will resume on

10.08.2009 and advising him to

attend the enquiry

Ex.M3

27.03.2010

Proceedings of personal hearing

in respect of charge sheet dated

19.01.2009 before Disciplinary

Authority – regarding Aiyappan

Ex.M4

Manual on rules of the

Respondent Bank in respect of

loan to salaried class customers

(ADV/12/2000-2001

dated

24.04.2000)

Ex.M5

12.04.2002

Manual on Rules in respect of

Clean Loan to Salaried Class

Customers Revised Scheme

(ADV/008/2002-03

dated

12.04.2002)

Ex.M6

05.04.2005

Manual on lift of cash from

customers premises – (Genl./02/

2005-06 dated 05.04.2005)

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1599-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯gnqLrku

isVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] lksykiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 01@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O.

1599.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2007)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Solapur now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 23/5/2014.

[No. L-15025/1/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

4276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL, AT SOLAPUR

Reference (I.T.) No. 01/2007

Adjudication

between

The Regional Manager,

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Pune-411 001

.... First Party

And

Shri Raghunath Bhagwan Saptal,

341, Zende Galli, Pandharpur,

District-Solapur (Maharashtra)

.... Second Party

CORAM

: N. B. Bhos, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Solapur.

APPEARANCES

: Shri V.R. Kulkarni,

Adv. for First Party.

: Shri S.S. Kalekar,

Adv. for Second Party.

AWARD

(Delivered on 28.02.2014)

This Reference by Central Government (Bharat Sarkar

Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi)

regarding industrial dispute between 1st Party i.e. The

Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Pune and the 2nd Party i.e. Driver Raghunath Bhagwan

Saptal under Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, at the instance of 2nd Party driver Raghunath.

As per the statement of claim, brief facts leading to

this Reference are narrated as under :-

2nd Party Raghunath was serving as a Driver with

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., at Pakhni Depot

since 1991. In the year 2001, driver Raghunath was

suffering from acute backache and because of his ill-health,

he could not attend his duties. He had been to Dr. Phadiya

of Mahaveer Hospital, Pandharpur and took medical

treatment from 17/12/2001 to 31/12/2001. However, he could

not recover and thereafter he took medical treatment of

Dr. Jintendra Agrawal at Pune from 01/01/2002 to 01/02/2002.

As per advice of Dr. Jintendra Agrawal, driver Raghunath

had been to Dr. Sandeep and Dr. A. Patwardhan of Sancheti

Institute, Pune and took medical treatment from 01/02/

2002 to 28/02/2002 and as per advice of Doctors, he took

bed rest. In spite of these medical treatments, driver

Raghunath could not recover and thereafter he again took

treatment of Dr. Benare at Pandharpur and he was advised

bed rest from 04/03/2002 to 30/03/2002.

The 2nd party driver Raghunath further alleges that

on 14/03/2002, he received letter from 1st Party i.e. HPCL

to show his all medical reports and x-rays to Doctor

appointed by the Corporation at Loni Terminal, Pune.

Thereafter, driver Raghunath met to Doctor Shripad

Devdhar attached to Corporation at Loni on 27/03/2002.

Dr. Devdhar examined driver Raghunath and perused all

medical papers and declared that driver Raghunath was fit

to resume duty from 01/04/2002 and accordingly he

resumed duties from 01/04/2002.

The 2nd Party i.e. driver further avers that thereafter

he was suffering from malaria and took treatment from Dr.

Gaikwad at Pandharpur from 19/06/2002 to 31/08/2002 and

thereafter he resumed duties and worked sincerely.

However, again his back-ache problem developed and he

took treatment of Dr.Vijaysingh Pawar from 27/06/2002 to

24/11/2002, however, there was no relief to him. As per

advice of Dr.Vijaysingh Pawar, he took treatment from Dr.

Dhananjay Dingre and was admitted as an indoor patient

from 07/01/2003 to 13/01/2003. The 2nd Party driver was

unable to bear the medical expenses of private hospital

and therefore, he took medical treatment at Cottage

Hospital, Pandharpur. The 1st Party had full knowledge

regarding the ill-health of 2nd Party and his inability to

resume the duties. In spite of this fact, 1st Party started

departmental inquiry against the 2nd party by issuing

charge-sheet to him on the allegations that he remained

absent from duties unauthorizedly on several occasions.

The 2nd Party driver has no knowledge of English

language and could not understand the contents of the

charge-sheet. On the 1st day of inquiry, he presented an

application to permit him to engage the defence Counsel

and to hold inquiry in Hindi or English language and

requested for conveyance allowance. As per request of

2nd party, further proceeding of inquiry was started in

Hindi language, however, 2nd Party was not allowed to

engage Advocate to defend himself in the inquiry and

conveyance allowance was not paid to him.

The 2nd Party further alleges that the inquiry officer

Mr. Rameshkumar/Engg. Pune Retail RO was appointed

as an inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry and one

Mr. R.K. Barik was appointed as Presenting Officer.

The 2nd Party further alleges that the inquiry officer

himself examined the 2nd Party at length and concluded

this inquiry proceeding and submitted false report that

the charges levelled against the 2nd Party were

established. The Corporation has not examined any

witness. Opportunity was not given to 2nd Party to lead

any evidence. The inquiry officer himself has acted as

Prosecutor. As such, the inquiry conducted against the

2nd Party was not proper and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice. The findings recorded by the

inquiry officer are perverse though there was medical

evidence regarding ill-health of the 2nd Party. On the basis

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4277

of report of the inquiry officer, the 1st Party terminated the

2nd Party Raghunath Saptal - driver from service on

16/09/2005.

The 1st Party appeared and resisted his claim by

filing written statement at Exh.C-5, wherein, the 1st Party

denied all allegations of 2nd Party. He contends that the

2nd party has not preferred an Appeal against the

termination order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Therefore, the Reference is not maintainable. He further

contends that the 2nd Party driver remained absent from

duties unauthorizedly for number of occasions and years

together and therefore, he was charge-sheeted and

departmental inquiry was initiated and conducted against

him. The 2nd Party admitted all charges levelled against

him, hence, there no propriety to permit him to engage

Advocate to defend himself in the departmental inquiry.

As per the request of 2nd Party, the proceeding of the

departmental inquiry was conducted in Hindi language

and 2nd Party has replied all questions put to him by the

inquiry officer in presence of Presenting Officer. The 2nd

Party driver has admitted all the charges levelled against

him i.e. absence from duties on number of days and

therefore, the inquiry officer did not feel proper to record

the evidence of more witnesses. Documents placed on

record sufficiently proved the charges levelled against

the 2nd Party driver, and therefore, the inquiry officer has

properly appreciated the material placed on record and

recorded his findings that the charges levelled against the

2nd Party were proved and submitted his report to

Employer. The findings of the inquiry officer are valid and

legal and there is no substance in the submissions and

allegations made by the 2nd Party.

The 1st Party contends that on the basis of inquiry

report, the 1st Party has rightly terminated the 2nd Party.

The punishment awarded by the 1st party is just, proper

in the light of serious misconduct committed by the 2nd

Party. The past record of 2nd Party was not clean. Before

terminating the services of 2nd Party, one month’s notice

pay was given. Lastly, the 1st Party craved for dismissal

of this Reference or to be answered in the negative.

10.

Upon rival pleadings of parties, issues are framed at

Exh. O-5. Heard the Learned Advocate Shri Kulkarni

appearing on behalf of First Party i.e. Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Ltd., and also perused his written notes of

arguments marked Exh. C-25. Also heard the Learned

Advocate Shri Kalekar appearing on behalf of Second Party

i.e. Raghunath Saptal. After appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence placed on record in the light of

rival submissions, I record my findings against each issue

as follows for the reasons stated by me hereinafter :-

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Whether the termination of the

No.

services of the Second Party i.e.

Shri Raghunath Saptal by the

First Party i.e. the Management

of HPC Ltd., Pune is legal and

proper ?

Whether the Second Party is

Second Party is

entitled to the reliefs as claimed

entitled for relief

for ?

of reinstatement

only as per final

order.

What order ?

Award is passed

as per final order.

REASONS

11.

In order to substantiate his claim, 2nd Party

Raghunath examined himself at Exh. UW-1. He placed his

reliance on documents below Exh. U-9, so also, documents

produced below Exh. U-12.

While resisting this claim, 1st Party i.e. HPCL

examined four witnesses i.e. Officer (H.R.) Amar Satpute

at Exh.C-7, principal of Hindustan Petroleum Management

Development Institute, Nigde-Pune, namely Rangrao

Wagh at Exh.C-10, senior manager (operations) Shri Raja

Barik at Exh.C-12 and the manager (operations) Shri Vijay

Ghanekar at Exh.C-17.

12.

Before proceeding towards reasoning, it is helpful

to mention the following admitted factual circumstances

on record.

(a)

2nd Party Raghunath Saptal was appointed as a

tanker driver by 1st Party i.e. HPCL in the month of

August -1991 and he was attached to the Pakhni

Depot.

(b)

The 2nd Party Raghunath was charge-sheeted on

24/02/2003 on the allegation that he remained absent

from duties unauthorizedly on several occasions.

(c)

Departmental enquiry was initiated against the 2nd

Party Raghunath and Shri Rameshkumar-manager

and engineer of Pune retail RO was appointed as an

enquiry officer and Mr. R. K. Barik was appointed as

presenting officer.

(d)

The 2nd Party Raghunath appeared and participated

in the enquiry proceeding on 16/02/2004.

13.

At this juncture, I must mention that, upon rival

pleadings of parties and considering the submissions

advanced on behalf of both the sides, preliminary issues

were framed at Exh.O-6. After appreciation of evidence

placed on record and hearing both the sides, this Tribunal

recorded its findings on preliminary issue no.1 as the

departmental enquiry conducted against the 2nd Party

Raghunath is not just, proper and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice. This Tribunal recorded its

findings on preliminary issue no. 2 that, the findings

recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse.

4278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

The 1st Party i.e. HPCL has not challenged the

findings recorded by this Tribunal on preliminary issues.

15.

The evidence of 2nd Party Raghunath speaks that,

in the year 2001, severe back-ache problem started to him

and because ill-health, he could not join his duties. His

evidence further speaks that, he was treated by Dr. Phadiya

at Pandharpur during 17/12/2001 to 31/12/2001. He was

also treated by Dr.Jitendra Agrawal at Pune from 01/01/

2002 to 01/02/2002. He was also treated by Dr.Sandeep

and Dr.A.Patwardhan of Sancheti Hospital, Pune and was

treated from 01/02/2002 to 28/02/2002 and he was advised

bed rest. His evidence also speaks that, in spite of medical

treatment of Dr.Patwardhan, he was not relieved from back-

ache and thereafter, he took medical treatment of Dr.Benare

at Pandharpur and he was advised bed rest from 04/03/

2002 to 30/03/2002. His evidence also suggest that, as per

letter received from 1st Party Corporation on 14/03/2002,

he was examined by Dr.Shripad Devdhar (attached medical

officer of Corporation at Loni) on 27/03/2002 and he

examined him and perused medical papers produced by

2nd Party Raghunath. Dr.Devdhar declared the 2nd Party

Raghunath fit to resume duties from 01/04/2002 and he

joined the duties for some days. The evidence of 2nd

Party Reghunath also speaks that, thereafter he was

suffering from malaria and took treatment of Dr.Gaikwad at

Pandharpur from 19/06/2002 to 31/08/2002 and thereafter,

resumed duties and worked sincerely, but again the

problem of back-ache cropped and he took treatment of

Dr.Vijaysingh Pawar from 27/06/2002 to 24/11/2002. His

evidence further speaks that, in spite of treatment of

Dr.Vijaysingh Pawar, he was not relieved from back-ache

problem and thereafter, as per advice of Dr.Pawar, he took

treatment of Dr.Dhananjay Dingre and he was admitted in

the hospital of Dr.Dingre as an indoor patient from 07/01/

2003 to 13/01/2003. His evidence also speaks that, thereafter

he took treatment at Cottage Hospital, Pandharpur.

16.

The evidence of 2nd Party Raghunath further reflect

that, he submitted all medical certificates to the 1st Party

i.e. HPCL and the 1st Party had full knowledge regarding

his ill-health and regarding his inability to join his duties.

17.

As such, the 2nd Party Raghunath tried to show

that, due to serious back-ache problem and malaria, he

could not join his duties and he informed his superior

officers time to time and produced medical certificates,

however, departmental enquiry was initiated against him

and his services were terminated illegally.

18.

In this Reference, this Tribunal has recorded its

findings on preliminary issues that the departmental

enquiry conducted against the 2nd Party Raghunath is

not just, proper and in accordance with the principles of

natural justice and the findings recorded by the enquiry

officer are perverse. In the premises, the crucial question

poses before this Tribunal as to whether the 1st Party i.e.

HPCL has justified its action of termination of service of

2nd Party Raghunath by adducing sufficient and cogent

evidence before this Tribunal. In order to substantiate

the punishment awarded to the 2nd Party Raghunath, the

1st Party HPCL has examined above referred four

witnesses.

19.

Now, I would like to analyze the evidence of Amar

Satpute who is serving as officer (H.R.), with 1st Party

HPCL. His evidence speaks that, the 2nd Party Raghunath

remained absent from duties without intimation or prior

permission and therefore, he was charge-sheeted in view

of standing orders of Corporation under the provisions of

31(7) and 31(38). His evidence also speaks that, the

explanation of 2nd Party Raghunath was not satisfactory

and in the year 2001-2002, he remained absent from duties

for total period of 250 days without intimation or prior

permission. He also stated that, the 2nd Party Raghunath

was asked to undergo medical check-up by Dr.Devdhar at

Loni, but he did not go for check-up and did not produce

certificate.

20.

During the course of cross-examination, this witness

Amar Satpute admitted that, the 2nd Party Raghunath was

medically checked by Dr.Devdhar on 27/03/2002 and

accordingly, medical certificate was issued.

21.

After scrutiny of evidence of this witness Amar

Satpute, I can safely say that, he never worked at Pakhani

depot and he has no personal knowledge regarding the

proceeding of 2nd Party Raghunath. During the course of

cross-examination, he further admitted that, he doesn’t

know who were serving at Pakhani depot before 2008.

This witness Amar Satpute joined services of 1st Party

HPCL on 02/08/2008. As such, he doesn’t know anything

regarding the illness and actual absentee of 2nd Party

Raghunath. Therefore, it is highly unsafe to place reliance

on the version of this witness Amar Satpute.

22.

Now, I would like to analyze the evidence of 2 witness

Mr.Rangrao Wagh-principal of Hindustan Petroleum

Development Institute at Nigadi, Pune. His evidence

speaks that, he was working at Pakhani depot from 30/11/

2001 to 12/10/2005 and he knows the 2nd Party Raghunath

who was performing his duties as heavy vehicle driver

with 1st Party Corporation. His evidence speaks that, the

2nd Party Raghunath was in habit of remaining absent

from duties unauthorizedly and he was negligent in his

duties. His evidence also suggest that, in spite of several

letters, 2nd Party Raghunath did not join duties and

therefore, charge-sheet was issued to him regarding his

unauthorized absenteeism and on the basis of report of

enquiry officer, the services of 2nd Party Raghunath were

terminated by competent authority.

23.

During the course of cross-examination, this witness

Rangrao Wagh admitted that, 2nd Party Saptal was referred

to their attached medical officer Dr.Devdhar at Loni. He

further admitted that, he had informed to his regional

officer regarding the sickness and mental pressure of 2nd

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4279

Party Raghunath after counseling with him. He also

admitted that, regarding sickness and mental pressure,

2nd Party Raghunath informed him and for one time,

Raghunath had furnished medical certificates regarding

his ill-health.

24.

This witness also admitted that, after 01/04/2002,

2nd Party Raghunath attended his duties but, he was not

regular. As such, after scrutiny of evidence of this witness

Rangrao, I can safely say that, the 2nd Party Raghunath

was suffering from back-ache, mental pressure and due to

these problems, he must not have attended his duties.

25.

Now, I would like to analyze the evidence of

presenting officer Shri.Raja Barik who was serving as

manager (operations) at Pakhani depot. His evidence

speaks that, the 2nd Party Raghunath was in habit of

remaining absent from duties unauthorizedly and

thereafter, he was charge-sheeted. His evidence further

speaks that, in spite of letters, 2nd Party Raghunath did

not join duties and he has committed misconducts of

habitual absenteeism and negligence in duties as per

certified standing orders of 1st Party HPCL.

26.

During the course of cross-examination, this witness

Raja Barik admitted that, 2nd Party Raghunath worked

under him for few days and he was remaining ill. He further

admitted that, he had informed to their office that, he was

unable to attend duties on account of illness. He also

admitted that, 2nd Party Raghunath was not attending his

duties regularly from December 2001 and Raghunath had

produced medical certificates to his office. He further

clarified that, 2nd Party Raghunath had produced those

medical certificates before his predecessor. In the month

of January 2003, 2nd Party Raghunath had produced

medical certificate before him and that Raghunath was

referred to Dr.Devdhar attached to Loni for examination.

He also admitted that, Dr.Devdhar at Loni examined 2nd

Party Raghunath and advised him further treatment for

his heavy weight, hyper tension and back-ache. His

evidence further suggest that, Dr.Devdhar declared 2nd

Party Raghunath fit for joining duties and Raghunath

joined duties in April and worked in the month of April

and May. After analyzing the evidence of this witness

Raja Barik, I have no hesitation to hold that, the 2nd Party

Raghunath was suffering from hyper tension, back-ache

and due to ill-health, he could not attend his duties. The

evidence of this witness Raja Barik also sufficiently

indicate that, the 2nd Party Raghunath informed to their

office regarding his ill-health and also produced medical

certificates time to time.

27.

I would like to further scrutinize the evidence of

witness Vijay Ghanekar who was working at Pakhani depot

of 1st Party HPCL since September 1996 till May 2006. In

his evidence, he has given every details regarding the

absenteeism of 2nd Party Raghunath from duties in the

year 2001 and 2001. His evidence suggest that, in the year

2001, 2nd Party Raghunath remained absent from duties

for 92 days and in the year 2002, he remained absent from

duties for 166 days, i.e. totally for 258 days in these two

years, unauthorizedly. This witness has produced the

muster-roll maintained at Pakhani depot and it is marked

Exh.C-18. He also placed on record the postal

acknowledgments regarding receipt of letters given to 2nd

Party Saptal and his postal acknowledgments are marked

Exh.C-19(collectively).

28.

This witness has not produced the leave register of

employees and he is unable to tell the leave account of

2nd Party Raghunath for the year 2001-2002. During the

course of cross-examination, he admitted that, in the

muster-roll, the entry of medical leave is appearing above

absentee mark. He also admitted that, the 2nd Party

Raghunath was referred to their medical officer Dr.Devdhar

at Loni for medical examination and Raghunath was present

before the medical officer Dr.Devdhar on 27/03/2002 for

medical examination. After close analysis of evidence of

this witness Vijay Ghanekar, I can safely say that, it was

the duty of 1st Party HPCL to place on record the leave

ascertain the nature of leave enjoyed by 2nd Party Saptal

in the year 2001-2002. The evidence of this witness

Ghanekar sufficiently speaks that, the 2nd Party Raghunath

was referred to their medical officer Dr.Devdhar at Loni for

medical check-up and 2nd Party Raghunath was examined

by Dr.Devdhar on 27/03/2002. This admission itself

suggest that, the 2nd Party Raghunath was suffering from

ill-health and he must have reported to his officers

regarding his ill-health and therefore, he was referred to

their medical officer Dr.Devdhar for medical check-up.

29.

It is pertinent to note that, the 2nd Party Raghunath

placed on record the copies of medical certificates issued

by Dr.Phadia, Dr.Agrawal, Dr.Patwardhan, Dr.Berali,

Dr.Devdhar, Dr.Gaikwad, Dr.Vijaysing Pawar, medical

officer Cottage Hospital, Pandharpur, medical

superintendent – sub district hospital, Pandharpur. He

also placed on record the original medical certificates

issued by Dr.Devdhar, Dr.Vijaysing Pawar, medical,

Gaikwad Hospital Pandharpur, medical certificate issued

by sub-district hospital, Pandharpur.

30.

After analyzing the evidence of 2nd Party

Raghunath, documentary evidence placed on record i.e.

medical certificates and the evidence of witnesses examined

on behalf of 1st Party HPCL, I can safely say that, the 2nd

Party Raghunath remained absent from duties due to his

ill-health and it was not wilful and unauthorized

absenteeism. The evidence of witnesses of 1st Party

sufficiently speaks that, the 2nd Party Raghunath informed

their office regarding his ill-health, so also, he produced

the medical certificates to their office time to time.

31.

Reliance can be placed on a case of Hon’ble Apex

Court in Jagdish Singh V/s. Punjab Engineering College &

4280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ors., reported in 2009 II CLR Page 514, wherein, it is

observed by Hon’ble Apex Court as follows :-

“ It is held that the Courts and the Tribunals can

interfere with the decision of the disciplinary

authority, only when they are satisfied that the

punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority

is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the

charges alleged and proved against a delinquent

employee and not otherwise.

The instant case is not a case of habitual

absenteeism. The misconduct that is alleged, would

definitely amounts to violation of discipline that is

expected of an employee to maintain in the

establishment, but may not fit into the category of

gross violation of discipline. But the Court added

that if it were to be habitual absenteeism, it would

not have ventured to entertain this appeal.

Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of

the case and having due regard to unblemished

record of the appellant, and the reasons for which

he remained absent without obtaining permission,

the ends of justice would be met, if punishment

imposed by the disciplinary authority is modified to

that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative

effect and further declare that he would not be

entitled for any monetary benefits during the period

he was out of service and that period would be

counted only for the purpose of his service

benefits.”

32.

In another case of Roop Singh Vs. Learned Presiding

Judge, Labour Court and Anr., reported in 2013 II CLR

Page 914, it is observed by The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh

High Court that “unless it is wilful unauthorized absence

from duty by the workman, it does not call for extreme

penalty of discharge, dismissal or removal from service.”

33.

In this particular case at my hand, the 2nd Party

Raghunath remained absent from duties for about 258 days

in the year 2001-2002, on account of his acute back-ache,

hyper tension and malaria and it was not wilful

unauthorized absence, and therefore, the action of

management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Pune in terminating the services of 2nd Party Raghunath

is not just and proper. The 1st Party HPCL has failed to

justify its action taken against the 2nd Party Raghunath.

As such, the order of termination of services of 2nd Party

Raghunath dated 16/09/2005 deserves to be quashed and

set aside. The 2nd Party Raghunath is entitled for

reinstatement with continuity of service.

34.

Here, another question poses before this Tribunal

regarding back wages. In his statement of claim, 2nd Party

Raghunath has not claimed the back wages. It is well

settled legal position that, with passage of time, pragmatic

view must be taken by courts realizing that the industry

may not be compelled to pay the workman for the period

through which he apparently contributed little or nothing

at all paid or for the period that was spent unproductively.

35.

The evidence of Mr. Rangrao Wagh at Exh.C-10

speaks that, they used to take the services of casual drivers

in absence of regular drivers either from contractor

Vishwanath Abute and from other sources. It is fact that,

the 2nd Party Raghunath was serving as heavy vehicle

driver with 1st Party HPCL. He remained absent on account

of his ill-health. In his absence, the 1st Party HPCL must

have engaged casual drivers to perform the transport of

oil, diesel and petrol to their customers by tankers. It is

evident that, at Pakhani depot, daily 39 to 40 tankers were

loaded from their depot. As such, due to absence of 2nd

Party Raghunath, the 1st Party HPCL, must have spent

huge amount for engaging the casual drivers in the place

of 2nd Party Raghunath. In the premises, I can safely say

that, though 2nd Party is entitled for reinstatement with

continuity of service, I am not inclined to grant back wages.

36.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this

Reference, I hold that, the 2nd Party is entitled for

reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back

wages. Hence, I record my findings against Issue Nos.1 &

2 accordingly and answer the Reference as follows :-

AWARD

The action of management of 1st Party i.e. HPCL,

Pune in terminating the services of 2nd Party

Raghunath for long absence on account of illness is

declared as unjust, illegal and improper.

The 1st Party i.e. HPCL is directed to reinstate 2nd

Party Raghunath Saptal with continuity of service,

but without back wages.

In view of circumstances, parties to bear their own

costs.

Award be drawn accordingly and the copies of this

Award be sent for publication to The Central

Government.

N. B. BHOS, Presiding Officer

Place : Solapur

Date : 28/02/2014

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1600-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbiQ bUlksjsUl

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k 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 7@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4281

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O.

1600.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, 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

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/5/2014.

[No. L-15025/1/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. I, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI

ID No. 7/2012

Ms. Renuka Sharma

W/o Sh. Amit Sharma,

H. No. C-5-A/96, Janakpuri,

New Delhi-110058

.....Workman

Versus

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, D.O.-III,

Jeevan Parvah Building,

Janakpuri District Centre,

New Delhi-110058

.....Management

AWARD

An Assistant serving in Branch Office 128, Delhi

Divisional Office III, Life Insurance Corporation of India

(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) sought

permission from her employer to go abroad, where her

husband was serving. Leave for 35 days were sanctioned

with a stipulation that she will not overstay her leaves.

She left for Singapore in the month of April 2008. She was

supposed to report for her duties on 16.05.2008. However,

she overstayed leaves, sanctioned in her favour. The

Corporation wrote letters dated 25.08.2008 and 04.10.2008

informing her that she overstayed her leaves in an

unauthorized manner. She was directed to resume her duties

immediately. She wrote to the Corporation that she would

be able to join her duties in mid of November 2008. On her

return, she was allowed to resume her duties by the

Corporation and as such, she joined her duties on

27.11.2008.

Charge sheet cum show cause notice dated

15.11.2008 was served on the Assistant, namely, Ms.Renuka

Sharma. Her reply to the charge sheet was found not to be

satisfactory. Domestic enquiry was constituted. Instead

of participating in enquiry proceedings, Ms.Renuka

Sharma moved an application on 28.12.2008, seeking no

objection to go to Singapore, claiming that her husband

was unwell. Without waiting for an answer from the

Corporation, she left for Singapore on 28.12.2008. Under

these circumstances, she opted not to participate in the

enquiry. The Enquiry Officer was constrained to proceed

ex-parte. He submitted his report to the Disciplinary

Authority, who concurred with the findings of the Enquiry

Officer. The Disciplinary Authority served show cause

notice calling upon the claimant to explain as to why

punishment of ‘removal from service’ should not be

awarded to her. Her reply in that regard was considered

and thereafter punishment of removal from service was

confirmed on the claimant, vide order dated 22.06.2009.

Her appeal also came to be dismissed. Memorial presented

to the Chairman of the Corporation did not find favours

and was brushed aside. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant

raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer seeking

reinstatement in service of the Corporation with continuity

and full back wages. On expiry of 45 days from the date of

moving application before the Conciliation Officer, the

claimant raised her dispute before this Tribunal, using

provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Since dispute was

within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub-section

(3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section

2A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute,

even without being referred for adjudication by the

appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the

Act.

Claim statement was filed by the claimant pleading

therein that she was employed with the Corporation since

01.03.1994. She was working as an Assistant at Branch

Office 128, Divisional Office III of the Corporation on

22.6.2009, the date when her services were terminated. She

had good record of service and no memo or charge sheet

was served upon her till April 2008. Her husband was

working in a private company. Sometime in early 2008, he

was deputed to work at Singapore. During absence of her

husband, her son fell ill and was diagnosed as a patient of

depression and loneliness. Her daughter also fell ill. There

was none in the family to look after her children. Compelled

by the circumstances, she went to Singapore after

obtaining no objection certificate and getting her leaves

sanctioned from the Corporation.

Claimant pleads that on her reaching Singapore,

health of her children deteriorated, since they could not

get acclimatized there. She also remained unwell. Under

these circumstances, she could not return to India after

expiry of her sanctioned leave. She requested the

Corporation for extension of her leave and letter dated

28.08.2008 was sent in that regard. When situation

improved, she came back to India and reported for her

duties on 27.11.2008. Ignoring her helplessness, show

cause-cum-charge sheet dated 15.11.2008 was served on

her.

4282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Claimant asserts that her husband fell ill due to food

poisoning. As there was none to look after him, she had to

rush to Singapore on 28.12.2008 to take care of him. She

applied for leave and issuance of no objection certificate

to go abroad. As there was no time to await sanction, she

believed that the Corporation would accord sanction and

grant leaves to her, she left for Singapore. Due to tension,

she suffered from uncontrolled hypothyroidism, which

situation resulted in her acute weakness. There was no

improvement in her condition and she was advised to stay

there for some time by the doctors. She informed the

Corporation about her condition vide communication dated

31.01.2009, 09.02.2009, 26.02.2009, 18.03.2009 and

24.04.2009. There were enough leaves to her credit, which

the Corporation opted not to sanction. Enquiry

proceedings commenced in her absence on 05.01.2009 and

it was concluded on 06.04.2009. Enquiry Officer submitted

his report dated 30.04.2009. The Disciplinary Authority,

without considering her reply dated 25.04.2008 and

04.06.2009, imposed punishment of removal from service,

besides treating period of absence as dies non. She

challenged the said action of the Corporation as

unreasonable. The Corporation did not consider her state

of helplessness as well as her role and responsibility of a

wife and mother, which she had to perform. The Disciplinary

Authority looked in to extraneous considerations, while

deciding quantum of punishment for her. Punishment of

removal from service was discriminatory since lesser

punishment was awarded by the Corporation, to many

other employees who were similarly placed in the position

in which she was placed. She claims reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages.

Demurral was made by the Corporation pleading that

the claim petition is a part of pressure tactics, used by the

claimant to pursue her illegal demands. It has not been

disputed that the claimant was working as Assistant since

01.03.1994. It is also not disputed that the claimant was a

married woman, having two children. The Corporation

projects that her application seeking no objection for going

abroad was granted with clear stipulation that no

concession would be given in the matter of leave and no

extraordinary leave would be sanctioned to her. Privilege

leave from 11.04.2008 to 15.05.2008 were sanctioned in her

favour, to enable her to go to Singapore. The Corporation

asserts that claimant preplanned the entire scenario and

violated terms and conditions on which no objection

certificate was granted and leaves were sanctioned in her

favour. Letters dated 12.06.2008 and 25.08.2008 were sent,

informing the claimant that she had overstayed her leave.

She was directed to resume her duties immediately. An

e-mail, dated 18.09.2008, was also sent to her. She did not

resume her duties. Letter dated 28.08.2008 was written by

her, detailing therein that she would join her duties in mid

of November 2008. She did not comply with official

instructions to resume her duties and overstayed leaves

in an unauthorized manner, hence charge sheet cum show

cause notice dated 15.11.2008 was issued to her. Her reply

dated 27.11.2008 was found not to be satisfactory.

However, she was allowed to resume duties when she

made such request on 27.11.2008. Vide letter dated

27.12.2008, received on 30.12.2008, she requested for grant

of leave from 27.12.2008 to 10.01.2009, as she was unwell.

She also requested for grant of no objection to travel

abroad, vide her letter dated 28.12.2008. She left India

without obtaining no objection from the Corporation.

The Corporation disputes that on reaching

Singapore, she suffered uncontrolled hypothyroidism

resulting in acute weakness. It is disputed that she was

advised by the doctor to remain in Singapore. It has also

been disputed that she kept the Corporation informed

about her illness and submitted medical certificates in that

regard. Letters dated 24.01.2009, 14.02.2009 and 03.03.2009

were sent calling upon her to join her duties immediately.

Instead of joining her duties, she sent letters dated

31.01.2009 and 26.02.2009 seeking extension of her leave

on medical grounds. Subsequently, vide letter dated

06.03.2009, she was advised to join her duties but those

instructions were not complied with.

Claimant was well aware that a domestic enquiry

has been constituted against her. She was informed vide

letters dated 26.12.2008, 05.01.2009, 16.01.2009, 16.02.2009,

05.03.2009, 20.03.2009, 06.04.2009 and 20.04.2009, but she

opted not to join enquiry proceedings. Enough

opportunities were given to defend herself. Enquiry Officer

conducted the enquiry in consonance with principles of

natural justice and submitted his report to the Disciplinary

Authority. The Disciplinary Authority considered her reply

and awarded punishment of removal from service. Her

period of absence was treated as dies non. The Corporation

pleads that punishment awarded commensurate to her

misconduct. It has been disputed that punishment

awarded to the claimant was discriminatory since lesser

punishment was awarded to similarly situated officers/

employees. Her claim petition is liable to be dismissed,

being misconceived, pleads the Corporation.

On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled:

(i)

Whether enquiry conducted by the management

was not just, fair and proper?

(ii)

Whether punishment of removal from service is

disproportionate to her alleged misconduct?

(iii)

To what relief the claimant is entitled?

10.

The claimant examined herself to substantiate her

claim. Ms.Meenakshi Saxena was examined on behalf of

the Corporation.

11.

Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Inderjit Singh,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4283

of the claimant. Shri Arun Aggarwal, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

Corporation. I have given my careful considerations to

the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused

the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

Issue No. 1

12.

At the outset, Shri Inderjit Singh argued that factum

of overstaying sanctioned leave cannot be termed as

misconduct within the meaning of clause 39 of the Life

Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960

(in short the Regulations). He asserts that regulation 61 of

the Regulations contemplates that when an employee

absents after the end of his leave, he is entitled to no leave

salary for the period of absence and that period will be

treated as extraordinary, leave unless otherwise directed

by the Competent Authority. Contra to it, Shri Aggarwal

presents that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right

and overstayal of leaves is a misconduct, consequences

of which an employee had to suffer. He asserts that clause

(g) of regulation 61 projects a proposition that when an

employee overstays his leave, he would not be entitle to

salary for that period and his overstayal will be treated as

extraordinary leave. He contends that for extraordinary

leave, an employee is not entitled to leave salary, unless

otherwise directed by the Competent Authority in that

regard. According to Shri Aggarwal, Shri Singh is putting

wrong gloss on the regulation, referred above.

13.

The Regulations framed by the Corporation governs

service conditions of its employees. General conditions

governing grant of leave to an employee, are detailed in

regulation 61 of the Regulations. For sake of convenience,

provisions of the said regulation are extracted thus:

‘General Conditions Governing Grant of Leave :

61.

The following general principles shall govern the

grant of leave to the employees:-

(a)

Leave is earned by duty or service.

(b)

It cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

When the exigencies of service of Corporation so

require discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any

description is reserved to the authority empowered

to grant it.

Explanation : Sanction of leave may not be presumed

and leave asked for should not be availed of unless

it has been specifically sanctioned.

(c)

All leave lapses at the time of retirement, death,

discharge, dismissal, resignation or termination for

any reason whatsoever.

(d)

An employee on leave may not take up any service

or accept any employment. During terminal leave or

leave preparatory to retirement an employee may

take up any service or accept any employment with

the prior permission of the Chairman which should

be granted only in rare cases.

(e)

An employee is expected to avail of leave granted

fully, before resuming duty. An employee on leave

cannot return to duty before the expiry of such leave

except with the permission of the competent

authority.

(f)

An employee on leave on medical certificate may

not return to duty without producing a medical

certificate of fitness. The competent authority may

require an employee who has availed of leave for

reasons of health to produce a medical certificate of

fitness even though such leave was not granted on

medical certificate.

(g)

An employee who remains absent after the end of

his leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period

of such absence and the period of overstayal will be

treated as extraordinary leave, unless otherwise

directed by the competent authority. Wilful absence

from duty after the expiry of leave will be treated as

a breach of these Regulations for the purpose of

Regulation 39.

(h)

Leave may be prefixed and/or suffixed to a holiday.

(i)

Leave may not be granted to an employee under

suspension. A competent authority may, however,

grant leave to an employee during the pendancy of

disciplinary proceedings.

(j)

Leave ordinarily begins on the day from which

charge is handed over and ends on the day preceding

that on which charge is resumed.

(k)

The leave to an employee is the period which he has

earned diminished by the period of leave actually

taken.

(l)

Casual leave may normally be availed of only after

sanction by the competent authority but one day’s

casual leave may be availed of without prior sanction

in case of unforeseen emergency provided the

competent authority is promptly advised of the

circumstances in which prior sanction could not be

obtained.

(m)

Application for privilege leave shall ordinarily be

submitted 15 days before the date from which the

leave is required. Applications which do not satisfy

this requirement may be refused without assigning

any reason.

(n)

An employee shall, before proceeding on leave,

intimate to the competent authority his address while

on leave and shall keep the said authority informed

of any change in the address previously furnished.

(o)

Combination of leave: Casual leave cannot be availed

of in conjunction with any other kind of leave except

special leave. Subject to this condition any kind of

leave under these Regulations can be granted in

combination with or in continuation of any other

kind of leave.’

4284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

Much hue and cry has been raised by the claimant,

putting a gloss on clause (g) of regulation 61 of the

Regulations. According to Shri Singh, an employee has a

right to get period of overstay treated as extraordinary

leave. He agitates that phrase ‘An employee who remains

absent after the end of his leave is entitled to no leave

salary…’ makes it apparent that for period of his absence,

an employee is entitled to no leave salary. He went on to

argue that the period of absence will be treated as

extraordinary leave by the Corporation. I am afraid that

contention put forth by Shri Singh has substance.

Provisions of clause (g) of regulation 61 of the Regulations

cannot be read in isolation. It shall be read in consonance

with other provisions, detailed therein. As projected in

the regulations, leave cannot be claimed as a matter of

right. An employee can earn leave by duty or service.

When exigency of service so requires, discretion vests in

the Corporation to refuse or revoke leave of any

description. Sanction of leave cannot be presumed and

leave asked for cannot be availed unless it has been

specifically sanctioned. These propositions make it

apparent that sanction of leave would depend on exercise

of discretion, vesting in the Corporation. In exigencies,

the Corporation may refuse leave or revoke leave of any

description, granted to an employee. Thus it is emerging

over the record that leave is not a matter of right, vesting

in an employee of the Corporation. When an employee

absents himself, he must have applied for and obtained

leave from the employer. No employee can claim leave of

absence as a matter of right and remaining absent without

leave will constitute violation of discipline.

15.

In the light of reasons, referred above, provisions of

clause (g) of regulation 61 are to be taken note of. As

provided therein, clause (g) of regulation 61 of the

Regulations projects that an employee is not entitled to

leave salary for the period he remains absent after end of

his leave. Specific proposition has been made to the effect

that an employee, who remains absent after his leave stood

expired, would not be entitled to claim any leave salary.

His period of overstayal will be treated as extraordinary

leave, which would mean that he will not earn any wages

for that period, unless otherwise directed by the

Competent Authority. Therefore, period of overstayal, if

treated as extraordinary leave, would not count as spent

on duty. It has nowhere been mentioned in clause (g) of

regulation 61 of the Regulations that period of overstayal

would stand regularized by treating it to be extraordinary

leave.

16.

An employee is under an obligation not to absent

himself from work without good cause. Absence without

leave is misconduct in industrial employment, warranting

disciplinary punishment. Habitual absence from duty

without leave has been made a misconduct under Model

Standing Orders, framed under Industrial Employment

Standing Orders Act, 1946. Likewise, industrial employers

also include “absence from duty”, without leave in the list

of misconduct in their standing orders. Sanction of leave

can be a significant defence to misconduct of absence

without leave. No employee can claim leave of absence as

a matter of right and remaining absent without leave will

constitute violation of discipline. The fact that the claimant

was continuously absent from work without leave, on

account of his detention in jail for an offence, will not give

an immunity to the claimant and the employer will be

justified in discharging him from services, announced the

Apex Court in Burn & Company, [1959 (1) L.L.J. 450].

17.

In Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. [1958 (1)

L.L.J.260] the Apex Court was confronted with a

proposition as to whether provisions in the standing

orders authorizing the employer to terminate services of

its employee on account of absence without leave was an

inflexible rule. In that matter seven workmen were absent

without leave for 14 consecutive days, as they were in

police custody. During police custody they applied for

leave which were refused by the company and services of

the workmen were terminated under relevant standing

order for remaining absent without leave. The Industrial

Tribunal took a view that the relevant standing order was

not an inflexible rule and mere application for leave was

sufficient to arrest the operation of the standing order. In

appeal, though the Labour Appellate Tribunal did not

maintain the award of the Tribunal on that count, yet it

held that in view of the circumstances that the workmen

were in custody, the company was not justified in refusing

leave. When the matter reached the Apex Court, it set

aside the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, relying

its precedent in Burn & Company Ltd. (supra) and ruled

thus:-

“It is true that the arrested men were not in a position

to come to their work, because they had been arrested

by the police. This may be unfortunate for them,

but it would be unjust to hold that in such

circumstances the company must always give leave

when an application for leave is made. If a large

number of workmen are arrested by the authorities

in charge of law and order by raising of their

questionable activities in connection with a labour

dispute (as in this case), the work of the company

will be paralyzed if the company is forced to give

leave to all of them for more or less indefinite period.

Such a principle will not be just, nor will it restore

harmony between labour and capital or ensure normal

flow of production. It is immaterial whether the

charges on which the workmen are arrested by the

police are ultimately proved or not in a court of law.

The company must carry on its work and may find it

impossible to do so if a large number of workmen are

absent. Whether in such circumstances leave should

be granted or not must be left to the discretion of

the employer. It may be rightly accepted that if the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4285

workmen are arrested at the instance of the company

for the purpose of victimization and in order to get

rid of them on the ostensible pretext of continued

absence, the position will be different. It will then

be a colourable or malafide exercise of power under

the relevant standing order, that however, is not the

case here.”

18.

Defence open to an employee, against charge of

absence without leave, is that the absence was on account

of circumstances beyond his control. For instance, where

absence of a workman was on account of his sudden or

serious illness or serious illness of a relation that would

be an extenuating circumstance which the employer will

have to take into consideration. However, if a workman

feigns sickness in order to avoid duty by producing a

false medical certificate, this would itself be a serious act

of misconduct. In Tata Engineering and Locomotive

Company Ltd., (1990 (1) LLJ 403) the Patna High Court

was addressed to a proposition where workman absented

himself without leave or permission for a considerable

period. After about 20 days of his absence, a memo and

charge sheet was issued, notifying that a domestic enquiry

would be held in the matter. The workman failed to appear

in a domestic enquiry and the Enquiry Officer conducted

the proceedings ex-parte. On consideration of the report

of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority

discharged him from service. Later on workman informed

the management that he was arrested by the police in

connection with a murder case and requested to allow him

to join duty. On refusal, an industrial dispute was raised.

A High Court placed reliance on the precedent in Indian

Iron & Steel Company (supra) and Burn & Company (supra)

and ruled that the discharge of the workman was valid and

justified for continuous absence without permission or

leave.

19.

Absence without leave constitutes a misconduct

justifying disciplinary action against the delinquent

workman. Punishment can only be imposed either by

complying with the procedure prescribed by the standing

orders of the establishment, if any, or the rules of natural

justice. Normally punishment should be inflicted after the

workman has been found guilty of the misconduct, after

holding a domestic enquiry. Reference can be made to

Mufatlal Narain Dass Barot (1966 (1) LLJ 437) and Kalika

Prasad Srivastava (1987 Lab.I.C. 307). Quantum of

punishment in case of misconduct for absence from duty

without leave would depend upon the facts of each case.

In order to justify the extreme penalty of discharge or

dismissal, it is to be proved that the workman remained

absent without leave for an inordinate long period. In

Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Ltd (2007 L.L.R.

238) removal of workman from service who remained

unauthorizedly absent for a period of three months was

held to be justified. In Sushil Kumar (2007 L.L.R.45) it was

ruled that absence, which is continuous for a long period,

amounts to serious misconduct to justify dismissal from

service. In Borman (2003 L.L.R. 364) 62 days absence of

workman was held to be justified for his dismissal from

service.

20.

These reasons makes it apparent that absence of an

employee from his service is a misconduct for which an

employer has right to initiate disciplinary action.

Contention put forth by Shri Inderjeet Singh that period

of overstayal would be treated as spent on duty has no

substance. Provisions of clause(g) of regulation 61 of the

Regulations no where detail that on overstaying leaves

an employee would be treated away from duty in an

authorized manner. His claim that overstayal of the claimant

cannot be treated as misconduct is misconceived.

Submissions put forth by Shri Singh are, therefore,

discarded.

21.

In her affidavit Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

claimant presents that charge sheet cum show cause notice

dated 15.11.2008 was served upon her. According to her,

in the charge sheet, the Corporation already reached a

conclusion to the effect that she failed to maintain absolute

integrity and devotion to duty, for failing to serve the

Corporation honestly and knowingly did acts detrimental

to the interest of her employer, which conclusions makes

the charge sheet unsustainable. She agitates that there

was clear pre-determination on the part of the Disciplinary

Authority about her alleged fault, which renders the charge

sheet bad in law.

22.

For appreciation of submissions made by the

claimant, it would be expedient to take note of contents of

the charge sheet served on her. For sake of convenience,

contents of the charge sheet are reproduced thus:

“You, Ms.Renuka Sharma, Assistant SRNG 222773

under Delhi D.O. III are hereby charged as under:

That you were sanctioned privilege leave from

11.04.2008 to 15.05.2008 for going to Singapore to

meet your husband who is currently posted there.

NOC was given to you vide letter dated 28.03.2008,

specifying that no concession would be considered

in the matter of leave while you are abroad and no

EOL would be granted for this purpose and leave

granted would depend upon office exigencies.

Further vide office letters dated 25.08.2008 and

04.10.2008, you were informed about your

unauthorized overstayal abroad after the expiry of

your sanctioned leave. You were directed to resume

your duties immediately failing which disciplinary

action shall be initiated against you as per relevant

provisions of Staff Regulations, 1960. The said

letters were sent at your local address in the absence

of availability of your address at Singapore and now

the same are deemed served, displayed on Notice

Board of the Branch office 128 on 28.08.2008 and

11.10.2008 respectively.

4286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

You have not resumed your duties but sent

application dated 28.08.2008 stating that you are

hopeful of joining your duties in mid of November

2008. That you have overstayed abroad

unauthorizedly since 16.05.2008 and have not

complied with official instructions to resume your

duties immediately.

By your aforesaid acts you have failed to maintain

absolute integrity and devotion to duty, failed to

serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully, have

knowingly done acts detrimental to the interest of

the Corporation and prejudicial to good conduct,

thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 21,

24, 30(1) read together with 39(1)Regulation 61(b)

and 61(g) of the aforesaid (Staff) Regulations, 1960 ,

for which any one or more of the penalties specified

under Regulation 39(1)(a) to (g) can be imposed on

you.”

23.

No form of charge sheet, which may be given to an

employee before actually launching an enquiry, has been

provided in the Regulations. In industrial law too, no form

is prescribed for a charge sheet, which may be served on

an employee by his employer. Charge sheet may detail all

particulars of charge and the employer may ask an

employee to offer an explanation to the charge sheet. It is

a matter of common knowledge that a charge sheet should

contain all facts, which combined together, make a

particular misconduct. Time and place are sometimes

constituent of the charge itself, hence the same should

find place in the charge sheet. Sometimes, an employee is

found have committed a series of incidents, which are to

be enumerated, when charges are framed regarding each

incident. Each misconduct should be clearly described to

enable the delinquent employee to offer his explanation.

In serving a charge sheet, care should be taken to see that

the charge sheet is given in a language which the

delinquent employee can easily understand. Care should

be taken that there should be no verbiage. If in a charge

sheet an incident is mentioned in general terms, this would

not vitiate the enquiry. Charge sheet should not contain

unnecessary matters where allegations unnecessary for

the charge are mere surplusage, same can be discarded.

24.

Charge sheet is merely description of allegations

against an employee which are still unproved. Care should

be taken that the language of the charge sheet should not

show that the employer had reached a conclusion to the

effect that workman is guilty. Whether language of the

charge sheet projects such a conclusion is a question of

fact. However, bare statement to the effect that the

delinquent workman is guilty of the charge does not

establish that there is a closed mind. Law to the effect was

laid in Nripendranath Tarafdar (1981 Lab. IC 126*). There

should be a reasonable apprehension of bias on facts and

circumstances of the case. Bias cannot be inferred merely

from the words used in the charge sheet. Object of the

charge sheet is to give precise notice and specific

accusation to which the delinquent employee has to make

a defence. Merely because of non compliance of rules,

substance of imputation has been distinctly set out it

cannot be inferred that it was biased.

25.

Whether charge sheet was issued with a closed mind

would depend upon the attendant circumstances. Mere

factum of particular language used in the charge sheet

would not be decisive. If the facts are prima facie against

the employee concerned, then the disciplinary

proceedings can be started to find out their correctness. If

secret enquiry is made and firm views taken about guilt of

the employee and opportunity is given to dispel the

conclusion, proceedings are vitiated by bias and closed

mind.

26.

Question for consideration would be as to whether

words used in the charge sheet projects bias and closed

mind of the Disciplinary Authority? As projected above,

the Disciplinary Authority projected in the charge sheet

that the claimant failed to maintain absolute integrity and

devotion to duty, failed to serve the Corporation honestly

and faithfully, have knowingly done acts detrimental to

the interest of the Corporation and prejudicial to good

conduct, thereby violating the Regulations, for which any

one or more of the penalties specified under Regulation

39(1)(a) to (g) may be imposed on her. These words are

not decisive. She was called upon to offer her explanation,

which fact makes it apparent that the Disciplinary Authority

formed a prima facie opinion about the misconduct

committed and started to find out correctness of those

imputations. It is evident that no final opinion was formed

by the Disciplinary Authority in that regard. Besides

language used in the charge sheet, the claimant has not

been able to show any attending circumstances indicating

bias and close mind of the Disciplinary Authority. When

above words are construed in the context of the facts that

various letters were written to the claimant to participate

in the enquiry, it would emerge over the record that the

issue was not pre-judged by the Disciplinary Authority. It

cannot be construed that the Disciplinary Authority was

biased and charge sheet under reference was issued by

him with closed mind.

27.

In Kalipada Roy [1984(1) LLN (SN) 6] it has been

held that reasonable apprehension of bias is to be drawn

on facts and circumstances of the case and mere words

used in the charge sheet would not be sufficient to infer a

bias in the matter. Relying above precedent, it is noted

that the claimant had not been able to project any incident

giving inference of bias, hence it cannot be concluded

that that the words used in the charge sheet are per se

sufficient to infer bias on the part of the Disciplinary

Authority. Contentions, made in that regard are, therefore,

brushed aside.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4287

28.

Service of charge sheet on the claimant is not a

disputed fact. Claimant concedes that she had not joined

the enquiry proceedings. However, she explains that since

she was ill, hence she could not join the enquiry

proceedings. Ms. Minakshi Saxena unfolds that vide

letters dated 05.01.2009, 16.01.2009 and 05.03.2009, claimant

was called upon to join enquiry proceedings. When her

testimony was purified by an ordeal of cross examination,

claimant opted not to question the witness on above facts.

Thus, it became evident that the claimant nowhere

disputes that the aforesaid letters were sent to her by the

Enquiry Officer calling upon her to join enquiry

proceedings. At the cost of repetition, it is noted that the

claimant presents that she could not join the enquiry since

she was unwell. No issue was raised on her behalf to the

effect that she was not served with notices by the Enquiry

Officer calling upon her to join the enquiry proceedings.

Evidently, the Corporation has been able to establish that

the claimant was well aware that the Enquiry Officer was

proceeding with the enquiry and despite reasonable

opportunities, she opted not to participate in the enquiry.

It is obvious that the claimant opted not to respond to

communications sent by the Enquiry Officer. She did not

participate in the Enquiry. When claimant failed to join the

enquiry, principles of natural justice cannot be accorded

to her in absentia. When the workman did not avail the

opportunity then subsequently she cannot challenge the

enquiry which was continued in her absence, claiming it

to be violative of principles of natural justice. If a workman

intentionally refused to participate in the enquiry he cannot

complain that his dismissal is against principles of natural

justice. Law to this effect was laid in Sadul Textiles Mills

Limited [1957 (I) LLJ 572], Bagchi (P.N.) & Co. Private

Limited [1959 (I) LLJ 605], Muir Mills Company Limited (24

FJR 123), Major U.R.Bhatnagar [1962 (I) LLJ 656],

Ghansham Dass Srivastava [1968 (2) LLJ 246] and Laxmi

Devi Sugar Mills [1957(I) LLJ 17].

29.

Normally in a judicial proceedings, a party is not to

be heard who absents himself from the hearing and if the

quasi-judicial authority holds proceedings ex-parte in such

a case, then it will not amount to misconduct on his part.

Law to this effect was laid in S.Govinda Menon [1973 (2)

LLJ 369]. In view of these propositions of law, it is crystal

clear that the Enquiry Officer cannot be held guilty of

violating the principles of natural justice. Under these

circumstances, the Corporation may argue that it was

beyond the competence of the Enquiry Officer to accord

an opportunity of being heard to the claimant. The enquiry

was conducted against the claimant in consonance with

the principles of natural justice and fair play.

30.

In deciding the question as to whether a particular

conclusion of fact was perverse or not, the Tribunal would

not be justified in weighing the evidence for itself and

determining the question of perversity of the view arrived

at by the Enquiry Officer in the light of his own findings

on the question of fact. See Hamdard Dawakhana Wakf

[1962 (II) LLJ 772]. In a domestic enquiry, once a conclusion

is decided from evidence, it is not permissible to assail

that conclusion even through it is possible for some other

authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the some

evidence. Reference can be made to Banaras Electricity

Light and Power Co. Ltd. [1972 (II) LLJ 328]. Legal position,

detailed in above precedents, changed on introduction of

section 11A of the Act.

31.

In Powari Tea Estate [1965 (II) LLJ 102] and Khardah

and Co. Ltd. [1963 (II) LLJ 452] the Apex Court ruled that

the enquiry report is a document which will have to be

closely examined by the Industrial Tribunal when a dispute

pertaining to disciplinary action against the employee is

brought before it for its adjudication. The Calcutta High

Court declares in Howrah Trading Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. [1996 (II)

LLJ 282] that a cryptic report, for instance, without stating

any reasons will be of little value. Failure of the Enquiry

Officer to record his findings and conclusions at the end

of the enquiry would render the enquiry invalid. Non-

production of the enquiry report before the Industrial

Tribunal led to a declaration that the enquiry was invalid,

when there was no evidence that a report was at all recorded

by the Enquiry Officer. See Samnuggur Jute Factory Co.

Ltd. [1994 (I) LLJ 634]. In Prakash Chand Jain [1969 (II) LLJ

377] the Apex Court announced that the report of the

Enquiry Officer must be supported by legal evidence. In

Rajinder Kumar Kindra [1984 (II) LLJ 5245] it was further

stated by the Supreme Court that where findings are based

on no legal evidence and are either ipse dixit or based on

conjectures and surmises unrelated to evidence and they

disclose non-application of mind, such findings and

conclusions are perverse.

32.

Findings recorded in a domestic enquiry can be

characterised as perverse only if (a) there was no evidence

whatsoever to support the findings, or (b) conclusion

recorded were diametrically contrary to the evidence on

record, or(c) conclusions were such that no reasonable

person would have arrived at on above standards. When

report of Enquiry Officer Ex.MW1/22 was scanned, nothing

came to my notice to conclude that the report was not

supported by evidence. Documentary evidence was

placed before the Enquiry Officer which was taken in to

account, while judging her accountability in respect of

the misconduct for which she was charge-sheeted. Out of

the report of the Enquiry Officer, it creeps that he

appreciated material produced before him and he reached

the conclusions, which are based on cogent evidence.

The Enquiry Officer had not ignored any material while

recording his conclusions. It is crystal clear that the

findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on

evidence and his report is not vitiated at all.

33.

In view of reasons detailed above, it is evident that

the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was in

consonance with principles of natural justice. He gave full

opportunity to the claimant to join the proceedings and

4288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

defend herself. However the claimant opted to leave for

Singapore on 28.12.2008 thereby making it next to

impossible to attend the enquiry proceedings. Principles

of natural justice were not to be accorded to her in absentia.

These facts make it apparent that the enquiry was just, fair

and proper. No illegality emerged out of enquiry

proceedings and report of the Enquiry Officer. Issue

relating to virus of the enquiry cannot be answered in

favour of the claimant. Resultantly, it is concluded that

the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was just fair

and proper. The issue is, therefore, answered in favour of

the Corporation and against the claimant.

Issue No. 2

34.

On quantum of punishment, claimant presents a case

of discrimination. It has been argued on her behalf that

other officers/employees, who went abroad and

overstayed their sanctioned leaves, were awarded

punishment of stoppage of increments only. She was

discriminated when punishment of removal from service

was awarded to her. Shri Aggarwal argued that

punishments were awarded to delinquent officers/

employees, taking into consideration facts and

circumstances of individual case(s). According to him, the

claimant went abroad for the second time without being

granted no objection certificate and remained absent in an

unauthorized manner from her duties. He claims that case

of the claimant is distinct and different than the illustrations,

relied by her.

35.

Equality before law and equal protection of laws are

fundamental rights of every person, ordains Article 14 of

the Constitution. The guiding principles laid in Article 14

are that persons, who are similarly situated, shall be

treated alike both in privileges conferred and liability

imposed, which means that amongst equals the law should

be equal and should be equally administered and that like

should be treated alike. Article 16 of the Constitution

guarantees equality of opportunities for all citizens in

matters relating to employment or appointment to any

office under the State. What is guaranteed is the equality

of opportunity. Like all other employers, government is

also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large

number of candidates offering themselves for employment.

But the selection process must not be arbitrary. The

guarantee given by clause (a) of Article 16 of the

Constitution will cover (a) initial appointments (b)

promotions(c) termination of employment (d) and matters

relating to salary, periodical increments, leaves, gratuity,

pension, age of superannuation etc. Matters relating to

employment or appointments include all mattes in relations

to employment both prior and subsequent to the

employment which are incidental to the employment and

form part of the terms and conditions of such employment.

36.

Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 forbids

class legislation, but does not forbid classification or

differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of

discretion. Classification is the recognition of the relations,

and in making it the Government must be allowed a wide

latitude of discretion and judgment. In a way, the

consequences of such classification would undoubtedly

be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from

others. The classification must be founded on an

intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or

things that are grouped together from others left out of

the group and the differentia must have a rational relation

to the object sought to be achieved. Classification may be

made according to the nature of persons, nature of

business, and may be based with reference to time.

37.

Concept of equality guaranteed by Article 16 of the

Constitution is something more than formal equality and

enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share

by having more than equal chance and enables the State

to give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving

real equality with reference to social needs. ‘Protection

discrimination’ enabled the State to adopt new strategy to

bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society,

by providing all possible opportunities and incentives to

them. Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential

treatment in the matter relating to employment or

appointment. There cannot be rule of equality between

members of separate and independent group of persons.

Persons can be classified in different groups, based on in

terms of nature of persons, nature of business and with

reference to time.

38.

It would be considered now as to whether the

claimant could show discrimination in the matter of award

of punishment to her. As brought over the record through

Ex.WW1/6, one Shri Amajrit Singh remained absent from

duties for 316 days, when he went abroad after getting

leave for 35 days sanctioned. In his case, period of 316

days overstay was treated as dies non and penalty of

removal from service was not awarded to him. Shri Dhiraj

Gaur went abroad after getting leave of 60 days sanctioned.

He overstayed for a period of 71 days, which period was

also treated as dies non. Penalty of removal from service

was not awarded to him also. Ms.Manju Mahajan

remained absent for a period of 198 days, which period

was treated as dies non. Penalty of removal from service

was not awarded to her also. Shri Narender Kumar remained

absent for 443 days, which period was also treated as dies

non. He was retained in service by the Corporation. Shri

Harish Chand Bhatnagar also overstayed his sanctioned

leave when he went to the United States in the year 2005.

Penalty of removal form service was proposed against

him as is evident out of Ex.WW1/9. However, penalty of

bringing him down by three stages in the basic pay was

awarded to him, as projected by Ex.WW1/8. Period of

absence was treated as dies non. Shri V.S. Iyer went abroad

without prior permission of the Competent Authority. He

was served with charge sheet and penalty of reduction in

basic pay by two stages in the pay scale was awarded to

him, as emerge out of order dated 13.11.2010.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4289

39.

Claimant went abroad in August 2008 after getting

leaves sanctioned. No objection certificate was given by

the Corporation to her for going to Singapore. She

overstayed leaves sanctioned in her favour and could join

her duties only on 27.11.2008. Charge sheet was served

upon her for overstayal of leaves. During pendancy of

enquiry, she again went abroad without sanction of leave

and permission from the Corporation. As in the case of

Shri Iyer, he went abroad without any permission, penalty

of removal from service was not granted to him. Same is

the fate of other officer/employees, details of whose causes

have been portrayed above. It is evident that the claimant

stands on the same pedestal on which above officials/

employees were placed. Shri V.S. Iyer and Shri Harish

Chand Bhatnagar are similarly situated since they had also

gone abroad and overstayed their sanctioned leaves. By

no stretch of imagination they can be said to be placed on

different pedestals. The Corporation cannot create

different categories for similarly situated persons, since it

would amount to discrimination. It has not been shown

that the case of Iyer and Shri Bhatnagar fall on different

footings, based on classification of individuals, job or

time. Since Shri Iyer, Shri Bhatnagar and claimant are

similarly situated, punishment of removal from service,

imposed on the claimant, amounts to discrimination. This

Tribunal will come to rescue of the claimant and accord

her fundamental rights. In view of these facts, it is

concluded that penalty awarded to the claimant is

discriminatory and cannot be said to be commensurative

to the misconduct committed by her. Issue is, therefore,

answered in favour of the claimant and against the

Corporation.

Issue No. 3

40.

Punishment of reduction in basic pay by three steps

in the time scale was awarded to Shri Bhatnagar by the

Corporation. Punishment of reduction in basic pay by two

stages in the time scale was awarded to Shri Iyer by the

Corporation. These two officers were dealt for the same

misconduct which was committed by the claimant.

Therefore, considering these facts, I am of the considered

opinion that penalty different than Shri Bhatnagar and

Iyer cannot be awarded to the claimant. Resultantly, this

Tribunal intervenes and imposes penalty of bringing the

claimant down by three stages in basic pay of the time

scale in lieu of penalty of removal from service. Period of

overstayal as well as absence in an unauthorized manner

till 22.6.2009 shall be treated as dies non. In view of these

facts, the claimant is reinstated in service of the Corporation

and would undergo penalty referred above, besides the

period of overstay and absence in unauthorized manner

till 22.6.2009 being treated as dies non. An award is,

accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

government for publication.

Dated : 23.4.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1601-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj baMsu xSl

V£euy] 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 151@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@47@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O.

1601.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 151/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Indane Gas Terminal, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 23/5/2014.

[No. L-30012/47/2012-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D. No. 151/2012

Shri Om Prakash,

S/o Shri Amar Singh,

(Pawa – Mundaan), VPO Deegal,

Dist. Jhajjar, Haryana

......Workman

Versus

The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

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

4290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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. 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-30012/47/2012-

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 Om Prakash, S/o Shri Amar Singh from Indian

Oil Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 04.08.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

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

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.

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.

The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that the

claimant resigned his services voluntarily in March 2012

and accepted a sum of Rs.7312.00 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.

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.

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.

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:-

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 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.000998 dated 30.03.2012 drawn for a sum of Rs.7312.00

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4291

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 04.08.2011.

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. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : April 3, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1602-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eykt[kaM

dkWij izkstsDV vkWiQ fgUnqLrku dkWij 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;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 117@90) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@1@90&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O. 1602.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 117/90)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Malajkhand Copper Project of

Hindustan Copper Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 23/5/2014.

[No. L-43012/1/90-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/117/90

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Swatantra Shrivastava,

H.E.M.E Operator, Grade-II,

Code No. 1769,

Malanjkhand Copper Project,

PO Malanjkhand, Balaghat (MP)

.....Workman

Versus

The Executive Director,

Malanjkhand Copper Project,

H.C. Ltd., PO Malanjkhand,

Distt. Balaghat (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of April, 2014

As per letter dated 20-4-90 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-43012/

1/90-IR(Misc.). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Malanjkhand Copper Project of Hindustan Copper

Ltd., PO Malanjkhand, Distt. Balaghat (MP) in

dismissing the services of Shri Swatantra

Shrivastava, H.E.M.E Operator, Grade II code No.

1769 Malanjkhand Copper Project w.e.f. 22-3-88 is

justified. If not, what relief the said workman is

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Statement of claim is submitted by the workman.

The management of Project is shown as Ist party and the

workman are shown as IInd party/ Non-applicant. The

nomenclature shown is incorrect. The correct nomenclature

of parties should be workman as Ist party and management

4292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of project as IInd party. The parties hereinafter shall be

referred accordingly. Case of Ist party workman is that

workman was working as Heavy Earth Moving Operator.

In 1986, he was promoted as HEME Grade II. For

supporting demands of the employees notice of strike was

given. The strike was to be called on 15th, 16th March

1988 on all India level. 21 lakh employees all over India

were to participate in the strike in support of their demands.

That strike was held peacefully from 14th to 16th March

1988. According to workman, any kind of violence,

indecent act are not taken place. The strike was peaceful.

Workman being member of Hind Mazdoor Sangh

recognized Union, he participate in strike without misusing

his official position. The political and antisocial forces

had tried to interfere in the strike. There was disturbance

in strike by committing certain acts. However the strike

was in control, any act of disturbance, damaging

properties, giving individual slogans had not occurred.

It is alleged that on 16-3-88, some incident occurred

creating tension between student and police. The police

had used force like latthi charge. However the mobs could

not be controlled and police had to fire. 2 employees who

had gone for taking their pupils have suffered bullet

injuries and some other were injured. Latthi charge was

not concerned with strike. Deceased Goyal had gone to

take his wife from school. He died by bullet injury. That

the administration was trying to take disadvantage of the

incident of firing and trying to remove from service to the

employees connected with strike. Workman S.Srivastava

claims that he had gone to Balaghat as his parents were ill.

He was not present on 16-4-88. Thereafter he was suffering

from illness, he had returned to Malajkhand on 21-3-88.

That both S.Srivastava and N.K.Sharma were shown

absconding. Apprehending termination from service

S.Shrivastav filed statement of claim. He denied concern

with any of the act of violence, indiscipline abuses.

Management has not issued notice as per clause 33 of the

standing order, no chargesheet is issued to them.

Management invoked Clause 34 of standing order for

termination of his service. It is illegal, his service cannot

be terminated under Section 34 of standing order. The

management of IInd party has adopted discriminations

passing order of his termination. Ist party workman prays

to set aside the order of termination and reinstatement in

service with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed exhaustive Written Statement at Page

6/1 to 6/22. IInd party opposed relief prayed by both

workmen. IInd party has pointed out that nomenclature

shown in Statement of claim is not proper. Workman should

have shown as Ist party and management as IInd party.

That Ist party workman S.Srivastava was appointed in

November 1980 as trainee. He was promoted as HEME

Grade II in1986. It is denied that his service record is

excellent. As per IInd party service record of workman are

not satisfactory. His training was extended 3 times. IInd

party management has denied that notice of strike was

given in support of demands of employees and the strike

was called from 14th to 16th March. It is denied that the

strike was peaceful and any act of violence , incident act

was not committed. BMS is recognized Union is not

disputed. It is denied that S.Srivastava, Secretary had not

misused his powers. It is denied that peaceful strike was

held on 14th to 16th March 1988. It is denied that

management had pressurized authorities to impose

proclamation of Section 144 of CRPC. That the Govt.

Middle School is near bus stand. Because of dispute with

the students, the rituous atmosphere was created. The

dispute had arose between students and police. Police

had resorted to latthi charge and thereafter firing. The

wards of several student came at school for taking their

pupils. The students and some employees had suffered

injuries. IInd party denied that said violent incident was

not concerned with strike. That N.K.Sharma and

S.Srivastava both were instigating workers. Because of

their instigation, the incident had taken place. The strike

was not peaceful.

Management submits that because of involvement

of large nature of incident, it was not possible to take

action against all of them. There was evidence about the

employee committed misconduct under Clause V to IX,

XX,XXII & LI of Clause 30 of the standing orders. Invoking

powers under Clause 34 of standing order, the services of

workman were terminated. The termination of workman is

legal. It is submitted that compliance of Clause 33 of

standing order is not necessary. It is denied that provisions

of Clause 34 of standing orders are harsh. Management

had taken decision in the meeting to terminate services of

workman invoking powers under Clause- 34 of standing

orders. Before taking said decision, investigation was

carried and report of the investigation was submitted. The

act of management is not arbitrary, not motivated to cause

harassment to workman. The payment of wages was not

withheld for causing harassment of workman. It is denied

that order of termination of workman suffers from any

illegality and be set aside.

In specific pleadings, IInd party submits for minor

misconduct- punishment of withholding increment of

employees was imposed. For serious misconduct, workman

were terminated invoking powers under Clause 34 of

Standing orders. Allegations in the statement of claim are

not correct but same are exaggerated. In the circumstances,

it was not possible to conduct enquiry in respect of the

alleged misconduct by workman. Their services were

terminated considering serious misconduct.

Details of the incident are shown in annexure with

Written Statement by IInd party management. That notice

of strike for 15th, 16th March 1988 was given on 22-2-88.

3 Unions were operating between IInd party. Copper

Mines Workers Union INTUC had not given notice of

strike. The employees of Malajkhand Copper project were

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4293

on strike from 13-3-88 at 4.PM. About 200 employees were

supporting strike. Those employees were given slogans

that the next day was strike day. Several other slogans

instigating employees to resolve to violence. Slogans were

given by Shri S.Srivastava and Shri N.K.Sharma. they were

leading the processing. The employees not joining strike

came in mini bus. They were obstructed and not allowed

to join work. That about 150 employees willing to join

work were obstructed by Shri N.K.Sharma near water

treatment plant. Speech instigating workmen were given.

On 13-3-88 N.K.Sharma was leading the processon which

resulted to latthi charge. The pandal was installed near

water treatment plant by employees supporting strike. On

14th -15th March 88, proclamation under Section 144CRPC

was issued. Employees supporting strike had spread nails

and stones on the road near State bank of India and several

other acts of violence were committed by the employees

supporting strike. After police arrested the employees

committing violent acts, 30-40 ladies had reached to police

station and committed acts of disorder. The labours were

instigated against police by S.K.Sharma and Srivastava.

The police had to resort to latthi charge and firing. The

employees in crowd had entered in the chamber of

Executive Director and committed acts of violence

damaging furniture by setting fire etc. Shri N.K.Sharma

and S.Srivastava were among those persons. The police

chased them, however they had ran away. On such

contentions, IInd party submits that termination of

services of Ist party workman is proper and legal. Reliefs

prayed by workman be rejected.

Workman filed rejoinder at page 10/1 to 10/5

reiterating their contentions in statement of claim. IInd

party filed reply to rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/3 denying

charge of workman and reiterating their contentions in

Written Statement.

As per order dated 22-2-96, my predecessor held

that enquiry was not conducted. Management is directed

to lead evidence to prove misconduct and case was fixed

for evidence of management to prove misconduct. Issues

framed in the matter are not proper.

10.

In view of above aspects, 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 Malanjkhand Copper

Project of Hindustan Copper Ltd.,

PO Malanjkhand, Distt. Balaghat

(MP) in dismissing the services of

Shri Swatantra Shrivastava, H.E.M.E

Operator, Grade II code No. 1769

Malanjkhand copper Project

w.e.f. 22-3-88 is justified?

(ii) If so, to what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?

not entitled

to relief

prayed.

REASONS

11.

As per pleadings of the parties, no chargesheet was

issued to workman Shri S.Srivastava. his services are

terminated invoking section 34 of the standing orders.

Therefore issue No.1 & 2 framed by my predecessor are

redundant. The order dated 22-2-96 passed by my

predecessor permitting IInd party management to prove

misconduct is not challenged by workman. Said order has

reached finality. It is binding on both the parties. The

services of workman are terminated invoking powers under

section 34 of the standing orders.

12.

Copy of certified standing orders submitted by Shri

Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate appearing for management is

incomplete. The copy of certified standing order is

submitted by Shri Verma Advocate for workman. Clause

30 of certified standing order provides various types of

misconduct. Clause 33 provides procedure for dealing with

cases of misconduct. Clause 34 provides for special powers

in certain cases, its verbatim is reproduced below.

“ Where a workman has been convicted for a criminal

offence in a Court of law or where the management

is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing,

that it is inexpedient or against the interest or the

security to continue to employ the workman, the

workman may be discharged from service or his

service terminated without following the procedure

laid down in Clause 33 of these standing orders after

giving him requisite notice or pay in lieu thereof.”

Both the workmen were prosecuted by police for

the same incident. Unfortunately the Criminal case

No. 825/88 and Sessions Case 154/89 were withdrawn

by the State and the accused persons were

discharged in both the cases.

13.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Verma submits

that present case is covered by ratio in Judgment in–

“Case of Karan Singh S/o Hanuman Singh versus

State of MP and another in judgment dated 7-11-98.

I have carefully gone through the facts and ratio

held in the said case. The legality of Clause 11 of

standing order was involved in case before their

Lordship. Clause 11 of the order provided

termination of employment and notice thereof to be

given by the employer and employee (a) when the

employment of a permanent employee is to be

terminated, he shall be given one month’s notice or

shall be paid wages for one month in lieu of notice.

No employee other than a permanent employee shall

be entitled to any such notice or wages in lieu thereof

for termination of his service, (b) the reason for the

4294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

termination of service shall be recorded in writing

and shall be recorded in writing and shall be

communicated to the employee unless such

communication may in the opinion of the manager

directly or indirectly lay the company or the manager

or the person signing the communication open to

civil or criminal proceedings at the instance of the

employee.”

Clause 12.2 deals with the acts or omissions shall

amount to minor misconduct. Clause 12.3 deals the

punishment for a minor misconduct, clause 12.4

provides no punishment shall be imposed on an

employee unless proved guilty of misconduct in an

enquiry conducted in a manner.

Their Lordship observed that workman would be

entitled to retrenchment compensation if the

termination is invoking powers under Clause 11.

Employer cannot be kept away without paying

retrenchment compensation because Section 11

gives him almost absolute powers in aspects of the

workman.

In Para-14 of the judgment, their Lordship observed

Clause 11-A of the standing orders as per order

dated 15-2-88, this fact was not disputed by the

respondents in para-2 of their return. However when

the petitioner filed an application before the Labour

Court for getting that order declared void, the

respondents made a somersault and tried to justify

the termination on the ground that infact, the

termination was for misconduct. The Labour Court

permitted the respondents to take this defence and

decided the case as if termination was for a

misconduct which could be justified before it by

leading evidence.”

The facts of present case are not comparable. The

order of termination issued by management was preceded

by investigating report by District Judge, Balaghat. The

order of dismissal dated 22-3-88 finds clear reference of

serious misconduct committed by workman under clause

V to IX, XX & LI of Clause 30 of certified standing orders.

Thus the termination of workman was not by issuing

notice and paying retrenchment compensation but

termination was for alleged misconduct and exercising

powers under Clause 34 of standing orders issued.

14.

Clause 11-a referred in Judgment in Case of Karan

Singh is not identical to clause 34 of the certified standing

orders of IInd party. Clause 34 provides for satisfaction of

the management on the ground when it is inexpedient or

against the interest or the security to continue to employ

the workman, the workman may be discharged from

service. The ratio held in above cited case cannot be

applied to present case as the workman was dismissed

from service invoking power under Clause 34 by the

management holding that his continuing in service was

not in interest and security of IInd party. Therefore

argument advanced on the point by Shri Sanjay Verma

Advocate cannot be accepted.

15.

As per order dated 22-2-96, management was

permitted to prove misconduct. The management has filed

affidavit of six witnesses. Witness Tijjulal Kewat in his

affidavit of evidence has stated that on 14th to 16th March

88, Mr. Srivastava used to come to the main gate also for

making this announcement.. apart from the announcement

of 3 days strike an appeal of Bharat band on 15-3-88 was

also made. He was shouting on load speaker that “ kal se

kya hai hadtal hai. Jo bhi kaam par jayega voh gaddar hai.

Goli Chale ya bum, hadtal karenge hum. Jo hitlar ki chal

chalega voh kutte ki maut marega.” Those slogans result

in violation. The witness has stated that initially there

were about 75 to 80 workmen, they started shouting

slogans, their leaders were S.Srivastava and N.P.Sharma.

The gathered persons were from MEC and outsiders, all

were raising slogans. The persons were having flags of

their respective Unions and also holding lathi in their

hands. N.K.Sharma and S.Srivastava were instructing to

their members how the persons who were going on duty

be stopped. The persons were going with lathis and other

details are given in his affidavit. That after the injuries

inflicted to those 3 persons, police scattered crowd from

there beating dundas on road. Shri S.K. Bais sustained

injury which was inflicted by the persons of INTUC group.

That Shri S.Srivastava was arrested at that time. All the six

witnesses have deposed about various acts, slogans,

violence of damaging property, set fire to the house of

Executive Director, different slogans given, police inflicted

lathi charge and firing at the school causing casualities of

2 employees. Tijjulal in his cross-examination says he had

heard on microphone S.Srivastava raising slogan. He was

saying that employee should not go to work. That one

S.K.Bais gave lathi blow to Shri S.K.Bundela. Shri S.P.

Pandey and D.K.Singh also given kicks. Shri N.K. Sharma

not taken part in the meeting. He didnot stop anybody.

Shri N.K.Sharma was saying on telephone for beating. He

had heard voice like Mr. Sharma but he could not see his

face. The evidence of Tijjulal Kewat about all the incidents

narrated in his affidavit is not shattered that Shri

S.Srivastava was giving slogans, he was giving speeches

at the gate. Workman was involved in violent acts during

strike period is not shattered. The evidence of Shri

S.K.Bundele is that on 13-3-88, procession lead by

N.K.Sharma and S.Srivastava was taken throughout

township. They were raising provocating slogans.

Incident on 14-3-88 is narrated in para-5. In para-4 the

witness has stated that Shri N.K. Sharma along with 60-70

persons were carrtying lathi and stopped. Shri

S.Srivastava and N.K.Sharma had spread quantity of nails

in front of water filter plant. In Para 8 the witness has

stated about proclamation under Section 144 CRPC. The

other employees assembled near police station. At 8 AM,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4295

a truck load of MECL workers arrived near police station

and were arrested. On request from police authorities, Shri

Amarsingh was detained and arrested all those persons.

Shri K.L.Gautam Mechanic Grade-II hurled an iron rod at

the truck driver Shri Amar Singh while turning towards

Mohgaon, the iron rod broke the window glass and hit

Shri Amarsingh. As the truck stopped, the arrested people

in it jumped down and ran towards the police station where

a large crowd had gathered. In para-11 he says that Shri

S.Srivastava gathered some persons and started stopping

the persons going to work in the first shift and also in the

general shift. Shri S.Srivastava went inside the work place

and threatened the workmen present thereof dire

consequences and scared them away. In his cross-

examination, Shri T.Bhowmic says he did not recollect

whether Shri N.K.sharma was General Secretary of Union

was against the strike. Ganpat MLA was group leader.

The evidence of above witness about instigation to the

employees for committing violent act is not shattered. In

Para 31 the witness says that Shri S.Srivastava was arrested

in morning of 14th March 88. Mr. Dixit was police Suptd.

of Balaghat on date of incident. Similarly witness Shri Theb

Singh Negi, Chandrabhan Chourey, Kunjilal, and

N.P.Tiwari are supporting the allegation of management

that workman S.Srivastava and N.K.Sharma were

instigating workers for violent act. Their evidence is not

shattered in their cross-examination.

16.

The evidence of workman S.Srivastava on affidavit

is by way of denial. When he was arrested by police as per

evidence of management witness, his evidence that he

was not present on 16-3-88 cannot be accepted

considering the distance between Malajkhand and

Balaghat, plea cannot be accepted. The evidence of

workman Shri S.Srivastava and N.K.Sharma that strike was

conducted peacefully and no violent act was committed is

by way of denial. The positive evidence of witness of

management is not shattered in their cross-examination. I

find no reason to disbelieve their evidence given in respect

of different incidents. No doubt, the incident of firing

occurred at near by school, two employees died by police

firing, but both the employees may not directly blamed

argument were advanced that the students have

supporting the strike could not be controlled by police

and ultimately police resorted firing. There were 2

casualties of the employees. No doubt strike is right of the

Union but said right is not absolute. If the striking

employees resorts to violent acts like damaging the

vehicles, setting fire to the residential bunglows of the

Executive Directors threatening life of the family members

of the Executive Directors. The leaders of employees

leading strike had lost control on the employees

participated in the strike. Leaders are expected to control

such incidents. All those incidents of violence were result

of speeches instigating workmen by Shri N.K.Sharma,

S.Shrivastava.

17.

When large number of employees were involved in

strike, the satisfaction of management that enquiry

couldnot be conducted in such case and service of

workman are terminated under Clause 34 of the Standing

order in the circumstances cannot be said illegal. The

evidence of management’s witness is sufficient to prove

misconduct under clause (V to IX, XXII, LI) of standing

orders alleged against workman. Their evidence is not

shattered in cross-examination. In view of proved

misconduct reinstatement of workman would not be proper.

The ratio relied in Case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

And others versus Nathu Ram reported in 2010 LLR 97

relating to the reinstatement needs no detailed discussion.

For the same reasons ratio held in Case of Union of India

and others versus Mohd. Sharif Khan reported in 2006(4)

MPHT 140(DB) cannot be beneficially applied to present

case at hand. For reasons discussed above, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

18.

Point No. 2 : In view of my finding in Point No.1, the

management has adduced evidence regarding misconduct

committed by workman is cogent and misconduct is

proved, workman is not entitled to reinstatement or any

relief. Punishment of workman cannot be said illegal. No

interference is called for therefore I record my finding in

Point No.2 in Negative.

19.

That proceeding B/1/88 is clubbed with present

reference. Perusal of proceeding B/1/88 shows that said

proceeding is clubbed with present reference as per

ordersheet dated 7-1-92. Application for consolidating

present proceeding with R/117/90 was submitted on 3-1-92.

The applicant management submitted that workman

N.K.Sharma was Sr. Mechanic. He joined service on 27-2-78

on the basis of investigation and evidence on record

relating to incidents of violence, burning of company’s

vehicle, setting house on fire. It was found that workman

N.K.Sharma committed misconduct under clause V to IX,

XX & LI of Clause 30 of certified standing orders. That

enquiry under clause 33 of standing orders is not expedient

i.e. his services are terminated by management exercising

powers under Clause 34 of the order. Management prays

approval of action of termination of services of N.K.Sharma

under clause 33 2(b) of I.D.Act.

20.

The application is opposed by workman N.K.Sharma

filing detailed reply. He denies to have committed alleged

misconduct. That making enquiry under clause 33 of

Standing order, termination of his service is illegal. No

ground are made out by management about security to

the establishment of IInd party under clause 34 of the

standing orders. That workman was sent to jail on 17-3-86.

He was allowed anticipatory bail by Session Judge

Balaghat on 22-3-88. He was not absconding. State Govt.

was pleased to order judicial enquiry under commission

of Enquiry Act, 1952 w.r.t. alleged incident therefore

management was not justified in taking disciplinary action

4296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

against him. He was not on duty during relevant period.

The incident in question donot take place on any grounds

of service matters. He was not given opportunity of hearing

by the management. The principles of natural justice are

violated. His termination is made undue. Workman prays

for rejection of application.

21.

Rejoinder is filed by IInd party denying all material

allegations of workman and supporting allegations of

workman invoking power under clause 34 of the standing

order. It is not possible to conduct enquiry under clause

33 of the standing orders. Allegations are denied. It is

denied that State Govt. ordered judicial enquiry of the fact

and circumstances of the entire incidents. IInd party prayed

that contentions of workman be rejected and termination

of workman be approved.

22.

Following issues 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 management is entitled

In Affirmative

for approval of termination of

Sri N.K.Sharma as prayed in B/1/88.

(ii) If so, to what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?

order.

REASONS

23.

Both the cases are clubbed. Evidence is adduced in

R/117/90. The evidence in both cases is adduced. Evidence

of all management witnesses discussed above shows

involvement of N.K.Sharma was leading strike. The

evidence further shows the employees were instigated for

committing violent acts by Shri N.K.Sharma and

S.Srivastava . It is not necessary to discuss same evidence

again. Legal position is clear that under Section 33(2)(b),

“During the pendency of any such proceeding in

respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may,

in accordance with the standing orders applicable

to a workman concerned in such dispute, or where

there are no such standing orders, in accordance

with the terms of the contract, whether express or

implied, between him and the workman-

(b) for any misconduct not connected with the

dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal

or otherwise that workman. Provided that no such

workman shall be discharged or dismissed unless

he has been paid wages for one month and an

application has been made by the employer to the

authority before which the proceeding is pending

for approval of the action taken by the employer.”

Reference 117/90 relates to only dismissal of Shri

S.Srivastava, legality of termination of non-applicant

N.K.Sharma is not referred in said matter. Present

application is directly filed invoking Section 33(C)(2)(b)

of I.D.Act by management for approval of the dismissal of

Non-applicant. Evidence discussed above is clear that

workman N.K.Sharma was involved in instigating striking

employees for act of violence abusive slogans. Clause 34

of the standing orders clearly allow power to management

for termination of employees without following Clause 33

subject to giving notice or pay in lieu of notice. The

dismissal of workman deserves to be approved.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

25.

In the result, award/order is passed as under:-

(I)

In Reference No. 117/90, award is passed that –

(i)

The action of the management of Malanjkhand

Copper Project of Hindustan Copper Ltd., PO

Malanjkhand, Distt. Balaghat (MP) in

dismissing the services of Shri Swatantra

Shrivastava, H.E.M.E Operator, Grade II code

No. 1769 Malanjkhand Copper Project w.e.f.

22-3-88 is legal and proper.

(ii)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

(II)

“Application in B/1/88 is allowed. Dismissal of Shri

N.K.Sharma is hereby approved.”

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1603-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xSl vFkkWfjVh

vkWiQ bafM;k 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 133@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@49@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O.

1603.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 133/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Gas Authority of India Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23/5/2014.

[No. L-30012/49/2001-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/133/2001

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4297

Shri Zulfikar Ali,

S/o Shri Sikandar Ali,

R/o Sipahiyone, Imambada,

Purani Shivpuri,

Shivpuri (MP)

......Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gas Authority of India,

PO Vijaypur,

Distt. Guja (M), Guna

.... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of March, 2014

As per letter dated 6-8-2001 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-30012/

49/2001-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Gas Authority of India Ltd. in terminating

the services of Sri Zulfikar Ali S/o Sikandar Ali w.e.f.

21-1-94 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 11 to 13. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

appointed as Fireman Grade-II vide order dated 13-9-90.

He was appointed after his selection. His service record

was satisfactory. He worked continuously more than 240

days prior to termination of his services. That he could

not attend duties sometimes as his wife was seriously ill.

The Non-applicant was informed about it. The termination

of his service is illegal and amounts to retrenchment. He

was not paid retrenchment compensation before

terminating his services. The principles of last come first

go was not followed. IInd party violated provisions of

Section 25-G, H of I.D.Act. Principles of natural justice

were not followed. He was not given opportunity before

terminating services. On such ground, workman is for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 16/1 to 16/

12. IInd party submits that workman himself was lingering

the matter. He filed statement of claim after more than 2

years. That workman was appointed on probation. He was

discharged from service on 21-1-94. That the reference

made by Govt. is illegal. That as per the conditions of

appointment, the probation period can be extended by

competent authority. His services were liable to be

terminated without assigning reasons. Workman was not

regular. He had habit of remaining absent unauthorisely.

Warnings were issued to workman on 30-3-91, 23-7-92.

His probation period was extended twice. Workman did

not show any improvement during 3 years service. IInd

party has denied all adverse contentions of workman. It is

reiterated that workman was initially appointed as Fireman

Grade-II on 25-8-90 on probation. As per Para-2 Clause-II,

the probation period was liable to be extended at discretion

of competent authority. During period of probation, his

services were liable to be terminated without assigning

reasons. It is further contended that workman remains

unauthorisely absent during probation period. He was

issued warnings twice. The period of his absence was

for 123 days during 3-11-90 to 16-10-92. The warning was

issued to the workman on 30-9-91. His explanation was

called on 12-6-91, 24-6-92. He was issued warning on

23-7-92. Telegrams were issued to him for unauthorized

absence on 25-1-93, 30-1-93, registered letters were sent

advising him to join duty immediately, 3 telegrams were

sent to workman for unauthorized absence.

That management submits that it is engaged in

business of natural gas including transportation of natural

gas and production and transportation of LPG. LPG is

highly inflammable. Therefore the Fire and Safety activities

assume greater importance and these personnel are

required to play a major role in combating any sorts of

eventually which may affect not only the workman

employed in the establishment but the adjoining villages.

The workman being posted in such a sensitivity discipline

activities, had neither paid any heed to the advice of the

superiors nor mend himself despite being counseled and

warned in writing by the superior. He continued his habit

of unauthorized absence. That termination of service is

not covered under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. as per

conditions in appointment order as workman was remaining

unauthorized absence, his services are terminated during

probation period. One month’s pay Rs. 6519 was paid to

him. The termination of workman doesnot suffer from any

illegality. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection

of claim.

Workman filed rejoinder at Page 21/1 to 21/3. He has

reiterated his contentions in statement of claim. He has

further stated that on 2-11-90, there was leakage of chlorine

gas from a valve of water filter plant. Hundreds of workers

were working at the plant. Workman was directed by Head

of Safety to go to the water filter plant and close the said

valve. Accordingly he had closed the leakage of the gas.

He had suffered badly from leakage of gas. He was advised

to take rest. He was not completely recovered. He was

facing lot of problems of lungs inhaling chlorine gas. That

his wife was suffering from TB. He has taken his wife to

Civil Hospital, Puna for treatment. He was unable to attend

the management. Workman prays for his reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

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:-

4298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of General Manager,

Gas Authority of India Ltd in

terminating the services of

Sri Zulfikar Ali S/o Sikandar Ali

w.e.f. 21-1-94 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his services

for violation of provisions of I.D.Act. That he was not

paid retrenchment compensation, principle of last come

first go was not followed. IInd party denied allegation. As

per IInd party workman was terminated as he was in habit

of remaining unauthorisely absent from duties.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He has

stated that on 2-11-90 there was leakage of chlorine gas

from valve of water plant. He had closed valve at the point

of leakage. The Head of security had advised him to take

rest as he was badly affected. Doctor advised him to take

two weeks rest. That he suffered problems in neck and

lung due to inhaling large quantity of gas. His wife was

suffering from TB. He was taken to Civil Hospital. His wife

died on 29-3-97. In his cross-examination workman says

that he was not appointed in writing. He denies that

repeated warnings were issued to him for his absence. He

denies any memorandum was given to him by management.

He further says that he was posted at Shivpuri, sometimes

at Raghavgarh. He was on medical leave from 30-10-90 to

17-11-90. He denies that he was on medical leave without

sanction. He admits that place of his appointment was at

100 kms from Shivpuri. There are hospitals at Raghavgarh

at 3 kms distance. There is also Govt. hospital at Guna. He

had suffered due to inhailing of chlorine on 2-11-90. He

received treatment for his nose, eyes and head.

Management’s witness Uttam Ade in his affidavit of

evidence has stated that workman was appointed on

probation. He remained unauthorisely absent. His

probation period was extended. He had seen his service

record. As per terms and condition of appointment,

workman is terminated during probation period. In his

cross-examination workman says probation period of

workman was extended six times for six months period.

Again witness says that probation period was extended

twice. The receipt of the orders of extension of probation

period are produced. Witness admits that extension of

probation period is after one year, IInd extension was made

after 26 months. He did not recollect after how much period

the first order of extension of probation period was issued.

The services of workman were not terminated, he was given

opportunity. Even thereafter the workman did not resume

work. That he had extended probation period of workman

from 14-11-91 to 13-3-92. Workman was submitting medical

certificates at joining of duty. The witness did not

remember whether in 1990, there was leakage of chlorine

gas from the plant. IInd management witness Dr. Smt.

Mallika Ravi says that she had issued medical certificate

for illness of his leg. That workman was never provided

treatment for illness on account of gas leakage. That she

had issued medical certificate Exhibits M-14, 14-A, B. said

witness in her further cross-examination says that he was

appointed on 7-9-90 as Medical Officer. Dr. Chandra

Tripathi was her predecessor. Workman had shown his

identity card because of which I recognized him as a worker

of plant. She denies that Certificate Exhibits M-14, 14-B

are fake. In 1993 workman has brought his wife for treatment

of TB. Exhibit W-1 is reference slip, Exhibit W-2 is

memorandum about medical expenditure for treatment of

wife of workman. Exhibits W-3,4,5,6 also relates to treatment

of wife of workman Sajda Bano. The copy of appointment

letter is produced at Exhibit M-2. Workman was appointed

on probation of one year. As per clause II, during probation

period, services of workman are liable to be terminated

without assigning reasons. The termination of service is

covered under Clause-II of the appointment order. The

probation period of workman was extended as per

document M-3 for the period 14-9-91 for a period of six

months. Document Exhibit M-4 shows absence of

workman from duty, leave application etc. Exhibits M-5,6,7

is the inter report about assessment of probation period.

Workman had submitted application M-8 requesting him

to join on duty. He had assured to submit application for

leave. Similar application was submitted by workman

M-9,10,11. Document M-12 is notice served on workman

for retrenchment of his service under Section 25-F. the

copy of general terms and conditions of service is produced

at Exhibit M-13. The termination order is produced at Exhibit

M-15. Documents M-16,17 produced by management

relating to the service performance. The workman was

absent from duties many times unauthorisely as shown in

Exhibit M-14. The application submitted by workman

Exhibits M-8 to M-11 shows he was in habit of remaining

absent without applications. The evidence discussed

above shows that the service of workman was not

satisfactory during probation period. It was the reason for

terminating services of workman during probation period.

10.

Learned counsel for management Shri Jain relies on

ratio held in :

“Case of Ksirhnadevaraya Education Trust and

another versus L.A.Balakrishna reported in AIR 2001-

SC-625. Their Lordship held employer has in terms

of letter of appointment right to terminate his

services. In order to avoid the allegations that order

is stigmatic the employer should not state any

reasons why services are terminated.”

In present case, termination order of workman Exhibit

M-15 nothing is stated stigmatic against the workman.

There is no evidence that the termination of service of

workman was by way of punishment.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4299

In case of Sarbjit Singh versus Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Amritsar and others reported in 2012 LLR

46. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F and

Section2(s) of I.D.Act, termination of service was

challenged on ground that termination was in nature of

punishment. The petitioners were probationers and were

terminated during probation period. Their Lordship held

probationer is not entitled to demand the reasons of

termination. Cannot use the noting and constituting a siur

or a stigma to demand an enquiry. Termination effected

must be seen for the context of how the orders themselves

read. Labour Court rightly held that their services could

be terminated at any time and no stigma cast on them.

The ratio squarely covers the present case. The

other citations are also submitted by learned counsel needs

no discussion. Considering the evidence, the workman

was terminated during probation period as his service

record was not satisfactory. He was habitual in remaining

unauthorisely absent. The termination of workman cannot

be said illegal. Therefore I record my finding on Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The of the management of General Manager, Gas

Authority of India Ltd in terminating the services of

Sri Zulfikar Ali S/o Sikandar Ali w.e.f. 21-1-94 is legal

and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1604-—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] ekdsZ¯Vx fMoh”ku 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;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@09) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@13@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O. 1604.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/09)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Gas Authority of India Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23/5/2014.

[No. L-30012/13/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/74/09

Presiding Officer : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Ku. Vidyawati Ramswaroop Verma,

R/o 41/5, Malharganj,

Indore

......Workman

Versus

St. Depot Manager,

IOCL, Marketing Division,

Bulk Petroleum Depot,

Mangaliagaon,

Indore

....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 31st day of March, 2014)

As per letter dated 28-8-09 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-30012/

13/2009-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Sr. Depot

Manager, IOCL, Marketing division, Mangliagaon ,

Indore in obtaining resignation letter from Ku.

Vidyawati Ramswaroop Verma under duress and

influence is justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed statement of claim. The case of

workman is that she was appointed on post of typist cum

clerk at Mangaliagaon Depot as physically handicapped.

Her appointment was against clear vacancy. She joined

service on 30-9-99. That her mother fells seriously ill

therefore she had to take leave to look after her mother.

She had submitted application for leave giving the reasons.

On 24-3-2000, it was Sunday, she was called by Depot

Manager S.G. Alone. She was asked to sign some papers

for regularizing her leave and thereafter payment was to

be made. As she was in need for money for treatment for

her ageing mother who was ill, she signed the papers on

direction of the Officer. She was under impression that the

cheque was of her salary. In April 2000, she came to join

her duty in the office as her mother was discharged from

hospital, she was surprised to know that some officer

represented that she had resigned from service therefore

she cannot be allowed to join. Workman thereafter

submitted several representations but she was not allowed

to join duty. Ultimately she raised the dispute under

reference.

Management filed Written Statement. Case of IInd

party management is that workman joined duty on 30-9-99

is not disputed. Workman was appointed under physically

handicapped category. IInd party claims ignorance about

4300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

illness of her mother. That since her joining duty on

30-9-99, workman frequently remained absent from duty

without intimation, prior approval. Workman was absent

for 62 days from 1-10-99 to 1-12-99, 6&7-12-99 and 9-12-99

to 26-1-00 respectively for 2 days and 49 days. That on

8-3-00, workman sought leave for indefinite period. Then

she tendered resignation of her own which was accepted

by management. IInd party denied that on 24-3-00,

workman was called by Sr. Dy.Manager S.G.Alone. That

the leave taken by workman is the matter of record. It is

denied that workman was compelled to sign the paper on

say of Sr. Depot Manager S.G.Alone. IInd party reiterates

that workman joined service on 30-9-99 and resigned on

26-4-00. There was unauthorized absence of workman.

Workman was not justified in remaining absent from duty

for long period. Workman herself submitted resignation

on 25-3-2000. Workman was relieved w.e.f. 26-4-00.

Management submits that lenient view was taken by

management and regularized unauthorized absence of

workman. That workman was directed to join duty on or

before 12-4-00 failing which management would be

constrained to take disciplinary action against her, no reply

was received to the letter. Either workman had joined her

duty instead he tendered her resignation on 25-3-00.

Workman was absent from duty without sanctioned leave.

Workman has not pleaded the date of submitting

application for leave in her statement of claim. On such

grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of the claim of

workman.

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 Sr. Depot Manager, IOCL,

Marketing division, Mangliagaon,

Indore in obtaining resignation

letter from Ku. Vidyawati Ramswaroop

Verma under duress and influence is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of her service

on account of resignation. According to workman, Sr.

Depot Manager Mr. Alone obtained her signature under

the pretext of regularizing her unauthorized absence from

duty and payment of salary. Workman signed the

document. Management denies above allegation of

workman. It is contented that workman was frequently

unauthorisely absent. She had voluntarily submitted

resignation on 25-3-00. Workman was relieved w.e.f. 26-3-00.

Workman filed affidavit of her evidence stating that on

24-3-00, Shri S.G.Alone. Dy. Manager called her in his

chamber and asked her to sign in blank paper for

regularizing her leave. As her mother was ill, she took

further leave. In April 2000, when she resumed her duty

again she was told by Manager about her resignation

accepted on 26-4-00. She was not allowed to join duty. In

her cross-examination, workman admits that he joined duty

on 30-10-99. He was appointed in handicapped category,

she denies that she was absent without intimation. That

she has produced medical certificate about illness of her

mother. She denied that she was absent from duty without

intimation from 1-10-99 to 1-12-99. Workman claims he

had given information on telephone. She had not obtained

acknowledgement. She denied that she was unauthorisely

absent from 9-12-99 to 26-1-00. She did not recollect

whether on 8-3-00, she had orally requested for unlimited

leave. That she was not given any directions on 15-3-00

about her unauthorised absence. She denies that on 25-3-

00, she voluntarily submitted her resignation, she was

relieved on 26-4-00.

Evidence of management’s witness Praveen Kumar

Shrivastava is on the point that workman was unauthorisely

absent for 62 days from 1-10-99 to 1-12-99, 2 days from

6-12-99 to 7-12-99, for 49 days from 9-12-99 to 26-1-00. As

workman again absented from duty without permission

from 8-3-00, she was requested to join duty on or before

17-3-00 as per letter dated 15-3-00. Workman sought leave

from 8-3-00 till indefinite period. Workman tendered

resignation on 25-3-00. She resigned from service of

corporation from 26-4-00. That workman was directed to

join on or before 10-4-00 vide letter dated 29-3-00. Workman

submitted representation after lapse of 1 year on

26-4-2001 requesting permission to join duty. Said letter

was replied on 31-5-01. In his cross-examination

management’s witness says that there are certified standing

orders governing conduct of workman. He shown his

readiness to produce standing orders. For submitting

resignation, one months notice is required. Resignation is

forwarded to HR deptt. Appointing Authority is Sr.ER

Manager. Depot Manager was not competent to process

resignation. It was required that resignation letter normally

addressed to the Competent authority. On 6-5-00,

resignation of workman was accepted. The proposal for

acceptance of resignation was till 18-5-00. He further says

that in para-16 of his affidavit, the date of acceptance of

his resignation is typing error.

Management’s witness S.G.Alone in his affidavit has

stated about date of appointment and unauthorized leave

period. That on 25-3-00, workman tendered her signature.

He identified signature of the workman. She was relieved

w.e.f. 26-4-00. That he appraised consequences of

resignation to workman that if her resignation is accepted

by Competent Authority, she will lose job. He has told

that she is not in a position to continue job due to her

personal reasons. His further affidavit is devoted on

proposal for acceptance was prepared on 18-4-00. The

resignation was accepted. workman got amount of

Rs. 22,262 towards final settlement. In his cross-examinatin,

witness of management says workman was working under

him when he was Sr. Depot Manager. The document

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4301

received from HR Deptt. Bombay. Proposal for acceptance

of resignation dated 8-4-00 bears signature of Shri

S.G.Patwardhan, Asstt. Manager Personnel, Mr. Hari Sr.

E.R.Manager. The document is exhibited and proved.

Other documents are marked M-3 to M-6. That appointing

authority of workman was Chief Manager HR. That letter

issued to workman about her unauthorized absence is not

produced on record. DE was not conducted. He admits

that workman had submitted application for leave. Leave

was signed without pay. He denies that resignation is

required to be addressed to Appointing Authority. He

denies that on 25-3-00, he obtained signature of workman

on blank paper. Witness volunteered that resignation letter

was forwarded to Bhopal office. At that time he did not

see any rules but he explained consequences orally.

Witness claims ignorance whether there are rules about

counseling period before acceptance of resignation.

The evidence of management’s witness suffers from

inconsistencies about the date of relieving workman.

Documents Exhibits M-1, M-2 shows workman had

requested to relieve her from 26-4-00. The proposal for

acceptance M-2 doesnot bear signature of Shri S.G. Alone.

During course of argument, learned counsel for IInd party

Shri Shashi pointed out attention that letter Exhibit M-3

sent by workman on 26-4-01 after one year finds reference

that workman had submitted resignation. Said letter Exhibit

M-3 is carefully considered. She has stated that she had

rendered one month’s service. Thereafter she proceeded

on long leave due to illness of her mother. She submitted

leave application from time to time. Lastly due to

continuous sickness of her mother and to look after her,

she could not spare herself. Ultimately compelled to tender

resignation without any alternative. Letter Exhibit M-3 is

silent that her signature was obtained by Sr. Depot

Manager on blank paper. Document M-4 is reply given to

letter of workman Exhibit M-3. She was unauthorisely

absent and tendered resignation. She was relieved w.e.f.

26-4-00. Her request for joining duty was not allowed.

Management has not produced application for leave

submitted by workman. That workman was granted leave

without pay, there was no reason for her to submit

resignation. Evidence of both witnesses of management

is silent about reasons for submitting resignation by

workman. The letter issued by Sr. Depot Manager about

her unauthorized leave is not produced on record. The

evidence is tested by probabilities. The evidence of

workman deserves to be accepted that there was no reason

for submitting resignation by her. The salary of workman

Rs. 22,262 was paid as per letter dated 4-10-2002 at Exhibit

M-6. It corroborates evidence of workman that her

signature was obtained on document for payment of her

salary. MW-1 has not submitted copy of standing orders.

When document Exhibit M-1 finds clear reference that

workman requested to relieve w.e.f. 26-4-00, the proposal

for acceptance of resignation was submitted on 18-4-00. It

was not accepted on prior to 26-4-00. The signatures was

finally made on 6-5-00. Thus the evidence of management

about acceptance of resignation, reasons for resignation

is not consistent.

10.

Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shashi relies on

ratio held in

Short note 12, 2003 LLR 618 on the point of

resignation, termination of services because of

abandonment by workers would come within the definition

of retrenchment. That merely stating in the pleadings that

employee has tendered resignation will not be sufficient

without supporting it with evidence. The burden of proof

substantiate lies on the concerned employee.

In the case of Nand Keshwar Prasad versus Indian

Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. And others reported

in 1998 5 Supreme court Cases 461. Their Lordship of the

Supreme court dealing with withdrawal of notice before

date of resignation held permissible but in present case,

workman is not pleading withdrawal of resignation. Her

case is that her signature was obtained on blank paper by

Sr. Depot Manager.

In 2003(5) Supreme court Cases 455 their Lordship

of the Supreme Court dealing with resignation of, effective

date of proof of acceptance held. Resignation becomes

effective on acceptance even if the acceptance is not

communicated. In present case, the acceptance of

resignation was not communicated to the workman till reply

given to her letter dated 26-4-01. Therefore ratio cannot be

applied to case at hand.

Reliance is placed on ratio held in case of Laffans

India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pancham Singh Rawat and another

reported in 2003-IV-LLJ-93 cannot be applied to present

case at hand as the facts of said case are not comparable.

Though in case before their Lordship, workman’s plea was

of forced resignation and not termination. The employers

intention was of voluntary resignation. Labour Court

accepted resignation voluntary then hold the resignation

forced. Their Lordship held Labour Court’s conclusion

that it was forced resignation because workman’s name

was not in FIR is baseless and perverse. In present case,

the workman was granted leave without pay prior to the

alleged resignation, she had no reason to submit

resignation. The letter issued by Sr. Depot Manager abut

unauthorized absence of workman is not produced, the

applications for leave submitted by workman are not

produced. Workman’s salary was paid as per Exhibit M-6

in 2006. Thus circumstances corroborates evidence of

workman that her signature was obtained by Sr. Depot

Manager on blank paper.

The ratio held in case of J.K.Cotton Spinning and

Weaving Mills Co.Ltd. Kanpur versus State of UP reported

in AIR 1990-SC-1808, their Lordship held that termination

of service by acceptance of resignation doesnot amount

to retrenchment but covered under voluntary retirement.

Ratio cannot be applied beneficially to present case as the

controversy between parties is different.

4302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shashi also

pointed out my attention to award passed in R/139/93. In

said case, the appointment of workman was subject to

verification of genuiness of service card. After verification

of service card submitted by workman was found bogus.

The facts of the present case are not comparable and

therefore identical view cannot be taken in the matter.

11.

Learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri R.C.

Shrivastava also relies in employees of the Bharat Bank

versus Bharat Bank Ltd. on 1st March, 1950. The judgment

is devoted to the powers of Tribunal exercising quasi-

judicial functions. The powers of this Tribunal are not in

question. The controversy between parties relates to

whether termination of service of workman by accepting

resignation of workman is legal. As discussed above,

evidence of management’s witness is inconsistent on

several points. Workman was handicapped and fortunate

to get employment. Her leave applications were granted

without pay. There was absolutely no reason to submit

resignation from service. Management has not produced

any rules or standing orders. The Sr. Depot Manager while

forwarding resignation of workman under Exhibit M-5 has

not made remark that the workman was appraised of the

consequences of resignation. Evidence of management’s

witness is not corroborated by document Exhibit M-5.

Salary was paid to workman as per letter Exhibit M-6 on

4-10-02. Above evidence shows that workman was not

given any time for reconciliation. She signed on the

documents believing that it pertains to regularization of

her absence and payment of salary therefore the alleged

resignation accepted by management cannot be said legal.

The termination of service of workman by accepting her

resignation cannot be said legal. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

12.

Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

question arises whether workman is entitled for

reinstatement with back wages. The evidence of workman

shows that she was not allowed to join duty telling that

her resignation was accepted on 26-4-00. Workman was

on leave for taking care of her mother. Subsequently her

mother died, date is not given. Workman has not stated

what she was doing after acceptance of resignation. Her

affidavit is silent on the point of her employment.

Considering above aspects in my considered view as

termination of workman was on account of acceptance of

resignation illegally, reinstatement with 30 % back wages

would be appropriate. Accordingly, I record my finding in

Point No. 2.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Sr. Depot Manager,

IOCL, Marketing division, Mangliagaon , Indore in

obtaining resignation letter from Ku. Vidyawati

Ramswaroop Verma is not legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service with 30 % back wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1605-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ubZ bafM;k

vL;wjsUl 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 12@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O. 1605.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Lucknow, 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 23/5/2014.

[No. L-15025/1/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 12/2013

BETWEEN

Shri Ram Bahadur Maurya

S/o Shri Mahavir Maurya,

Village – Pure Bhujwan Hamin Mau,

PO – Bela Bhela, Uttar Para,

Distt. Raibareilly

AND

Branch Manager

New India Assurance Company Limited

Raibareilly

Branch Manager

New India Assurance Company Limited

18/7 A, C.K. Cotton Mill Crossing

Naini, Allahabad.

Regional Manager

New India Assurance Company Limited

15/60, Green House, Civil Line

Near M.G. College,

Kanpur.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4303

AWARD

The present industrial dispute has been filed by the

workman, Shri Ram Bahadur Maurya S/o Shri Mahavir

Maurya, Village – Pure Bhujwan Hamin Mau, PO – Bela

Bhela, Uttar Para, Distt. Raibareilly and the Branch

Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited,

Raibareilly & the Branch Manager, New India Assurance

Company Limited, 18/7 A, C.K. Cotton Mill Crossing, Naini,

Allahabad & the Regional Manager, New India Assurance

Company Limited, 15/60, Green House, Civil Line, Near

M.G. College, Kanpur for adjudication before this CGIT-

cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

The case of the workman, in brief, is that the

workman, Ram Bahadru Maurya was appointed as regular

worker with the opposite Party No. 1 on 01.03.1991 and

was transferred to the opposite Party on 15.06.98; and

accordingly he joined with the opposite party No. 2. It is

stated by the workman that he requested for regularization

as per departmental Rules; but the management did not

pay any heed to his request, which led to filing of Writ

Petition No. 37491/2000 before Court. It has been alleged

by the workman that the management got annoyed with

the workman and retrenched his services w.e.f. 07.06.2000

without complying with the mandatory provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 i.e. giving notice or notice

pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation; in

spite of the fact that he worked for more than 240 days in

each year. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that he

be reinstated with consequential benefits including back

wages and seniority above his juniors.

The copy of statement of claim was sent to the

opposite parties by the workman itself prior to filing the

case before this Tribunal; accordingly the registered notice

was issued to the management, directing to file its written

statement on 13.03.2013. The management failed to comply

with the orders and did not turn up to file its written

statement on 13.03.2013. When the opposite party did

not turn up on subsequent dates i.e. 01.04.2013 &

26.04.2013, another registered notice was issued to the

management for filing of its written statement on 06.06.2013.

The management filed its authority on 06.06.2013 in favour

of one Shri Jitendera Narayan Mishra, advocate and sought

time for filing of written statement; accordingly, 01.08.2013

was fixed for written statement. The management again

remained absent on 01.08.2013 and 19.09.2013 was fixed

for written statement. On 19.09.2013 the management again

moved adjournment, fixing, 11.10.2013 for written stamen.

The management remained absent on following dates i.e.

11.10.2013 and 28.11.2013. On 28.11.2013 when the

management did not turn up for filing of written statement,

the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte, and next date

20.01.2014 was for ex-parte evidence. On 20.01.2014 the

workman field its evidence and 21.02.2014 was fixed for

arguments.

The management again refrained to attend the

proceedings on 21.02.2014 and 02.204.2014; and

accordingly, the ex-parte arguments of the workman’s

representative were heard. The file was reserved for award,

keeping in view long pendency of the case and reluctance

of the management to contest their case.

Heard argument of the representative of the workman

and perused entire material available on record.

The workman has come up with the case that he was

appointed as regular worker with the opposite Party No. 1

on 01.03.1991. When the management did not regularized

his series he took shelter of Hon’ble High Court, which

rejected his case on alternate remedy. It is also the case of

the workman that the management retrenched his services

w.e.f. 07.06.2000, ignoring the fact that he worked for more

than 240 days in each year and without complying with

the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 i.e. giving notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any

retrenchment compensation.

The workman has field its evidence on affidavit,

reiterating its version in the statement of claim. The

management has not filed any evidence in rebuttal thereof.

In his evidence the workman has filed the

photocopies of certain certificates without date, purported

to be in support of his claim that he worked with the

opposite party for the alleged duration. There is no rebuttal

from the management of above certificates. The workman

has riled on Gyanendra Pal Singh & Others Vs. Cane

Commissioner & Others 2009 (123) FLR 201. Wherein

Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad has observed as under:

“6. Since no counter affidavit has been filed till date,

the ground taken in the writ petition are taken to be

correct in view of the decisions rendered in Choksi

Tube Company Limited Vs. Union of India, Naseem

Bano Vs. State of U.P. and Others.”

In view of the case law cited above, and relying on

the photocopy of the certificates filed by the workman, it

comes out that the services of the workman have been

availed as temporary peon for the period 1991 to 1998,

then from 15.06.1998 to 31.12.1999 on daily wages. The

Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 21.07.2011 has

endorsed this fact that the workman in its writ petition has

contended that he was a daily wager peon.

The workman has pleaded that his services have

been terminated in utter violation to the provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act, without giving him any notice or

notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment

compensation. In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another

Vs. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon’ble

Apex Court came to the conclusion that where the workman

could be entitled for the protection of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided he is successful in

establishing the fact that he had been in employment with

4304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It

was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in such cases,

the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was

confined only to 12 months preceding the date of

termination to decide the question of the continuous

service for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

In Asstt. Engineer Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & another

Vs. Gitam Singh 2013 9136) FLR 908 Hon’ble Apex court

observed that there was violation of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where the services of a daily

wager was terminated by an oral order, who worked for

240 days. Also, in L. Robert D’Souza case (1982) 1 SCC

645 Ho’nble Supreme Court held that Section 25-F of the

ID Act is applicable to a daily rated worker.

In the present case, in view of non-rebuttal from the

management to the evidence filed by the workman, it is

taken that the workman worked for 240 days in the 12

months preceding the date of termination i.e. 07.06.2000

and he was not given any notice or notice pay in lieu

thereof or any retrenchment compensation while

retrenching his services in violation to the provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act.

10.

Now, it is to be considered as to whether the workman

is entitled for reinstatement and other benefits as prayed

by him in his statement of claim. From the evidence

produced by the workman it is not proved that he was

appointed as a regular worker. As per the photocopy of

the documentary evidence relied by the workman it is

established that he had worked with the management of

New India Assurance Co. Limited as daily rated temporary

peon. Admittedly, the services of the workman were

terminated on 07.06.2000. In Haryana Roadways Vs.

Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005 SCC (L&S) 716

Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the question

regarding award of back wages has observed:

“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where

the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the

termination of service was in violation of

Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should

be awarded …………… . However, where the total

length of service rendered by a workman is very

small, the award of back wages for the complete

period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of

the award, which our experience shows is often quite

large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another

important factor, which required to be taken into

consideration, is the nature of employment. A regular

service of permanent character cannot be compared

to short or intermittent daily wage employment

though it may be for 240 days in a calandar year.”

11.

In Deepak Ganpat Tari Vs. N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd.

2008 (119) FLR 877 Hon’ble Bombay High Court relying

on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in A P V K

Brahmandandam 2008 (117) FLR 1086 (SC) Telephone DM

Vs. Keshab Deb 2008 (118) FLR 376 (SC) JDA Vs. Ram

Sahai 2006 (111) FLR 1178 (SC), while awarding

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the concerned workman

considering his daily wages as Rs. 45/- in view of the fact

that the workman had put in about 3 years of service, has

observed as under:

“It is apparent that termination of services of a daily

wager does not amount to retrenchment and for

violation of section 25-F in such circumstances, the

employee cannot be given benefit of reinstatement

with continuity and back wages. Hon’ble Apex Court

has hold that in such circumstance employee is

entitled to benefit of compensation only.”

12.

Also, in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture

Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545:

Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal Vs.

Santosh Kumar Seal and Others (2010) 2 SSC (L&S) 309

Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in

the legal position and in a long line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief by

way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given

fact situation even though the termination of an

employee is in contravention of the prescribed

procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement

has been held to meet the ends of justice.

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.”

13.

In the light of principle laid down in aforementioned

case laws, it would not be just and proper to direct that the

workman be reinstated in service. The ends of justice

would meet by paying compensation to the workman

instead in place of relief of reinstatement in service.

14.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it is

established that the services of the workman were availed

by the management of New India Assurance Company

Limited as daily wager and he worked for more than 240

days preceding one year from the date of his alleged

termination; and also that his services were terminated by

oral order without giving him any notice, notice pay or

any retrenchment compensation, in utter violation of

provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. Hence, having

regard to these facts that the workman has worked as

daily wager only and he was getting Rs. 50/- per day at the

time of his alleged termination and keeping in view the

entire facts of the case and the law, the interest of justice

would be subserved, if, management is directed to pay

lump sum amount of compensation only.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4305

15.

Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a

sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) to the

workman, Ram Bahadur Maurya as compensation for

termination of his services in violation of section 25 F of

the I.D. Act. The said amount shall be paid to the workman

within 06 weeks of publication of the award, failing which;

the same shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.

16.

Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW

11th April, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1606-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xkMZu jhp f'ki

fcYMlZ ,aM bathfu;lZ 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;] dksydkrk

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 04@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&32011@5@99&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O.

1606.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2002)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Garden Reach Ship Builders &

Engineers Limited and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 23/5/2014.

[No. L-32011/5/99-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 04 of 2002

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of

Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the

: Mr. R. De, Ld. Advocate

Management

On behalf of the

: None

Workman

State : West Bengal

Industry : Airlines.

Dated : 6th April, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-32011/5/99-IR(M) dated 27.02.2002

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 the action of the management of Garden

Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. in dismissing

Sh. Bijayananda Roy from service w.e.f. 30.6.94 is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled?”

When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of the union/workman inspite of specific

order of the last date, i.e., on 19.03.2004, though the

management is represented by its Ld. Counsel.

Considering the above conduct of the union it may

reasonably be presumed that the union does not want to

proceed with the case further. Perhaps at present the union

has got no grievance against the management.

In view of the above, instant reference case is

disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Kolkata

The 6th April, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1607-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u js;j

vFlZ 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;] dksphu ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 1@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@26@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O.

1607.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Indian Rare Earths Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 23/5/2014.

[No. L-29011/26/2008-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

4306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding

Officer

(Monday the 28th day of April, 2014/8th Vaisakha, 1936)

ID 1/2010

Unions

: 1. Shri B Baiju

General Secretary

IRE Mining Civil Workers Congress

(INTUC) Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal

Karunagappally

2. Shri G P Sanil

General Secretary

IRE Area Constructions &

General Workers Union (AITUC),

Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal Post Karunagappally

3. Shri K Suresh

General Secretary

IRE Mining Workers Union

Vellanthuruthu Cheriazheekkal PO

Karunagappally

4. Shri Subhajan V

Convener

IRE Mining Civil Forum Workers

Union (BMS)

Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal PO

Karunagappally

5. Shri K Vijayalal

Secretary

Karunagappally Taluk General

Workers Union (UTUC),

Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal Post Karunagappally

6. Shri C Lalji Prasad

General Secretary

IRE Mining & Loading Workers

Union (UTUC-B)

Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal PO

Karunagappally

7. Shri Solomon Netto

Secretary, IRE Civil Workers Union

(CITU) Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal PO Karunagappally

By M/s.H B Shenoy Associates

(for 1to 4 and 6 & 7 Unions)

Managements : 1. The Head

Indian Rare Earths Limited

Chavara PO

Distt. Kollam (Kerala) – 691583

By M/s.Menon & Pai

2. The President

M/s. IRE Mining Area Civil Contract

Workers Welfare Forum C/o IRE Ltd.,

Chavara Kollam,

Chavara (Kerala) – 691583

3. The Secretary

M/s. IRE Mining Area Civil Contract

Workers Welfare Forum

C/o IRE Ltd., Chavara

Kollam (Kerala) – 691583

By Advs. Shri Paulson C Varghese &

Shri Baby Joseph

(for 2nd& 3rd Managements)

This case coming up for final hearing on 11.04.2014

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 28.04.2014 passed

the following :

AWARD

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 (14 of 1947), the

Government of India/Ministry of Labour vide Order No.

L-29011/26/2008-IR(M) dated 18.11.2009 referred this

industrial dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

The dispute is:

“Whether the action of the IRE Mining Area Civil

Contract Workers Welfare Forum, a subordinate

body constituted by the management of Indian Rare

Earths Ltd., in not acceding the request of the

workers to convert the mutual understandings

arrived by them on 6th March, 2008 and 5th April,

2008 without complying Rule 58(4) of the Industrial

Disputes (Central) Rules to a legally valid

conciliation settlement is justified?”

“Whether the demand of the raw-sand Loading

workers of the IRE Mining Area Civil Contract

Workers Welfare Forum, working in Vellanathuruth

and Ponmana Mines of Indian Rare Earths Ltd.

Chavara for declaring the weekly holidays and public

holidays in the establishments as holidays with

wages is justified?”

After service of summons to all the parties unions 1

to 4, 6 & 7 and all the three managements entered

appearance. 5th union did not appear and has not

participated in the proceedings.

In the claim statement filed by the contesting unions,

after stating that the first of the two issues referred for

adjudication stands resolved by the Long Term Settlements

dated 06.03.2008 and 05.04.2008 and hence does not require

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4307

any adjudication, it is alleged that the second issue has

been raised by the unions in respect of the workmen of

the first management working in the “Mycaud” category

in the first management’s mines in Block-IV of Chavara

Deposit which forms part of Vellanathuruth Ward of

Alappad Grama Panchayat and Ponmana Ward of Ponmana

Grama Panchayat. They are employed for loading raw

sand collected from the mines into the lorries for being

transported to the first management’s plant at Chavara for

processing. They have been continuously and regularly

working ever since 1993. Their work is of perennial in

nature and is essential for the sustenance of the first

management’s activities and operations. Except those

workmen all other workmen and employees of the first

management are afforded the benefit of all holidays

including weekly holidays and public holidays as holidays

with wages. They are only being denied of wages for the

holidays. It is discriminatory and illegal and is also against

the prevalent practice and norms in the industry. Denial

of such a benefit of wages for holidays is unjust and unfair

and is an unfair labour practice prohibited under the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They are also

entitled to the benefit of holidays with wages as in the

case of the other workmen and employees of the first

management. Even though they are entitled to get the

benefit from the date of entry in service they confine their

claim for it from 24.04.2008, the date on which the charter

of demands was made by the unions relating to this

industrial dispute. The claim is legal, just and bonafide

and hence they are entitled to get it allowed.

In the written statement filed by the first management

it is admitted that the first issue referred for adjudication

was resolved as per the Long Term Settlements. For the

purpose of considering the second issue it is contended

that the workmen concerned in the reference are not the

workmen of the first management. They are members of

the second management. There exists no master and

servant relationship between them and the first

management. Being the members of the second

management they cannot raise a dispute against the first

management for treating them on par with its permanent

employees for the benefits extended to them like weekly

holidays and public holidays. The first management is a

Govt. of India undertaking and is having two units in the

State of Kerala, one at Chavara in Kollam District and the

other at Udyogamandal in Ernakulam District. It is engaged

in mining and separation of minerals from the beach sand

available in the coastal areas between Neendakara and

Kayamkulam. It started production in the year 1970 and

as part of the production activities it is doing mining work

at the Vellanathuruth Ward of Alappad Panchayat and at

the Ponmana Ward of Ponmana Panchayat. As there was

obstruction from the local people for carrying out the work

by making demand to give them employment revenue

authorities intervened in the matter and after detailed

discussions an understanding was reached on 26.08.1993

as per which 50 persons from the locality were agreed to

be engaged for construction works under the first

management in the mining sites at Vellanathuruth on

condition that they would be given preference in the future

vacancies. Thereby the second management forum was

constituted in the year 1997 by registering it under the

Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific Charitable Societies

(Registration) Act, 1955. It is governed by the provisions

of its bye-law and is managed by the governing body

consisting of the representatives nominated by the first

management and the representatives of the trade unions

of the members of the Forum. The service conditions of

the members of the second management are governed by

Long Term Settlements entered into between the second

management and the unions who raised the dispute. At

the time of formation of the second management there

were 55 members nominated by the various unions. First

management was in cooperation with the formation of the

second management to avoid further loss and meeting the

law and order situation in the area. At that time unions

agreed not to raise any claim for employment with the first

management. Later 14 more persons were also enrolled as

members of the Forum. During the year 2000 when a new

mining site was opened at Ponmana 180 persons were

also enrolled as members through the intervention of

the revenue authorities. The members of the second

management are not engaged for any work in connection

with the main activities of the first management. The work

is not of perennial nature. The first management can run

its mining operations at Vellanathuruth and Ponmana even

without those members of the second management. As

per the terms of Long Term Settlements various benefits

were extended to them including public holidays with

wages. Second management is complying with the

requirements under the various statutes. None of the

workers of the second management has to work for more

than six days in any week. They are eligible to get wages

only for the days of their engagement. As in the case of

similar other establishments they cannot seek benefits

given to the permanent employees of the first management.

They are engaged for loading work by the second

management for the contractors. They are not engaged in

“Mycaud” category under the first management. The

permanent employees of the first management are monthly

rated employees and the members of the second

management whose service conditions are governed by

the Settlements cannot claim similar benefits. Extension

of benefits to the members of the second management is

purely a matter in between the second management and

the trade unions representing its members. The unions

cannot claim wages for public holidays and weekly

holidays from the first management either retrospectively

or from 24.04.2008. Hence the unions are not entitled to

get any relief claimed in the claim statement.

4308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Managements 2 & 3 did not file any written statement.

No rejoinder was filed by the unions even though

opportunity was given.

For the purpose of deciding this reference one

witness was examined as WW1 and Ext.W1 was marked

from the side of the union. For the first management one

witness was examined as MW1. One witness was

examined as MW2 for the second management and Exts.M2

and M3 were marked. As they were mistakenly marked as

M2 and M3 it was corrected as M1 and M2 as per order

dated 04.04.2014.

The points for determination are:-

(i)

Whether the first issue referred for adjudication as

per the reference requires any consideration?

(ii)

Whether the workmen involved in this reference are

the workmen of the first management?

(iii)

Whether their demand for declaring the weekly

holidays and public holidays in the establishment

as holidays with wages is justified?

(iv)

What relief, if any, the workmen are entitled to?

10.

Point No. i : It is unequivocally stated in the claim

statement as well as in the written statement filed by the

first management that the first issue in the reference does

not require any consideration as it is resolved as per the

Long Term Settlements dated 06.03.2008 and 05.04.2008

entered into between the unions and the second

management. There is also a prayer in the written statement

to pass an award on that issue holding that it was settled

and does not require any adjudication. As there exists no

dispute relating to that issue now it does not require any

consideration.

11.

Point No. ii : It is the specific case of the unions that

the workmen involved in this reference are the workmen

of the first management. After denying it in the written

statement the first management would contend that they

are the members of the second management Forum and

they are not engaged for any work in connection with the

main activities of the first management. In order to prove

that they are the workers of the first management union

relies on Ext.W1 (referred to as Ext.A1 in the proof affidavit

of WW1), copy of the award dated 04.06.2010 in ID 158/

2006 of this tribunal. The dispute in that case was with

regard to the regularisation of 68 workmen. It was raised

by the same unions against the managements in this case.

In that case also first management contended that those

workmen are the employees of the second management.

It was negatived by this tribunal after considering it on

merits and entered into the finding that those workmen

are casual workers of the first management. Learned

counsel for the unions has submitted that the second

management is only a paper organisation created by the

first management to deny the benefits to the workers and

that the finding in that case that the workmen are the casual

workers of the first management is binding on the parties

as it has become final. Nothing was argued by the learned

counsel for the managements to controvert the same.

Learned counsel for the first management was fair enough

to submit that since the parties in that case are the same

and the award has become final the findings in that case

have become conclusive. There is nothing wrong in placing

reliance on Ext.W1 to hold that the workers of the second

management forum are the casual labourers of the first

management. As there is the express finding in Ext.W1

that they are the workmen of the first management there is

no necessity to have a detailed discussion of the oral

evidence in this case. It is also clear from the reference

itself that the second management is a subordinate body

constituted by the first management. Hence it is found

that the workers involved in this reference are the casual

workmen of the first management.

12.

Point No. iii : The demand of the unions is for

declaring the weekly holidays and public holidays as

holidays with wages. In the claim statement the

allegation made to support it is that all other employees of

the first management are having the benefit of weekly

holidays and public holidays with wages. It is already

found that the workmen involved in this reference are only

the casual workers of the first management. They are not

regular employees of the first management. They cannot

claim that they have to be given all service benefits on par

with the regular employees of the first management. It is

also pertinent to note that their service conditions are

governed by Long Term Settlements entered into between

the unions and the second management. It is the case of

both the parties that their conditions of service are based

on such Long Term Settlements. Exts.M1 and M2 are the

copies of two Long Term Settlements and the same were

produced by the second management to prove the

conditions of service of those workmen. Ext.M1 is the

settlement entered into on 3rd November, 2010 and Ext.M2

is another settlement entered into on 12th November, 2010

between the unions and the second management. As per

those settlements the workmen are given the benefit of 12

public holidays with wages including May Day,

Independence Day, Gandhi Jayanthi, Republic Day and

Thiruvonam. It is now not in dispute that they are given

weekly holidays without wages. They want to have all

holidays with wages. The only reason stated in the claim

statement for that claim is that they are entitled to the

benefits of the regular employees of the first management.

The casual workers cannot be equated with the regular

employees for claiming service benefits. Their conditions

of service are based on mutual agreement by entering into

Long Term Settlements. They can claim the benefits as

per the terms of those settlements. They cannot be heard

to say that they are to be on par with regular employees

for service benefits. It cannot be said that there is any

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 31] 2014@T;s"B 10] 1936

4309

discrimination. There is absolutely no evidence in this

case to prove that other casual workers of the first

management are getting all the public holidays and weekly

holidays with wages. MW1 has expressly stated that there

is no casual worker under the first management. The

members of the second management forum are found to

be the casual workmen of the first management only when

the demand for regularisation was made by them. Their

service conditions are governed by the terms of the Long

Term Settlements and any change can be made only

through the proper procedure provided under law.

13.

At the time of argument learned counsel for the

unions has argued that they are entitled to get weekly

holidays with wages in view of Section 28 of the Mines

Act, 1952 and Rules 23 and 24 of the Minimum Wages

(Central) Rules, 1950. There is no plea with regard to it in

the claim statement. The applicability of those provisions

is a mixed question of law and fact. There must be specific

pleading with regard to the same. Such a case was put

forward for the first time in the proof affidavit of WW1. In

the absence of any specific pleading no amount of

evidence is to be looked into to consider the question of

the applicability of those provisions. It is to be pointed

out that Section 28 of the Mines Act, 1952 only provides

weekly holidays and not weekly holidays with wages.

Whether the mines of the first management will come within

the purview of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 also requires

adjudication being a mixed question of law and fact.

Without any pleading with regard to it, it does not deserve

any consideration in this case.

14.

As the workman involved in this reference are casual

workers governed by the Long Term Settlements with

regard to their conditions of service they are not entitled

for declaration that the weekly holidays and public holidays

are to be with wages.

15.

Point No. iv : In the result an award is passed holding

that there exists no dispute with regard to the first issue in

the reference and that the demand of the workmen for

declaring the weekly holidays and public holidays as

holidays with wages is not justified. Hence they are not

entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the

28th day of April, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Union Nos.1 to 4 and 6&7

WW1

Shri B Baiju

22.04.2013

Witness for the First Management

MW1

Shri A Jeyapalan

15.07.2013

Witness for the Second and Third Managements

MW2

Shri Sunil Sebastian 06.01.2014

Exhibit for the Union Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 & 7

True Copy of the Award dated 04.06.2010

in ID No.158/2006 of the CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam

Exhibit for the First Management

NIL

Exhibits for the Second and Third Managements

True copy of the agreement dated

03.11.2010 executed between the

representatives of the 2nd management

and trade unions

True copy of the agreement dated

12.11.2010 executed between the

representatives of the 2nd management

and trade unions.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1608-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

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] eqacbZ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 34@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O.

1608.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23/5/2014.

[No. L-15025/1/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

Present : JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-1/34 of 2012

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

And

Their workmen

4310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 31, 2014/JYAISTHA 10, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances :

For the first party/

: Mr.R.S.Pai, Adv.

Management

For the Union

: Shri Nitin Karanje, Gen.Secretary

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 3rd day of April, 2014

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central

Government by its order dated 22.4.2013 passed 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. The terms of reference as per the

schedule to the said order are as under:

“Whether the demand of Petroleum Employees

Union, Mumbai for payment of computer allowance

to Tallymen (Checkers) at Sewree Installation

w.e.f.1.9.2010 for merely working on ‘ZPDP’

Application is legal, just and proper? What relief

the workmen are entitled to?”

On 2.4.2014, an application dt.13.3.2014 jointly

signed by Shri R.S.Pai learned counsel for the first party/

Management and Shri Nitin Karanje, General Secretary,

Petroleum Employee’s Union (Second Party/ Union) was

filed.

By the order dated 2.4.2014, the case was fixed for

3.4.2014 i.e. today for filing a copy of Memorandum of

Settlement mentioned in the aforesaid application.

Pursuant to the order dt.2.4.2014, the case is put up

today. Shri Tuhin Sarkar, Asstt.Manager (Employees

Relations), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,

representative for the first party/Management is present.

Shri Nitin Karanje, General Secretary, Petroleum Employees’

Union (Second Party/ Union) is also present. Memorandum

of Settlement dt.9.1.2014 has been filed today alongwith

an application dt.2.4.2014 jointly signed by Shri R.S. Pai,

learned counsel for the first party/Management and

Shri Nitin Karanje, General Secretary, Petroleum Employees

Union (Second Party/ Union).

Shri Tuhin Sarkar, representative for the first party /

Management and Shri Nitin Karanje, General Secretary,

Petroleum Employees’ Union (Second Party/ Union) jointly

state that in view of the Settlement as contained in the

aforesaid Memorandum of Settlement, the dispute as

contained in the above Reference no longer survives.

The aforesaid application dt.13.3.2014, filed on

2.4.2014, states as under in paragraph 1 and 2 of the said

application:

“1. That our Union alongwith the other 8 Unions

operating in Marketing have entered into a

Memorandum of Settlement dated 9.1.2014 before

the Conciliation Officer and Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central), New Delhi under Section

12(3) read with 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, settling all the issues and disputes pending

between the Marketing Unions and the Respondent

company.

2. As the issue involved in the above reference is

settled in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum of

Settlement, the dispute no longer survives and

therefore be disposed of accordingly.”

In the aforesaid application dt.2.4.2014, filed today,

it is stated as under :

“In the above reference the parties abovenamed filed

a Joint Application dated 13.3.2014 praying for

disposal of the reference as the dispute no longer

survives in view of Settlement dt.9.1.2014.

As directed by this Hon’ble Court a copy of the said

settlement is filed herewith.”

From the joint statement made today before the

Tribunal as well as from the averments made in the

aforesaid applications, it is evident that the dispute which

was referred to this Tribunal by the aforementioned

Reference no longer survive.

In view of the above, the Reference is answered by

stating that the dispute forming subject-matter of the

Reference no longer survives.

10.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.