x`g ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1685-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r] 1987) ds

fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] x`g ea=kky; ds

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa esa fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku j[kus okys

deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k 80» ls vf/d gks tkus ds iQyLo:i

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS %

1- dk;kZy; egkfujh{kd] vksfM'kk lsDVj] dsUnzh; fjtoZ

iqfyl cy] Hkqous'oj (vksfM'kk)

2- dk;kZy; iqfyl mi&egkfujh{kd] xzqi dsUnz] dsUnzh;

fjtoZ iqfyl cy] dkBxksnke (mÙkjk[k.M)

3- dk;kZy; mi&egkfujh{kd] dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy]

rjkyw jSat] rjkyw (dukZVd)

4- dk;kZy; dekUMsaV] 195 cVkfy;u] dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl

2261 GI/2014

(4483)

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- 24]

ubZ fnYyh, twu 8—twu 14] 2014] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 18—T;s"B 24] 1936

No. 24]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 8—JUNE 14, 2014, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 18—JYAISTHA 24, 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)

5- dk;kZy; dekUMsaV] 227 cVkfy;u] dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl

6- dk;kZy; dekUMsaV] 228 cVkfy;u] dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl

7- dk;kZy; dekUMsaV] 229 cVkfy;u] dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl

8- dk;kZy; iqfyl egkfujh{kd] if'pe caxky lsDVj]

dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy] dksydkrk (i-ca-)

9- dk;kZy; mi&egkfujh{kd (fpfdRlk)] la;qDr vLirky]

dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy] flYpj (vle)

[iQk- la- 12017@1@2012&fgUnh]

vo/s'k dqekj feJ] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2014

S.O. 1685.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central

4484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government hereby notifies the following offices of the

Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the percentage of the

staff having working knowledge of Hindi have gone above

80% :

O/o the Inspector General of Police, Odisha Sector,

CRPF Bhuvneshwar (Odisha)

O/o the Dy. Inspector General, Group Centre,

CRPF, Kathgodam (Uttarakhand)

O/o the Dy. Inspector General, CRPF, Taralu

Range, Taralu (Karnataka)

O/o the Commandant, 195 Bn CRPF

O/o the Commandant, 227 Bn CRPF

O/o the Commandant, 228 Bn CRPF

O/o the Commandant, 229 Bn CRPF

O/o the Inspector General of Police, West Bengal

Sector, CRPF, Kolkatta (W.B.)

O/o the Dy. Inspector General (Medical),

Composite Hospital, CRPF, Silchar (Assam).

[F. No. 12017/1/2012-Hindi]

AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director (OL)

foÙk ea=kky;

(O;; foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1686-—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 Hkkjrh; ys[kk ijh{kk vkSj ys[kk foHkkx ds

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa dks] ftuds vLlh izfr'kr deZpkfjo`Un us

fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gSa %

1- iz/ku funs'kd] ys[kk ijh{kk (dsUnzh;)] vka/z izns'k]

gSnjkckn A

2- iz/ku funs'kd okf.kfT;d ys[kk ijh{kk ,oa insu lnL;

ys[kk ijh{kk cksMZ] cSaxyw: A

3- iz/ku egkys[kkdkj] (ys[kk ijh{kk)] >kj[k.M] jk¡ph A

4- egkys[kkdkj] (ys[kk ijh{kk)] NÙkhlx<+] jk;iqjA

5- iz/ku egkys[kkdkj (ys[kk ijh{kk)&III egkjk"Vª]

eqEcbZ A

[iQk- la- ,&12034@02@2014&bZ- th-]

lqHkk"k pUn] mi&lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2014

S.O. 1686.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

the following offices of the Government of India in the

Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty

per cent of the staff have acquired the working knowledge

of Hindi, namely :

Principal Director of Audit, (Central) Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad;

Principal Director of Commercial Audit and Ex-

officio Member, Audit Board, Bangalore;

Principal Accountant General (Audit) Jharkhand,

Ranchi;

Accountant General (Audit) Chhattisgarh, Raipur;

Principal Accountant General (Audit)-III

Maharashtra, Mumbai.

[F. No. A-12034/02/2014-EG]

SUBHASH CHAND, Dy. Secy.

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 10 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1687-—o"kZ 2000 esa ;Fkk la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; y?kq

m|ksx fodkl cSad vf/fu;e] 1989 dh /kjk 6(1)(x) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] foÙkh;

lsok,a foHkkx] foÙk ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh ds la;qDr lfpo Jh vkyksd

V.Mu dks rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] Jh

vjfoUn dqekj ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx fodkl cSad (flMch)

ds funs'kd e.My esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A

[iQk- la- 24@5@2002&vkbZ,iQ&I ([kaM&IV)]

mn; Hkku ¯lg] voj lfpo

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 10th June, 2014

S.O. 1687.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section (6)(1)(C) of the Small Industries Development Bank

of India Act, 1989 as amended in the year 2000, the Central

Government hereby nominates, Shri Alok Tandon, Joint

Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of

Finance, New Delhi as Director on the Board of Small

Industries Development Bank of India with immediate effect

and until further orders vice Shri Arvind Kumar.

[F. No. 24/5/2002-IF-I (Vol. IV)]

UDAI BHAN SINGH, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4485

ubZ fnYyh] 13 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1688-—chekadd vf/fu;e] 2006 (2006 dk

35) dh /kjk 26 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh ,u- Jhfuokl jko] funs'kd]

foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks lqJh fiz;k dqekj] funs'kd] foÙkh; lsok,a

foHkkx ds LFkku ij] vxys vkns'k gksus rd] Hkkjrh; chekadd

laLFkku ifj"kn~ }kjk xfBr vuq'kklukRed lfefr esa lnL; ukfer

djrh gS A

[iQk- la- 97(11)@2003&chek&III]

MkW- 'k'kkad lDlsuk] funs'kd

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2014

S.O. 1688.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Actuaries Act, 2006 (35

of 2006), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri N.

Srinivasa Rao, Director, Department of Financial Services

as Member on the Disciplinary Committee constituted by

the Council of the Institute of Actuaries of India till further

orders vice Ms. Priya Kumar, Director, Department of

Financial Services.

[F. No. 97(11)/2003-Ins. III]

Dr. SHASHANK SAKSENA, Director

ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;

(mPpÙkj f'k{kk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1689-—f'k{kk Í.k lk[k xkajVh fuf/ dh LFkkiuk

gsrq eaf=keaMy ds vuqeksnu (ekeyk la[;k 364) ds vuqlj.k esa]

;g foHkkx crkSj fuf/ O;oLFkkid ,rn~}kjk fuEufyf[kr fuf/ izcaèku

lfefr fu;qDr djrk gS A

(i) lfpo] mPPkÙkj f'k{kk foHkkx

— vè;{k (insu)

(ii) la;qDr lfpo (vkbZ ,iQ)] foÙk

lsok foHkkx

— lnL;

(iii) la;qDr lfpo (ih,iQ&II)] O;;

foHkkx

— lnL;

(iv) la;qDr lfpo (,pbZ)] mPPkÙkj

f'k{kk foHkkx

— lnL;

(v) funs'kd] ;kstuk vk;ksx

— lnL;

(vi) f'k{kk fo'ks"kK (izks- lat;

th- <kaMs)

— lnL;

(vii) cSfdax fo'ks"kK (Jh ,l- ,l-

HkV~V] egkizca/d] dsujk cSad)

— lnL;

[iQk- la- ,iQ&18&1@2013&;w-5]

lgnso flag] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2014

S.O. 1689.—Pursuant to the Cabinet approval (case

No. 364) for establishment of a Credit Guarantee Fund for

Education Loan, this Department as a settler of the Fund

hereby appoints a Management Committee of the Fund

consisting of the following :—

(i)

Secretary, Department of

—

Chariman

Higher Education

(Ex officio)

(ii)

Joint Secretary (IF),

Department of Financial

Services

—

Member

(iii)

Joint Secretary (PF. II),

Department of Expenditure

—

Member

(iv)

Joint Secretary (HE),

Department of Higher

Education

—

Member

(v)

Director, Planning

Commission

—

Member

(vi)

Education Expert (Prof.

Sanjay G. Dhande)

—

Member

(vii)

Banking Expert (Shri S. S.

Bhat, GM, Canara Bank)

—

Member

[F. No. F-18-1/2013-U.5]

SAHDEV SINGH, Under Secy.

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1690-—fnYYkh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/fu;e]

1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUnz ljdkj] fetksje jkT; ljdkj] lrdZrk foHkkx] fetksje

lfpoky; Hkou] [kkRyk] ,stoy }kjk mudh fnukad 13 iQjojh]

2014 dh vf/lwpuk la- lh&31011@1@2014&ohvkbZth@1 ds rgr

nh xbZ lgefr ls ljdkjh fuf/;ksa ds dfFkr nqfoZ;kstu ls lacaf/r

vkdk'kok.kh jsfM;ks] ,stoy dsUnz] fetksje ds Jh tkslkaxtqvkyk]

lgk;d dsUnz funs'kd] Jherh ykyuquftjh] dk;ZØe dk;Zikyd

vkSj lqJh twMh ,p- ykyeqvkuiqyh] v-Js-fy- ds fo:¼

19&02&2013 ls Hkwry{kh izHkko ls Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 (1860

dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 120&[k] 409] 420] 467 vkSj 471

RkFkk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/fu;e] 1988 (1988 dh /kjk 49) dh

4486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

/kjk 13(1)(x) ,oa (?k) ds rgr fnukad 30&4&2013 ds ekeyk

vkjlh 03 (,)@2013 dh tkap gsrq fnYYkh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds

lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/dkj&{ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ fetksje

jkT; ij djrh gS A

[la- 228@30@2014&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2014

S.O. 1690.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

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

State Government of Mizoram, Vigilance Department,

Mizoram Secretariat Building, Khatla, Aizawl vide

Notification C.31011/1/2014-VIG/1 dated 13th February,

2014, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Mizoram for investigation of Case RC.03(A)/

2013 dated 30.4.2013 under sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467

and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of

1860) and section 13(1 )(c) &(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988) with retrospective

effect from 19.2.2013 against Sh. Zosangzuala, Assistant

Station Director, Smt. Lalnunziri, Programme Executive and

Ms. Judy H. Lalmuanpuli, LDC, all of All India Radio,

Aizawl Station, Mizoram relating to alleged

misappropriation of Government Funds.

[No. 228/30/2014 -AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1691-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

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

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

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vka/z izns'k jkT; ljdkj] x`g (,llh,) foHkkx

dh lgefr ls fnukad 01&04&2014 dh vf/lwpuk th vks (,e,l)

la- 68 ds varxZr iksykoje iqfyl LVs'ku] ftyk iwoZ xksnkojh (vkaèkz

izns'k) esa Jh vdhusuh jfo'kadj izlkn] vè;{k rFkk izca/ funs'kd]

gksVy vkuUn fjtSUlh] ;kuke dh e`R;q ls lacaf/r nk;j vijk/ la-

55@2013 ds rgr mDr vijk/ksa ds iz;kl] nq"izsj.k] "kM~;a=kksa dk

vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYYkh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh

'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;f/dkj {ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ vka/z izns'k jkT; ij

djrh gS A

[la- 228@29@2014&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2014

S.O. 1691.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Andhra Pradesh Home (SC.A) Department,

vide Notification G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 1.4.2014, hereby

extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the

State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation and inquiry of

Crime No. 55/2013 registered at Police Station Polavaram,

District East Godavari (Andhra Pradesh) relating to the

death of Shri Akkineni Ravi Shankar Prasad, Chairman and

Managing Director, Hotel Anand Regency, Yanam and

attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in

connection with the above mentioned offence.

[No. 228/29/2014 -AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1692-—fnYYkh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/fu;e]

1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr

/kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUnz ljdkj] if'pe caxky jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] vkrafjd

lqj{kk 'kk[kk] xqIr vuqHkkx] dksydkrk }kjk mudh fnukad 12

iQjojh] 2014 dh vf/lwpuk la- 203@1(5)&vkbZ- ,l- ,l- ds

rgr nh xbZ lgefr ls ct ct (if'pe caxky) iqfyl LVs'ku esa

ntZ Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh

èkkjk 409 ds rgr 25&11&2012 dks ntZ dsl 369@12 ds vUos"k.k

rFkk mi;qZDr vijk/ksa ds laca/ esa iz;Ruksa] nq"izsj.kksa ,oa "kM+;a=kksa dh

tkap gsrq fnYYkh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj

vfèkdkj&{ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ if'pe caxky jkT; ij djrh gS A

[la- 228@28@2014&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2014

S.O. 1692.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of West Bengal, Home Department, Internal

Security Branch, Secret Section, Kolkata vide Notification

No. 203/1 (5)-I.S.S. dated 12th February, 2014, hereby

extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of

West Bengal for investigation of Case 369/12 dated

25.11.2012 under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code,

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

Budge (West Bengal) and attempts, abetments and

conspiracies in relation to the above mentioned offences.

[No. 228/28/2014 -AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4487

varfj{k foHkkx

csaxywj] 3 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1693-—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 ,rn~}kjk vUrfj{k foHkkx ds fuEufyf[kr

dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk

dk;Zlk/d Kkr izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

Hkkjrh; lqnwj laosnu laLFkku]

4] dkyhnkl jksM]

nsgjknwu&248 0001

[iQk- la- 8@1@10@2011&fga-]

,u- iV~VkfHk jkeu] voj lfpo

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE

Bangalore, the 3rd June, 2014

S.O. 1693.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule

10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, herby notifies

the following Office of the Department of Space, whereof

more than 80 per cent staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

Indian Institute of Remote Sensing,

#4, Kalidas Road,

Dehradun-248001

[F. No. 8/1/10/2011-H]

N. PATTABI RAMAN, Under Secy.

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1694-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud (dks) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa A

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/r Hkkrh; ekud (dksa) dh la[;k

la'kks/u dh la[;k vkSj frfFk

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 285 % 1992

la'kks/u la[;k 5]

31 vxLr] 2014

iQjojh 2014

vkbZ ,l 418 % 2004

la'kks/u la[;k 5]

31 ebZ] 2015

tuojh 2014

vkbZ ,l 9206 % 1979

la'kks/u la[;k 5]

31 ebZ] 2015

tuojh 2014

vkbZ ,l 432(1) % 1982

la'kks/u la[;k 2]

31 ebZ] 20154

iQjojh 2014

vkbZ ,l 1061 % 1997

la'kks/u la[;k 5]

31 vxLr] 2014

iQjojh 2014

vkbZ ,l 1258 % 2005

la'kks/u la[;k 4]

31 tqykbZ] 2014

fnlacj 2013

vkbZ ,l 1293 % 2005

la'kks/u la[;k 6]

31 tqykbZ] 2014

fnlacj 2013

4488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkbZ ,l 3854 % 1997

la'kks/u la[;k 7]

31 tqykbZ] 2014

fnlacj 2013

vkbZ ,l 3832 % 2005

la'kks/u la[;k 2]

31 ebZ] 2014

iQjojh 2014

10-

vkbZ ,l 8034 % 2002

la'kks/u la[;k 3]

31 ebZ] 2014

uoacj 2013

11-

vkbZ ,l 14220 % 1994

la'kks/u la[;k 6]

31 ebZ] 2014

fnlacj 2013

12-

vkbZ ,l 14276 % 1995

la'kks/u la[;k 5]

31 ebZ] 2014

iQjojh 2013

13-

vkbZ ,l 14587 % 1998

la'kks/u la[;k 6]

31 ebZ] 2014

fnlacj 2013

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

ubZ fnYYkh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ RkFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

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

baVjusV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gS A

¹lanHkZ % ih;wch@th ,u&2 % 2º

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

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2014

S.O. 1694.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given

in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and year of the

No. and year of

Date from which the

No.

Indian Standards

the amendment

amendment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4))

IS 285 : 1992 Laundry Soaps -

Amendment No. 5,

31 August, 2014

Specification (Third Revision)

February 2014

IS 418 : 2004 - Tungsten Filament

Amendment No. 5,

31 May, 2015

Lamps for Domestic and similar

January 2014

general lighting purpose

IS 9206 : 1979 - Dimension of caps for

Amendment No. 5,

31 May, 2015

tungsten filament general service

January, 2014

electric lamps

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4489

IS 432 (Part 1) : 1982 Specification for

Amendment No. 2,

31 May, 2014

mild steel and medium tensile steel

February 2014

bars and hard-drawn steel Wire for

concrete reinforcement : Part 1 Mild

steel and medium tensile steel bars

(Third Revision)

IS 1061 : 1997 Disinfectant Fluids,

Amendment No.5,

31 August, 2014

Phenolic Type (Fourth Revision)

February 2014

IS 1258 : 2005 Bayonet lamp holders

Amendment No. 4,

31 July, 2014

(Fourth Revision)

December 2013

IS 1293 : 2005 Plugs & Socket outlets

Amendment No. 6,

31 July, 2014

of rated Voltage upto & including

December 2013

250V and rated current upto and

including 16 amperes Specification

(Third Revision)

IS 3854 : 1997 Specification Switches

Amendment No. 7,

31 July, 2014

for Domestic & Similar purposes

December 2013

(Second Revision)

IS 3832 : 2005 Hand operated chain

Amendment No. 2,

31 May, 2014

pulley block - Specification (Third

February 2014

Revision)

10.

IS 8034 : 2002 Submersible Pumpsets

Amendment No. 3,

31 May, 2014

- Specification (Second Revision)

November 2013

1l.

IS 14220 : 1994 Openwell

Amendment No. 6,

31 May, 2014

Submersible Pumpsets - Specification

December 2013

12.

IS 14276 : 1995 Cement bonded

Amendment No. 5,

31 May, 2014

particle board - Specification

February 2014

13.

IS 14587 : 1998 Prelarninated medium

Amendment No. 6,

31 May, 2014

density fibre board - Specification.

December 2013

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

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices:New Delhi, Ko1catta Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

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

Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref : PUB/GN-2 : 2]

KALA MADHAVI VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages and Publications)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1695-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4))

4490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa)

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) tks fd

jn~n gksus dh frfFk

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

jn~n gksus gS] vxj gS]

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

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1- vkbZ ,l 2112 % 2014 pk¡nh

30 vizSy 2014

vkbZ ,l 2112 % 2003

30 tqykbZ] 2014

,oa pk¡nh feJ /krq,¡ vkHkw"k.k@

f'kYidkjh & 'kq¼rk ,oa

eqgjkadu & fof'k"V (rhljk

iqujh{k.k)

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

ubZ fnYYkh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ RkFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

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

baVjusV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gS A

¹lanHkZ % ih;wch@,lVhMh@2 % 3º

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

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2014

S.O. 1695.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

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

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

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

on the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the

Date of

No, & Year of the

Date of

No.

Indian Standards

Establishment

Indian Standards

cancellation

Established

to be cancelled, if any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS 2112 : 2014 Silver

and silver alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

30 April, 2014

IS 2112: 2003

30 July, 2014

Fineness and Marking -

Specification (Third

Revision)

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/STD/2 : 3]

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4491

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1696-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj]

izlkj Hkkjrh] czkMdkfLVax dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k] nwjn'kZu dsUnz

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

16@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@2@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O. 1696.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 16/2006)

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 Director, Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting

Corporation of India, Doordarshan Kendra and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 20/5/2014.

[No. L-42012/2/2006-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 16/2006

Ref. No. L-42012/2/2006-IR(DU) dated: 14.06.2006

BETWEEN

Shri Lalit Chandra Mishra,

R/o 13/200, Indira Nagar,

Lucknow

AND

The Director, Prasar Bharati,

Broadcasting Corporation of India,

Doordarshan Kendra

24, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow

The Director General, Prasar Bharti,

Doordarshan Broadcasting Corpn. of India,

Doordarshan, Doordarshan, Mahanideshalaya

Copernicus Marg, Mandi House,

New Delhi.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/2/2006-IR(DU) dated:

14.06.2006 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi 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) referred

this industrial dispute between Shri Lalit Chandra Mishra,

R/o 13/200, Indira Nagar, Lucknow and the Director, Prasar

Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan

Kendra, 24, Ashok Marg, Lucknow & the Director General,

Prasar Bharti, Doordarshan Broadcasting Corpn. of India,

Doordarshan, Doordarshan, Mahanideshalaya, Copernicus

Marg, Mandi House, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA

LUCKNOW/NEW DELHI IN TERMINATING THE

SERVICES OF SHRI LALIT CHANDER MISHRA,

CASUAL FLOOR ASSISTANT, W.E.F. 12.7.2001 IS

JUST AND LEGAL? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF

THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?”

3. The case of the workman, Lalit Chandra Mishra,

in brief, is that he was engaged by the opposite party as

Casual Floor Assistant 21.10.1983 and he worked regularly

up to 21.07.2001. It has been submitted by the workman

that there had been a scheme for regularization of the casual

employees dated 09.06.1992, 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994;

but the management did not regularize his services stating

that the workman was found over age. It has been alleged

by the workman that the management terminated his

services on 21.07.2001 without following the due procedure

as contained in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the action of

the management in denying him regularization be declared

illegal and he be regularized into the services.

4. The management of the Doordarshan has denied

the claim of the workman by filing its written statement;

wherein it was submitted that the workman had never been

appointed as a casual artist adhoc or otherwise, no

appointment letter was issued to the workman, therefore,

there is no question of termination or retrenchment of his

services w.e.f. 21.07.2001. It was submitted that the

workman was engaged for short spells to carryout casual

nature of work purely on the basis of actual requirement

of programme production for not more than 10 days in a

month. It was further submitted that the workman’s case

was considered for regularization, in terms of regularization

4492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

scheme dated 09.06.1992 as well as the modified scheme

dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994, but he was found

ineligible being over age in terms of scheme dated

09.06.1992, therefore, he could not be regularized. It is

also submitted that all those who were regularized by the

management were regularized in accordance with

regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992 and 17.03.1994.

Accordingly, the management of the Doordarshan has

prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being

devoid of merit.

5. The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he

has stated that his date of birth is 14.05.1959 as per his

matriculation certificate and as per Rules the age limit for

the post of Production Assistant is 21-30 years. It was

further stated that the case of Smt. Dixit whose date of

birth and date of initial engagement was 26.07.61 and

12.02.91 respectively, was considered for regularization,

in terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, as per direction of

Hon’ble CAT, Lucknow in O.A. No. 500/95 vide order dated

08.11.2001 and she was given age relaxation of one year.

Rest is mere reiteration of the averments already made in

the statement of claim.

6. The parties have adduced documentary as well

as oral evidence in support of their respective cases. The

workman has examined himself whereas the management

has examined Shri G.P. Pandey, Senior Administrative Officer

in support of their pleadings. The parties availed

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other.

The workman forwarded its oral arguments; but the

management refrained to argue its case in spite of ample

opportunities have been forwarded to them; accordingly,

the case was heard ex-parte against the management. .

7. Heard the authorized representative of the

workman alone and gone through entire evidence available

on record.

8. The workman’s representative has submitted that

the workman has been engaged as Casual floor Assistant

by the opposite party on 21.10.1983 and worked as such

till 21.07.2001 regularly when his services have been

terminated by the opposite party without assigning any

rhyme or reason or any notice pay or any notice pay in

lieu thereof in contravention to the provisions contained

in the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. He has also argued that

when he was in service the management devised a scheme

for regularizing the casual artists, vide dated 09.06.92 and

thereafter modified scheme vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94,

who worked as casual artists with the opposite party as

on 31.12.1991; but the management did not regularize his

services in spite of the fact that he was fully eligible within

the terms and conditions of the said regularization

schemes. The workman has argued that the management

did not extend the benefits of the regularization to him

taking excuse that he was over age; but he was well under

age when joined the opposite party and also after giving

him age relaxation as provided in the regularization scheme

his services would have regularized. It is also argued that

the management was required to regularized the seniors

first and for this the management was ought to maintain

seniority list/muster roll as envisaged under the provisions

contained in the Section 25 D of the Act; but the

management not only failed to comply with the provisions

of the Section 25 D of the Act; but also regularized many

juniors viz. Shri Umesh Chandra Mihra, Mo. Nasir, Rakesh

Kumar Kukreti, Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Mueen Ansari,

Sishir Kumar Singh, Atul Mishra, Smt. Rekha Gupta, Smt.

Seem Kazmi and Anjali Dixit, ignoring the workman. In

this regard the workman has relied on the decision of

Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar

Kukreti and others in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of 1999.

9. Per contra, the management’s case is that the

workman was never appointed by it; rather he was engaged

by the management to perform the work of casual nature

as and when required, in short spells. His engagement

ended with the end of work/engagement period; therefore,

there is no question of terminating his services at any

point of time. It was further pleaded that the case of the

workman was considered for regularization, within the

terms and conditions provided under the regularization

schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94; but he could

not qualify for the same, even after giving him permissible

age relaxation.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to

the submissions of the authorized representative of the

workman scanned entire evidence available on record.

11. In the present case, admittedly, there was no

regular appointment of the workman and he was engaged

by the opposite party management on casual basis to work

as Casual Floor Assistant for specified time period on fixed

payment. He was also given breaks and or his engagement

used to come to an end with the end of the specified work/

period.

It has come into the pleadings and evidence of the

parties that in pursuance to the directions of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide

their order dated 14.02.92 in O.A. No. 563/86 between Anil

Kumar Mathur Vs. Union of India, a scheme for

regularization of casual artists in Doordarshan was

launched vide Office Memorandum dated 09.06.1992,

which was further modified vide office memorandum dated

17.03.94 and 05.07.94. All the Casual Artists who were

employed on casual basis on 31.12.1991, including those

who were on the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they

may not be in services at that time were eligible for

consideration. In this regard the workman’s case is that

the management regularized other juniors, sparing him in

spite of the fact that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the

scheme; and in rebuttal the management witness has stated

that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.03.2002

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4493

in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 directed the management to

decide the cases of the casual artists in accordance with

the regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter

modified scheme vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. The

workman was a party in the said SLP; and accordingly, his

case was taken up by the management in terms of scheme

dated 09.06.92; but he was not found eligible for

regularization even after giving him age relaxation.

12. The workman has relied on order of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of 1999

between Union of India & others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Kukreti

& others; wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that

the questions raised in the appeals are squarely covered

by a decision of the Court in Director, Doordarshan

Kendera, Triveandrum and others Vs. S. Kuttan Pillai

and others (1998) 8 SCC 736. Hon’ble Apex Court in

Kuttan Pillai case, while deciding the case, where norms

for relaxation of age for the purpose of regularization and

for the purpose of recruitment were different in respect of

respondent Floor Assistants engaged on casual basis in

the Doordarhsan Kendra, Trivandrum seeking

regularization, held that the relaxation in age could be

granted to the respondents only in accordance with the

scheme notified by the OM dated 09.06.1992 as modified

by OMs dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994.

13. Thus, the point for consideration is whether the

workman was eligible for regularization in terms of the

regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter

modified vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. For apt

appreciation of the case of the workman regularization on

merit it would be necessary to quote the salient features

of the relevant regularization schemes dated 09.06.92,

17.03.94 and 05.07.94.

“No. 1516/2(3)

Dated: 09.06.1992

Office Memorandum

Subject

: Scheme for Regularization of Casual Artists

in Doordarshan.

Annexure to the above OM.

Scheme for regularization of casual erstwhile staff

Artists in Doordarshan as per the judgment in OA No.

563/86, dated 14.2.1992 in M/s Anil Kumar Mathur Vs. UoI

case.

This scheme would be applicable to all those

Casual Artists who were employed on Casual

basis on 31.12.1991 including those who were on

the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they may

not be in services now will be eligible for

consideration. Those who are engaged on casual

basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible for

consideration.

Only those Casual who had been engaged for an

aggregate period of 120 days in a year (calendar

year) will be eligible for regularization. The broken

period in between the engagement and

disengagement will be ignored for the purpose.

The number of days is to be computed on the

basis of actual working days in the muster rolls

or attendance sheets or Q-sheets.

Separate eligibility panels will be prepared for

each category of posts, Kendra-wise, depending

upon the length of service of Casual Artists. They

will be considered for regularization in the order

of their seniority against the available vacancies

in that particular Kendra. The seniority will be

determined from the date of their initial

engagement by the Kendra.

The persons who are in the eligibility panel of

one Kendra will have no right for claiming

regularization in another Kendra as these are

generally Group ‘C’ posts and selection is made

Kendra-wise.

The Casual Artists who are to be regularized

should possess the requisite educational

qualification and/or experience as stipulated in

the Recruitment Rules of other administrative

instructions (in the absence of Recruitment

Rules) existing for the post when the casual

worker was initially engaged.

The upper age limit would be relaxed to that extent

of service rendered by the Casual Artists at the

time of regularization. A minimum of 120 days

service in the aggregate, in one year, shall be

treated as one year’s service rendered for this

purpose. The service rendered for less than 120

days in a year will not qualify for age relaxation.

The regularization of Casual Artists would be

from prospective date and the Casual Artists on

the eligibility panel who fail to qualify for

regularization in accordance with the recruitment

rules and instructions issued there under for the

post, shall be removed from the panel.

If a Casual Artist on an eligibility panel commits a

mis-conduct and the same is ……………………

would not be eligible for regularization.

Till all the Casual Artists ………………..no panel

of eligible Casual Artists.”

4494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“No. 2(J)/-S.1

Dated: 17.03.1994

Office Memorandum

Sub

Scheme for regularization of Casual Artists in

Doordarshan

The undersigned is directed to invite attention

to DG:D O.M. of even number dated 09.06.92 on the above

subject, with which a copy of the scheme for regularization

of Casual Artists of Doordarshan was circulated.

According to condition in para 2 of the scheme, the number

of days for the purpose of regularization is to be computed

on the basis of actual working days in the Muster Rolls or

Attendance Sheets or ‘Q’ sheets.

It has been brought to the notice of this

Directorate that although these Casual Staff Artists were

engaged for 10 days or have been working on 2-3

assignments in a month on a consolidated amount of

Rs. 400-500 per assignment, but in actual practice, they

have been working throughout the month. This aspect

has been examined by the Directorate in consultation with

Ministry of I&B and procedure to be followed for arriving

at the number of days of casual working will be as under.

The number of days for the purpose of

regularization will be computed on the basis of actual wages

given to the prevalent in the State during the relevant time

of working. For example, if a Casual Staff Artist has been

paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month whether for

working for 10 days or for 2-3 assignments in a month and

the minimum wage prevalent in the State at the relevant

time was Rs. 50, the staff artists would be deemed to have

worked for 30 days in a month (i.e. Rs. 1500 divided by 50)

subject to the condition that the days so computed would

not exceed 25 days in a month.

It has also been noticed that certain staff artists

were engaged initially when they were over-age according

to the Recruitment Rules. All such cases, with the number

of days they worked on casual basis according to the

formula laid down in Para 3, should be referred to the

Directorate for taking a decision on merit.”

“No. 4(1)/94-S.I.

Dated: 05.07.94

Office Memorandum

Subject : Regularization of Casual Artists as per revised

Scheme dtd.13.-.94

The attention of all Doordarshan Kendras is invited

to this Directorate’s Memo No. 2(3)/86-S.I., dated

17.03.1994, copy enclosed, on the above subject. Various

Doordarsan Kendras have sought certain clarifications

on a number of points in regard to Revised Scheme, these

points are clarified as under :

(a)

Kendras are competent to prepare the eligibility

list of Casual Artist in accordance with Para 3 of

the Revised Scheme and regularize them against

available vacancies in their respective category

on the basis of seniority.

(b)

………………….

(c)

The crucial date for the purpose of calculation of

age is the same as in 1992 Scheme, i.e. 09.06.92

and there is no change in it.

(d)

For the purpose of age relaxation, the number of

days engagement should be taken into account

up to 09.06.92. The period of engagement, if any,

beyond 09.06.92 in the year 1992 should not be

counted for the purpose of age relaxation.

(e)

Casual Artists who have worked for 120 days in

any calendar year as per revised scheme too up

to the period ending on 31^st December, 1991

should be considered for regularization. The

casuals who have completed 120 days after

31.12.1991 are not currently counted for

regularization.

(f)

………….

(g)

…………

(h)

The rates of wages prevalent by the State

Government from time to time by way of minimum

wage Act in which Kendra concerned falls, are to

be taken for calculation of number of days of

Casual Artists at that Kendra. The total amount

paid to an individual Casual Artist during the

month are to be divided by per day rate of

payment of minimum wage for calculation of

number of days in a month. The classification in

different scales of pay/fee in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’

etc. is not required. The maximum number of

days so calculated should be restricted to 25 days

in a month.

(i)

…………..

(j)

Where the minimum wage Act prior to 01.05.1989

are not prescribed and available, the computation

of number of days should be done by the

following formula:-

Total amount paid during the month/30 = Amount

for one day.

The maximum number of days so arrived at should

be restricted to 25 days in a month only.”

A bare perusal of the above office memorandums

shows that the benefit of the regularization scheme dated

09.06.92 was available to those casual artists who were

employed on casual basis as on 31.12.1991 and were

engaged for an aggregate period of 120 days in a calendar

year. Also, the casual artist should have been in

possession of requisite education qualification and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4495

experience. Also, they should have been within the upper

age limit, which was relaxable to the extent of services

rendered by the casual Artist at the time of relaxation i.e.

on 31.12.1991. However, the modifications to the scheme

dated 09.06.92 were issued vide scheme dated 17.03.94

and 05.07.1994; but the crucial date for eligibility and for

the purpose of calculation of age and age relaxation etc.

remained same as that in the scheme dated 09.06.92.

14. Now, entering into the merit of the case, the

matter has to be examined as to whether the workman was

eligible for regularization within the terms and conditions

of the above quoted schemes. In this regard the case of

the workman is that he was engaged on 14.12.1984 as

Casual Floor Assistant, when he was well within the age

as prescribed in the Rules. He has filed photocopy of his

matriculation certificate wherein his date of birth is

mentioned as 14.05.1959/03.09.1956. He has also filed

photocopy of advertisement seeking application for the

post of Production Assistant; wherein the prescribed age

limit for the post has been mentioned as 21-30 years.

Therefore, it comes out that when the workman was

engaged initially he was well within the prescribed age for

the post; but when the scheme for regularization dated

09.06.92 came into force he had become over age on the

crucial date of eligibility i.e. on 09.06.92; then he was

approximately of 33 years 01month and 26 days’ age. It

has been pleaded by the management that the case of the

workman was considered in the terms of scheme dated

09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94; but he could not get the

benefit of regularization being overage by 25 days on

09.06.1992. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention

here that as per age relaxation clause provided in the

scheme, a casual artist can get age relaxation with respect

to the upper age limit, to the extent of services rendered

by him at the time of regularization. As per scheme, for

upper age relaxation, a minimum of 120 days service in the

aggregate, in one year, was required to be treated as one

year’s service rendered for this purpose, service rendered

for less than 120 days in a year were not be considered for

age relaxation. The workman has alleged that the

management did not give any weightage for the services

rendered by him for considering age relaxation, which

resulted into his disqualification for the regularization. In

this respect, the management of the Doordarshan in its

evidence has stated that the workman was provided age

relaxation of two years even then he could not qualify the

terms of regularization being over age.

15. The workman in his pleadings, pleaded that he

was within the age limit when initially engaged; but got

over age during his engagement. He has further pleaded

that had he been given age relaxation, he would have come

within the ambit of the regularization scheme. This

pleading of the workman has been denied by the

management through pleadings as well as in its evidence

with specific statement that the workman was given age

relaxation of three years since he had completed 200 days

in the year 1984, 214 days in the year 1985, 236 days in the

year 1986 and 39 days in the year 1987; even then he failed

to qualify for regularization as per regularization schemes.

As per settled law, the initial burden was on the workman

to prove before this Tribunal that he was eligible for age

relaxation and for this he was required to prove, through

cogent evidence, that he actually worked for 120 days in

aggregate in a calendar year for seeking age relaxation in

order to come within the purview of terms of regularization

scheme.

In this regard it is noteworthy to mention that from

the advertisement of the post it is clear that the prescribed

upper age limit for the post is 30 years and as per

matriculation certificate, filed by the workman,his date of

birth is 14.05.1959, which goes to show that his age on the

cutoff date as per regularization scheme i.e. 09.06.92 was

33 years 01 month and 26 days. Therefore, it is apparent

that the workman was over age by 03 years 01 month and

26 days. Also, as per pleadings and statement of the

management witness, the workman was permitted three

years years’ age relaxation as he worked for 200 days in

the year 1984, 214 days in the year 1985 and 236 days in

the year 1986.

16. For calculating 120 days working a formula has

been enumerated in the scheme dated 17.03.1994 vide para

03 as under:

“3. The number of days for the purpose of

regularization will be computed on the basis of actual

wages given to the prevalent in the State during the

relevant time of working. For example, if a Casual

Staff Artist has been paid an aggregate sum of

Rs. 1500 in a month whether for working for 10 days

or for 2-3 assignments in a month and the minimum

wage prevalent in the State at the relevant time was

Rs. 50, the staff artists would be deemed to have

worked for 30 days in a month (i.e. Rs. 1500 divided

by 50) subject to the condition that the days so

computed would not exceed 25 days in a month.

The above method of calculating the working days

is based on the monthly payment made to a casual artist

divided by minimum wages prevalent in the State at the

relevant time. Admittedly, the workman worked with the

management, intermittently; but the workman has not

given any detail for his working. However, he has provided

details of payment received by him vide paper No. 6/6,

which reflects the payment received by him from the

management since his initial date of engagement i.e. from

21.10.1983 to 11.07.2000 as under :

4496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Year

Paid amount in the year

21.10.1983

Rs. 708/-

1984

Rs. 6,402/-

1985

Rs. 3036/-

1986

Rs. 3,244/-

1987

Rs. 588.75

1996

Rs. 2625/-

1997

Rs. 3500/-

1998

Rs. 10,000/-

1999

Rs. 24,000/-

2000

Rs. 32,200/-

11.07.2001

Rs. 19,950/-

Per contra, the management has pleaded in para 04

of its written statement that the services of the workman

were obtained in different spells as per details given

hereunder :

Year

No. of days worked

1984

200

1985

214

1986

236

1987

The above working days has not been controverted

by the workman. Hence, from perusal of the above

working details given by the management, it comes out

that the management had granted three year’s age relaxation

in terms of scheme for regularization. The above working

details given by the management matches the payment/

working details provided by the workman vide paper

No. 6/6; wherein he has given details of payment received

by him in the years 1984 to 1987. Moreover, he has also

given details of payment in successive years i.e. from 1996

to 20.07.2001 (alleged date of termination). On going

through the payment details the payment received by the

workman seems proportionate to the working details given

by the management in its written statement. Here it is

pertinent to mention that regularization scheme dated

09.06.1992 vide para 01 provides that the scheme shall

cover only those artists who were on the rolls of

Doordarshan on 31.12.91, though they may not be in service

then will be eligible for consideration. It was specifically

mentioned therein that those who are engaged on casual

basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible for consideration.

The relevant para is reproduced as under :

This scheme would be applicable to all those

Casual Artists who were employed on Casual

basis on 31.12.1991 including those who were on

the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they may

not be in services now will be eligible for

consideration. Those who are engaged on casual

basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible for

consideration.

Moreover, the provisions of age relaxation were

further clarified vide scheme dated 05.07.1994 which

provided that the any working/period of engagement after

09.06.1992 should not be counted for the purpose of age

relaxation. The above provision vide scheme dated

05.07.1994 is as under :

(d)

For the purpose of age relaxation, the number of

days engagement should be taken into account

up to 09.06.92. The period of engagement, if any,

beyond 09.06.92 in the year 1992 should not be

counted for the purpose of age relaxation.

Hence, it is crystal clear that for considering the

working for seeking age relaxation under regularization

scheme, the working up to 09.06.1992 was relevant and

rest working, if any, was of no use. Here it is the clear case

of the management that the workman worked for four years

i.e. in the year 1984 to 1987 in the relevant period. However,

the workman has taken into account his working in the

year 1983 also. From the perusal of working details and

the details of payment provided by the workman, the

relevant period for consideration of age relaxation comes

to three years i.e. from 1984 to 1986 and the rest of the

working relied on by the workman in the year from 1996 to

2001 was irrelevant in view of provisions vide para (d) of

scheme dated 05.07.1994. Hence, the management rightly

did not considerthe working of the workman for the years

from 1996 to 11.07.2001, as claimed by him for granting age

relaxation. It is also established that the management was

just in giving three years’ age relaxation only to the

workman on the basis of his working with the Doordarshan

and its action in not regularizing the services of the

workman in terms of regularization schemes dated

09.06.1992 and the modified schemes dated 17.03.1994 and

05.07.1994 being over age was not illegal.

17. As regard termination of the workman on

12.07.2001, the management has pleaded that the workman

was never appointed by the opposite party; rather he was

engaged for short spells on casual basis as and when

required by it. This fact is admitted by the workman in

pleadings as well as in his evidence. Moreover, the

workman himself has filed offer letters which goes to show

that he was engaged by the management for specified

time, therefore, disengagement on completion of task does

not amount to termination of services.

18. The workman pleaded that the management has

terminated his services without complying with the

provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. In this regard the

burden lies upon the workman to prove that he has worked

for 240 days in preceding one years from the date of alleged

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4497

termination as per provision of the Act and as per law laid

down in 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar

Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai; wherein

Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that where

the workman failed to prove that he had been in

employment with the employer for a period of 240 days

uninterruptedly, he is not entitled to the protection, in

compliance of section 25 – F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that

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. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has

observed as under in the above mentioned case :

“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not

produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary

or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment

or engagement for that year to show that he has

worked with the employer for 240 days to get the

benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant

to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for

240 days in a year preceding his termination.”

Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in

order to take any relief for non-compliance of mandatory

provisions contained in section 25 F of the Act, it is

necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to the effect

that he was actually in employment of the opposite party

for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and he

was actually paid for it. In the instant case although there

is pleading that provisions of Section 25 F of the Act,

have not been complied with. But, there is no piece of

evidence to show that the workman worked for 240 days

with the management of Doordarshan in twelve calendar

months preceding the date of termination. It is pertinent

to mention here that the workman has failed to substantiate

this fact that the workman worked for 240 days in a year

preceding the date of termination.

19. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case and the case laws laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court, I am of considered opinion that the workman‘s claim

for regularization in the services of the Doordarshan not

sustainable in the eye of law being beyond the ambit of

regularization schemes dated 09.06.1992 and the modified

schemes dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994. Accordingly,

the reference is adjudicated against the workman, Lalit

Chandra Mishra; as such he is not entitled for any relief.

20. Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

07th May, 2014.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1697-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

eSustj] xouZesaV vksfi;e a,oa vYdkykW;M iQSDVªh] uhep 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 lhthvkbZVh@ ,ylh@vkj@62]

63] 64] 65] 66] 67] 68] 70] 71] 72] 73] 74] 75] 76] 108]

136] 138] 139] 140@2003 ,oa la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@71]

72] 73@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@9@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@271@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@274@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@278@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@275@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@282@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@11@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@281@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@279@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@12@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@269@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@273@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@26@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@260@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@23@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@270@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@16@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@15@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@27@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@6@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@24@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@13@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

4498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O. 1697.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 108,

136, 138, 139, 140/2003 and No. CGIT/LC/R/71, 72, 73/2004)

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 General Manager, Government Opium

and Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 20/05/2014.

[No. L-42012/9/2000-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/271/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/274/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/278/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/275/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/282/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/11/2000-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/281/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/279/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/12/2000-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/269/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/273/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/26/2000-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/260/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/23/2000-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/270/99-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/16/2000-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/15/2000-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/27/2000-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/6/2000-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/24/2000-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/13/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/62/2003

Shri Chand Khan,

S/o Shri Miya Khan,

Kumhara Gali Ke peeche,

Gwaltoli, Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/63/2003

Shri Madhykar Rao,

S/o shri Yashwantraoji,

Naya Bazar, Khari Kuan,

Neemuch (MP)-2

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/64/2003

Shri Brijmohan,

S/o Shri Kishanlal,

Moolchand Marg,

Near New Kalali,

Neemuch

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/65/2003

Shri Devaki Nandan,

S/o shri shankarlalji,

Village Dhaneria Kalan,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/66/2003

Shri Ashan Mohd.,

S/o shri Khan Mohd,

Kumhara gali,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4499

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/67/2003

Shri Shyamlal,

S/o Shri Pyarelalji,

Village Jaisinghpura,

Neemuch

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/68/2003

Shri Nandkishore

S/o Shri Mohandasji Bairagi,

Jaisinghpura,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/70/2003

Shri Prahlad Prakash,

S/o Shri Nandlalji,

Jaisinghpura,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/71/2003

Shri Khemraj Sharma

S/o Shri Bhanwalalji,

Naya Bazar, Khari Kuan,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/72/2003

Shri Kishorilal,

S/o Shri Madanlal Ganchha,

Naya Bazar, Khari Kuan,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/73/2003

Shri Mohd.Rafiq,

S/o Shri Abdul kadar,

Juna Baghana,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . .Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/74/2003

Shri Gopal Prajapati,

S/o Shri Rupchandraji,

Bhoparam Compound,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/75/2003

Shri Abdul Hameed,

S/o Shri Abdul Aziz,

Near Police Station,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/76/2003

Shri Shankarlal S/o Bagdiram,

Naya Bazar, Gandha Mohalla,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/108/2003

Shri Radheshyam,

S/o Shri Bhuralalji,

R/o Jaisinghpura,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

4500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/136/2003

Shri Premprakash

S/o Shri Ratanlalji,

Bunglow No. 46-A, CRP Road,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/138/2003

Shri Gorishankar,

S/o Shri Gangaram,

Jaisinghpura,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/139/2003

Shri Moin Uddin,

S/o Shri Surajuddin,

R/o Old Dhobi Mohalla,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/140/2003

Shri Satnarayan,

S/o Shri Badrilal Mali,

Juna Baghana,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/71/2004

Shri Suresh Chandra,

S/o shri Lakshminarayan,

Bholaram Compound,

Neemuch

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/72/2004

Shri Gordhanlal,

S/o Shri Chunnilal,

R/o Gram Nandwel,

Tehsil and Distt. Mandsaur

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/73/2004

Shri Arif Khan,

S/o Shri Yusuf Khan,

Tada Mohalla,

Neemuch

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of September, 2012

1. (a) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(9)/2000-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Chand Khan S/o

Shri Miya Khan w.e.f. 30-6-91 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

(b) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(271)/99-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Madhukar Rao S/o

Shri Yashwantraoji w.e.f. 14-12-90 is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

vide its Notification No.L-42012(274)/99-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Brijmohan S/o Shri

Kishanlal w.e.f. 4-7-92 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4501

(d) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(278)/99-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Devaki Nandan S/o

Shri Shankarlalji w.e.f. 30-6-91 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

(e) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(275)/99-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Ahsan Mohd. S/o

Shri Khan Mohd.w.e.f. 18-7-92 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

(f) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(282)/99-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Shyamlal S/o Shri

Pyarelalji w.e.f. 30-6-91 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(g) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(11)/2000-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Nandkishore S/o Shri

Mohandasji Bairagi w.e.f. 30-6-91 is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(h) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(281)/99-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Prahlad Prakash S/o

Shri Nandlalji w.e.f. 24-6-91 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(i) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(279)/99-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Khemraj Sharma,

S/o Shri Bhanwalalji w.e.f. 18-7-92 is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(j) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-42012(12)/2000-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Kishorilal, S/o Madanlal

Ganchha w.e.f. 30-6-91 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(k) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012/269/99-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Mohd. Rafiq S/o

Shri Abdul Kadar w.e.f. 30-6-91 is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(l) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-42012(273)/99-IR(DU) dated 6-5-2003

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Gopal Prajapati S/o

Shri Rupchandraji w.e.f. 4-7-92 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(m) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(26)2000-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Abdul Hameed S/o

Shri Abdul Aziz w.e.f. 6-2-93 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(n) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(260)/99-IR(DU) dated

6-5-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Shankarlal S/o Shri

Bagdiram w.e.f. 30-6-91 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

4502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(o) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(23)/2000-IR(DU) dated

6-6-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Radheshyam S/o

Shri Bhurulalji w.e.f. 30-6-91 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(p) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(270)/99-IR(DU) dated

6-8-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Premprakash S/o

Shri Ratanlalji w.e.f. 30-6-88 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(q) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(16)/2000-IR(DU) dated

6-8-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Gorishankar S/o

Shri Gangaram w.e.f. 21-7-92 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(r) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(15)/2000-IR(DU) dated

6-8-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Moin Uddin S/o

Shri Sirajuddin Qureshi w.e.f. 18-7-92 is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(s) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(27)/2000-IR(DU) dated

15-9-2003 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Satyanarayan S/o

Shri Badrilal Mali w.e.f. 14-12-1990 is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(t) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(6)/2000-IR(DU) dated

21-6-2004 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Suresh Chandra S/o

Shri laxminarayan w.e.f. 8-6-91 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

(u) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(24)/2000-IR(DU) dated

21-6-2004 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal :

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Gordhanlal S/o

Shri Chunnilal is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

(v) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-42012(13)/2000-IR(DU) dated

21-6-2004 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in

terminating the services of Shri Arif Khan S/o

Shri Yusuf Khan w.e.f. 30-6-91 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

2. All the 22 reference cases are taken up together in

the ends of justice as all are interconnected with each

other which are on a common subject matter and on

common issues.

3. The case of all the 22 workmen, in short, is that

they are employed separately as casual labour with the

management in between the period of 1973 to 1986 on a

monthly pay with DA. They had worked continuously

and were terminated separately in between the period of

1988 to 1992. They were supplied work almost daily with

artificial break of a day or two. They had worked more

than 240 days in each calendar year. They had been

terminated without complying the provision of Section

25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( in short the Act

1947) as no notice was given nor any retrenchment

compensation was paid before termination.

4. The further case of the workmen is that there

were permanent/ semi-permanent posts available in the

establishment of the management but these workmen were

not deliberately classified as such though several requests

were made to the management through their Trade Union

as well. It is stated that several other casual workers

though age barred and juniors to these workmen were

made temporary unskilled workers in the pay scale of

Rs. 196-232. This arbitrary action of the management was

continued in future also. It is stated that the management

had employed more than hundred employees at the time

of termination of these workmen and violated the provision

of Section 25 N of the Act, 1947. The principle of last come

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4503

first go was not followed. The action of the management

was also of unfair labour practice and victimization. These

workmen are unemployed from the date of termination. It

is submitted that these workmen be reinstated with full

back wages and all other benefits.

5. The management appeared in all the 22 reference

cases and filed the same Written Statement in all the cases.

The case of the management, interalia, is that Opium and

Alkaloid work is involved in the production of Opium

and from time to time, on account of volume of work, the

management is required to engage the services of casual

labour for short and specified period. The casual labours

are never engaged indefinitely and their services had been

obtained upon the necessity and availability of work. The

services of the workmen commenced in the morning of the

day they report and it comes to an end at the end of the

working day. These workmen were engaged in the same

terms and conditions. The workmen were never issued

appointment letters and their services were purely on

casual basis. The appointment of Class IV employees is

required to be done in accordance with statutory

recruitment rules. It is submitted that the references be

decided in favour of the management.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

following issues are framed for adjudication :

Whether the action of the management in

terminating the services of the workmen is

justified?

II.

Whether the workmen instead of termination were

entitled to be made as temporary employees?

III.

To what relief the workmen are entitled?

7. Issue Nos.I & II

Both the issues are taken up together for the sake of

convenience. To prove the case, the workmen have given

their oral and documentary evidence. In R/62/03, the

workman Shri Chand Khan is examined himself. He has

supported his case. The management has not cross-

examined this witness in spite of given full opportunity

and he has been discharged on 10-8-09. His evidence

shows that he was engaged on 3-5-1978 and worked

continuously till 30-6-91 when he was terminated. He has

stated that he had not been given any notice nor any

retrenchment compensation before termination. He has

further stated at para 3 that juniors to him were made

temporary workers vide order dated 15-2-1984.

8. In R/63/03, the workman Madhukar Rao is also

examined himself and is discharged without cross-

examination on 22-7-2009 as the management has been

given opportunity to cross-examine but has not cross-

examined him. He has also supported his case that he was

engaged in 1977 and worked continuously till 1992. He

has stated that one day casual holiday was given in a

month and the amount of provident fund was detected

from his pay. His evidence also shows that he was

continuously engaged on monthly payment. He has stated

that Jabbar Khan, Deepchand and others after giving them

age relaxation were appointed as temporary workers but

they had not been considered for temporary/permanent

worker. His evidence further shows that Amritlal, Abdul

Hamid and Madan were made permanent workers who

were juniors to him. He has filed the documents in support

of his contention.

9. In R/64/03, the workman Shri Birij Mohan is also

examined himself. He has also supported his case. He has

stated that he was engaged from 1976 to 1992. He was

engaged more than 240 days in a calendar year. He has

corroborated the evidence of other workmen. He has

proved few employment cards which are marked as Exhibit

W/1 series and has also proved few certificates which are

Exhibit W/2 series. These documents are filed to show

that he was engaged on monthly basis on pay and DA as

casual worker. He has supported his case in cross-

examination. He has stated that he worked for drying and

packing opium and other works too. His evidence shows

that he was continuously engaged till his termination.

10. In R/65/03, Deokinandan is also examined himself

in the case. He has corroborated the evidence of other

witnesses. The management has declined to cross-examine

him. He has stated that he was engaged on 18-4-81 and

was terminated on 30-6-91 without notice and without

payment of retrenchment compensation.

11. In R/66/03, Ahsan Mohammad is also examined

himself. This witness has also corroborated the evidence

of other witnesses. He was engaged on 19-10-79 and

worked more than 240 days in a calendar year till

termination on 18-7-1972 without notice and without

payment of compensation.

12. In R/67/03, the workman Shri Shyamlal is

examined. He has supported his case and has also

corroborated the evidence of other workmen. He was

engaged on 1986 and was terminated in 1992 as casual

labour. He worked more than 240 days in a calendar year.

He has proved his few employment cards which are marked

as W/1 series. He has proved his employment exchange

registration card which is marked as Exhibit W/2. He has

stated in cross-examination that he received payment of

the days he worked. There is nothing to show that he had

not worked 240 days in a calendar year nor the management

has challenged that he had not worked 240 days in a

calendar year.

13. In R/68/03, the workman Shri Nand Kishore is

examined in his case. He has supported his case in his

evidence and has corroborated the evidence of other

workmen. He has stated that he was engaged on 22-5-83

and worked more than 240 days in a calendar year till

4504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

termination on 30-6-91 without notice and without payment

of retrenchment compensation. He has supported that

the juniors were made temporary worker vide order dated

15-2-84. In cross-examination he has again supported his

case. He has stated that he used to do the work of opium

as well as other workers. He has been suggested that he

had not worked 240 days in a calendar year. The

suggestion is no evidence unless it is proved otherwise.

14. In R/70/03, the workman Shri Parladh Parkash is

also examined himself. He has supported his case and

also corroborated the evidence of other workmen. He has

stated that he was engaged in 1986 and worked more than

240 days in each calendar year till termination in the year

1991 without notice and without payment of retrenchment

compensation. He has also proved his employment cards

which are marked as Exhibit W/1 to W/1(b). He has also

proved his Employment Exchange registration card which

is marked as Exhibit W/2. He has been cross-examined by

the management. He has stated that he worked regularly.

He was simply suggested that he had not worked 240

days in a calendar year. His evidence supports his case.

15. In R/71/03, the workman Shri Khemraj Sharma is

examined in his case. He has also supported his case and

has also corroborated the evidence of other workmen. The

management had failed to cross-examine him in spite

opportunity was given to the management as such the

workman was discharged. His evidence is unrebutted.

He has stated that he was working in the establishment of

the management from 1986 and continuously worked till

1992. He has not been given any notice before termination.

He has further stated that the management had kept in the

employment to the junior workers in violation of the Act,

1947 . He has stated that circular was issued for regularizing

and giving other benefit to the workers but they had not

been given such benefits.

16. In R/72/03, the workman Shri Kishorilal is

examined . He has also supported his case in his evidence.

The management has failed to cross-examine him in spite

of opportunity given to him. His evidence is unrebutted.

He has also stated that he worked from 31-10-76 to

30-6-91. His evidence has also corroborated the case of

other workmen.

17. In R/73/03, the workman Shri Md.Rafique is also

examined. He has supported his case. He has stated that

he was engaged on 19-10-79 and worked 240 days in every

calendar year till termination on 30-6-91 without notice

and without any retrenchment compensation. He has also

corroborated the evidence of other workmen that the

juniors to them were made temporary workers vide order

dated 15-2-1984. He has also proved his Employment Cards

which are marked as Exhibit -1 series. He has also proved

certificates given for his works which are also marked as

Exhibit-2 series. He was registered in Employment

Exchange and filed his Employment Exchange Card which

is marked as Exhibit-3. He has been cross-examined by the

management but he has supported his case in cross-

examination. He has stated that he was employed through

Employment Exchange.

18. In R/74/03, the workman Gopal Prajapati did not

turnup for cross-examination as such his evidence was

closed on 14-1-2011 on the submission of his lawyer. This

shows that his evidence filed in the case is of no value

and it doesnot support his case.

19. In R/75/03, the workman Shri Abdul Hamid is

examined in the case. He has supported his case in his

evidence and has corroborated the evidence of other

workmen. He has also stated that he was engaged in 1980

and worked continuously till 1992. He had worked more

than 240 days in each calendar year. He has also supported

this fact that the junior casual workers were remained in

service than these workmen. He has also proved his

certificates and employment card which are proved as

Exhibit W/1 series and W/2 respectively. He has been

cross-examined by the management but the management

has failed to get anything in cross-examination, he has

further corroborated his case.

20. In R/76/03, the workman Shankerlal is himself

examined in his case. He has supported his case. He has

also stated that he was engaged on 24-5-83 and worked

240 days in every calendar year till termination on 30-6-91

without notice. He was not paid any retrenchment

compensation. In cross-examination he stated that he did

all works of labour and the days of work can be determined

from the record. There is nothing in his evidence to

disbelieve this witness. The management has also not

denied that he was not engaged. His evidence supports

his case.

21. In R/108/03, the workman Shri Radhe Shyam is

also examined himself in the case. He has also supported

his case and also the evidence of other workmen. He has

stated that he was engaged on 24-5-83 and worked 240

days in every calendar year till termination on 30-6-91

without notice. He has been cross-examined. He has

admitted that he was engaged as casual labour. His

evidence shows that he was not engaged as seasonal

worker. Moreover there is no case of either of the parties

that these workmen were seasonal workers rather the case

of both the parties is that they were engaged as casual

labours. There is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve

this workman.

22. In R/136/03, the workman Shri Prem Parkash is

examined in his case. He has stated that he was engagd as

casual worker in 1985 and thereafter worked continuously

till termination in the year 1988 without notice and without

payment of retrenchment compensation. He worked 240

days in each calendar year. He has also supported this

fact that the junior workers were made temporary workers.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4505

There is no cross-examination to this witness by the

management. Though opportunity was given. Lastly the

witness was discharged on 29-9-09. His evidence is

unrebutted which is completely in support of the case.

23. In R/138/03, Shri Gauri Shanker is the workman

who has deposed in the case. He has also supported his

case in his evidence. He was engaged as casual labour in

1983 and worked regularly till 1992. He has also proved

his employment cards and certificates which are marked

as Exhibit-2 series and Exhibit W/3 respectively. There is

nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve this witness.

24. In R/139/03, the workman Moinuddin has

deposed in support of his case. He has stated that he

worked from 1979 as casual labour continuously till 1992.

He worked more than 240 days in each calendar year. He

was terminated without notice and without payment of

compensation. He is unemployed since 1992. He was paid

on monthly basis with DA. He has stated that Suresh

Madho was junior to him and he was made temporary

worker. He has further stated that the worker Jabbar Khan

was made temporary worker after giving relaxation of his

age but this workman was in employment but his case was

not considered. The management has not cross-examined

in spite of ample opportunity given to him. As such the

workman was discharged and his evidence is unrebutted.

His evidence completely supports the cases of all the

workmen.

25. In R/140/03, the workman Shri Satnarayan Mali

has deposed and supported the case. He has stated that

he was engaged as casual labour in the year 1969 and

worked till 1991. He worked 240 days in every calendar

year. He has also given the names of the workers who

were made temporary workers by the management. He has

also proved his identity card, certificates and employment

cards which are marked as Exhibit W/1, W/2 series and

W/3 series respectively. He has stated in cross-examination

that he was engaged as casual labour when there was

need of casual labour. There is nothing to disbelieve his

evidence that he did not work 240 days in every calendar

year.

26. In R/71/04, the workman Suresh Chand has filed

his evidence in the case by affidavit but he did not turnup

for cross-examination. As such there is no oral evidence

on his behalf.

27. In R/72/04, the workman Gowardhan Lal has

supported his case in his evidence. The management has

failed to cross-examine this witness though opportunity

was given to him. As such the witness was discharged on

22-2-2010. He has stated in his evidence that he was

engaged as casual labour in the year 1979 and worked

continuously till 1992 when he was terminated without

notice and without payment of any compensation. He

has also supported the evidence of other workmen. He

has also supported this fact that the juniors were made

temporary workers. His evidence is unrebutted.

28. In R/73/04, the workman Arif Khan did not turn

up for cross-examination as such his evidence was closed

on 21-4-2010. Considering the entire oral evidence, it

appears that except Shri Gopal Prajapati, Shri Suresh Chand

and Shri Arif Khan, others have supported their case that

they were working as casual labour continuously till

termination and had worked 240 days in every calendar

year. They have also supported the fact that the junior

workers were made temporary workers and their cases were

not considered by the management arbitrarily.

29. Now let us examine the documentary evidence

filed by the workmen in their cases. The workmen have

filed employment cards and certificates to show that they

were casual labours and were not seasonal workers. Those

documents are accordingly marked. These documents are

also filed to show that they were on monthly pay and DA

and their services were not commenced in the morning of

the day they report and came to an end at the end of the

working day as has been alleged by the management in

his pleading. But those documents clearly shows that they

were employed intermittently and were not regularly

employed. It is also clear from the employment cards and

certificates that they were not employed 240 days in a

calendar year and specially for a period of one year during

the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date

with reference or termination as has been required under

Section 25 B of the Act, 1947. Since their services are not

termed to be a continuous service for a period of one year,

the provision of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 is not

applicable. This shows that the documents donot

corroborate the oral evidence of the workmen on the point

of continuous service of one year to attract the provision

of section 25-F of the Act, 1947.

30. Another question raised by the workmen is that

similarly situated other junior casual labours were made

temporary workers and these workmen were denied and

were not considered. In support of the case, the workmen

have filed documentary evidence. The workman have filed

the permanent standing orders of Govt. Opium and

Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch. The said Standing order is

admitted by the management which is marked in R/138/03

as Exhibit W/1. There is classification of workers as

Permanent, Temporary and Casual Worker. The said

standing order has provided the provision as to how the

casual worker is to be made as temporary worker. The

clause 2 sub-class III of the standing order runs as

follows :

,d vkdfLed deZdkj og deZdkj gS ftldh fu;kstu

dh izÑfr fo'kq¼) vkdfLed gS fdUrq tc dHkh vLFkk;h

oxZ esa fjDr gksrh rks rc ,d tSlh dq'kyrk okys deZdkjksa esa

ls ofj"Bre deZdkjksa dks ml in ij fu;qDr fd;k tk,xk A

4506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

This shows that on the basis of seniority with other

conditions temporary worker be made from casual worker.

The workmen have supported in their evidence that the

juniors to them, to whom they had taken names, were made

temporary workers ignoring their right claim. There is no

evidence on the record that till termination of these

workmen, the management had prepared any seniority list

and at the time the alleged casual labours were made

temporary workers, their names were also considered.

This clearly shows that there is a violation of the standing

order that without preparing any seniority list, the

management had made temporary worker in violation of

the Standing Orders. Rule 77 of the Industrial Dispute

(Central) Rules 1977 also runs as follows :

“Rule-77- Maintenance of seniority list of workmen-

The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in

the particular category from which retrenchment is

contemplated arranged according to the seniority

of their service in that category and cause a copy

thereof to be pasted on a notice-board in a

conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial

establishment atleast seven days before the actual

date of retrenchment.”

Thus it is clear that the management was duty bound

to prepare a seniority list and there is nothing to show

that seniority list was prepared by the management before

appointing temporary worker from casual worker and before

termination to these workmen.

31. To support the contention, the workmen have

filed certain documents. The office order dated 15-2-84 is

filed in the cases. The management has not denied. The

office order shows that Shri Jabbar Khan and 20 other

were appointed as temporary unskilled workers in the year

1984. This appears to be in violation of the standing orders.

The said order dated 15-2-84 doesnot show that they

were appointed as temporary unskilled worker on the basis

of seniority list. The workmen has filed the appointment

letter of Jabbar Khan which is Paper No. 13/12 in R/139/03.

This appointment letter clearly shows that Jabbar Khan

was working as casual labour who was appointed as

temporary unskilled worker vide office order dated 15-2-84.

This fact clearly shows that casual labour was made

temporary unskilled worker but there is nothing to show

that any seniority list was prepared before appointing

him as temporary unskilled worker. He was appointed

along with 20 others. This aspect shows that there was

arbitrary action of the management. The workmen have

filed a seniority list of 1-1-2002 which are paper Nos. 13/8

to 13/11 in the same case but the said seniority list doesnot

include the names of these workers. These all documents

are not denied by the management and are deemed to be

admitted. The said seniority list shows that most of the

workers of the list were appointed after these workmen

and they were appointed as temporary unskilled labours.

The workmen has filed a list of 32 workers appointed as

unskilled worker by the management which is Paper No.

13/26 in the said case but there is nothing to show that

they had been appointed after preparing a seniority list

which was the requirement of the standing orders. The

workmen has filed a letter dated 30-3-93 of the management

whereby the management asked from the Secretary of the

Union to furnish the list of ex-casual workers with

documents which is Paper No. 27 and the Secretary of the

Union furnished a list of 35 ex-casual workers including

these workmen with documents to the management which

are paper nos 28 & 29 of the said above case. These

documents are also not denied by the management. There

is nothing to show that the management had considered

these workmen. Thus it is clear from the documentary

evidence that there was violation of standing orders in

appointing temporary unskilled worker and the

management had arbitrarily not considered these workmen

though they appear to be senior to those who had been

appointed as temporary unskilled workers.

32. On the other hand, the management has

examined one witness. No documentary evidence is

adduced by the management in the case. Now let us

examine the oral evidence of the management. The same

evidence of the management witness Shri Jagat Narayan

Shukla is filed in all the 20 cases but the evidence is not

filed in R/71/04 and 72/04. He was cross-examined in R/74/

03, R/75/03, R/76/03, R/108/03 and R/140/03. The

management witness has not turned up for cross-

examination in R/62/03, R/65/03, R/66/03 and R/73/04. In

rest of the cases the learned counsel for the workmen has

adopted the same cross-examination as have been done

in other cases.

33. The management witness Shri Jagat Narayan

Shukla is working as Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) in the

Office of General Manager, Govt. Opium & Alkaloid

Factory, Neemuch. Initially he has supported the case of

the management in examination-in-chief. He has stated

that the workmen had never completed 240 days in a

calendar year and were not engaged indefinitely. There is

no evidence that the junior casual labours were not

appointed as temporary unskilled workers in violation with

the standing order of Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch. There is also no evidence that before appointing

the casual labour as temporary unskilled worker, a seniority

list was prepared. He has stated at para-8 that he has no

knowledge as to how the casual labours were absorbed in

the permanent job. This shows that there is no evidence

to show that as to how those persons were appointed

temporary unskilled labours in the year 1984, 1993 and

2002. This aspect of the case clearly shows that the action

of the management was arbitrary and was also unfair-labour

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4507

practice and for victimization. He has proved the copy of

standing order in R/140/03 and R/138/03. The relevancy

of the standing order has already been discussed earlier.

He has also stated that the casual labours were engaged

on muster roll. He had seen the muster roll at the time of

preparing his evidence. He has further stated that the

muster roll can determine as to how many days these

workmen had worked. The said muster rolls were not

produced by the management inspite of direction to

produce the same. His evidence on the point of days of

work done by the workers are based on muster rolls.

Moreover the seniority can be determine from muster roll.

As such his oral evidence is not tenable on the said point.

Moreover he has stated in the cross-examination that the

workmen had not worked 240 days in any calendar year.

This fact has been denied by him only on the basis that

the workmen have claimed in their pleading that they had

worked 240 days in every year. This shows that his evidence

is not reliable.

34. To sump the entire evidence it is clear that the

oral evidence of the workman has contradicted from the

documentary evidence that they had worked 240 days in

each year. Rather the documentary evidence shows that

none of the workmen had worked 240 days in twelve

calendar year preceding the date of termination or reference

to attract the provision of Section 25 B of the Act, 1947.

However the workmen have established in their evidence

that there was provision in the standing order that a

seniority list is to be prepared by the management and

thereafter casual worker would be appointed as temporary

unskilled worker. It is also established that the management

had appointed temporary unskilled labour from casual

labour without preparing seniority list ignoring the right

claim of these workmen. This shows that the action of the

management was arbitrary and unjust to terminate them

without considering their case. This is amount to unfair

labour practice. It appears that they were entitled to be

made temporary unskilled workers before the workers who

were already made temporary unskilled labours and

thereafter made permanent workers. Both the issues are

thus decided in favour of the workmen and against the

management.

35. Issue No. III

On the basis of the discussion made above, it is

clear that the action of the management is not justified in

terminating their services instead of appointing them

temporary unskilled workers as juniors were appointed

temporary unskilled workers. The workmen have pleaded

and have adduced evidence that after termination they

are unemployed and are not in the gainful employment.

This evidence is unrebutted. The management is, therefore,

directed to reinstate them with half back wages. Thereafter

it is directed to prepare a seniority list in accordance with

the standing orders and to consider their case for

temporary unskilled labour, within two months from the

date of award after giving relaxation to their age and to

appoint them incase juniors have been appointed as

temporary unskilled workers. In case any of these

workmen have attained the age of superannuation, then

the management is directed to pay a compensation of

Rupees One Lac (Rs.1,00,000) each to those workmen.

Accordingly the reference is answered.

36. In the result , the award is passed without any

order to costs.

37. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1698-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhihMCY;wMh

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 38

vkWiQ 2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@138@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1698.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 38 of

2007) 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 C.P.W.D. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 20/05/2014.

[No. L-42011/138/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 38 of 2007

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of C.P.W.D.

AND

Their workmen

4508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

PRESENT :

Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of the

: Mr. Subrata Lahiri, Assistant

Management

Engineer (Electrical)

Mr. B. Ghosh, General Secretary

of Contractor’s Welfare

Committee of Calcutta for M/s.

T.K. Enterprise.

On behalf of the

: Mr. S.K. Kar, Regional

Workman

Secretary (ER) of the Central

P.W.D. Workers’ Union.

State: West Bengal

Industry: Public Works

Dated: 8th May, 2014.

AWARD

By Order No.L-42011/138/2007-IR(DU) dated

07.12.2007 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 M/s.

T.K. Enterprise, a contractor of Chief Engineer

(Electrical), Eastern Zone, CPWD, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Niranjan Das w.e.f.

24.05.2007 is legal and justified ? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

1. The instant reference has arisen at the instance

of one Niranjan Das, concerned workman, for termination

of his service as a worker (khalasi) under M/s. T.K.

Enterprise – an enlisted Electrical Contractor of the Central

Public Works Department.

2. The workman’s case in its skeletal brevity is that

he was employed by M/s. T.K. Enterprise, an enlisted

contractor of the CPWD, as a worker (khalasi) for electrical

installation and maintenance works in the Central

Government Quarters (Residential Complex) of the

management of CPWD, 21, Richie Road, Kolkata. It is

contended that he was employed in the department of

CPWD and continued his service for a considerable period

and as such his service was permanent in nature. It is

further contended that while discharging his duties with

all sincerity and with full satisfaction of all concerned, the

said contractor, M/s. T.K. Enterprise, by a letter dated

23.05.2007 disallowed him to enter into the premises of 21,

Richie Road, Kolkata and thereby terminated his service

on and from 24th May, 2007. By the said letter dated 23rd

May, 2007 he was asked to meet the contractor for

finalization of his dues. It is alleged that without giving

any prior notice he (the workman) was so terminated as he

demanded for minimum wages and also other benefits like

E.S.I. benefit, C.P.F. coverage etc. which were extended to

the regular employees of the CPWD.

The concerned workman thereafter made several

representations to the said contractor for reinstating him

in service but to no effect.

It is also the case of the workman that subsequently

he was paid Rs.23,298 towards his claim.

3. As against this, the management/employer of the

workman namely, M/s. T.K. Enterprise has opposed the

claim of the workman by filing written statement

contending inter alia that Shri Niranjan Das, the temporary

worker (khalasi) of M/s. T.K. Enterprise, was engaged in

April, 2007 on ‘no work no pay’ basis for electrical

installation and maintenance jobs at Residential

Government Quarters at 21, Richie Road, Kolkata – 700019.

It is alleged that the worker used to leave his place of duty

between 4.30 P.M. and 5.00 P.M. though he was supposed

to leave at 8 P.M. It is further alleged that the contractor

after receiving complaint on 23.04.2007 against Niranjan

Das from one Mr. Arum Kumar Bit (IAS), President of the

Richie Road Resident Officers Association, Central

Government Officers Quarters, 21, Richie Road, Kolkata –

700019, the Executive Engineer (Elect), Kolkata, Central

Electrical Division No.1, CPWD, Kolkata – 700020 sent a

letter to him (contractor) on 15.05.2007 for taking necessary

action against the concerned erred workman. Accordingly,

as per provision of clause 19-I of the General Conditions

of Contract for Central P.W.D. Works, he asked Shri Das

to collect his wages and also asked him to tender apology

before Mr. Bit so that the matter might be amicably settled.

But, Shri Das did not agree with that proposal and for that

reason Shri Das was asked not to enter into the premises

at the Central Govt. Officers Quarters.

4. By filing Rejoinder, The workman Shri Niranjan

Das has submitted that he was a khalasi and was employed

by M/s. T.K. Enterprise and his principal employer was

KCED-I, CPWD. It has been contended in the rejoinder

that after receiving complaint from one Mr. A.K. Bit, one

committee of enquiry was set up, but before receiving any

report from that committee he was dismissed from service.

From the rejoinder it is evident that he has been working

under KCED – II Division as a worker under M/s. T.K.

Enterprise since 1st February, 2009 and he has already

received his due wages Rs.23,298 from his ex-employer. In

such circumstances, the workman has prayed for

compensation as he suffered mentally and physically for

his unemployment during the period from 24.05.2007 to

31.01.2009.

5. In this reference, workman in support of his case

has examined three witnesses including himself.

Management viz., M/s. T.K. Enterprise has not examined

any witnesses. No document whatsoever has been

admitted in evidence either on behalf of the workman or

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4509

on behalf of the management. Now, on perusal of the

evidence of the workman it appears that the witnesses

have supported the case of the workman by corroborating

the facts as disclosed in the statement of claim and

rejoinder of the workman and no new contention has been

urged in the said evidence of the witnesses.

6. It has already been pointed out that the

management M/s. T.K. Enterprise in its written statement

has stated that Shri Das, a temporary worker, engaged for

a portion of the day from the month of April, 2007 on ‘no

work no pay’ basis. Shri Das in paragraph 17 of his

statement of claim has stated that “It is submitted herein

that the workmen employed in the department of CPWD

have been engaged in a post having perennial nature of

job continued for a considerable period, thus the

requirement of such service by the said authority is

permanent in nature.”

The witnesses also in their evidence have stated

that Shri Das was working under the contractor since 2005.

But the witnesses have never stated that Shri Das was so

working under the said contractor uninterruptedly. No

document is also forthcoming to prove that Shri Das started

working under that contractor in the year 2005 and since

then he so worked uninterruptedly. So there is nothing on

record to establish that Shri Das was in continuous service

and the same was permanent in nature.

7. Now considering the statement of claim and

rejoinder and evidence of the workman and the written

statement of the contractor/management with reference

to the above discussion it appears that Shri Niranjan Das

was a temporary workman (Khalasi) of M/s. T.K. Enterprise

and he was not in continuous service as per the provisions

of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. In this reference, it is admitted that one complaint

was made by the President of the Richie Road Resident

Officers Association, Central Government Officers

Quarters, 21 Richie Road, Kolkata against Shri Das and

the same was sent by the Executive Engineer (Electrical)

alongwith a letter to the contractor requiring the contractor

to take necessary action. And on receiving that letter of

the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Shri Das was asked

not to enter into his working place and thereby terminated

his service.

9. Now it appears from Clause 19-I of the General

Conditions of Contract for Central P.W.D. Works 2005 that

“The Engineer-in-Charge may require the contractors to

dismiss or remove from the site of the work any person or

persons in the contractors’ employ upon the work who

may be incompetent or misconduct himself and the

contractor shall forthwith comply with the such

requirement.”

From this clause it appears that on the allegation of

misconduct the contractor is duty bound to dismiss any

workman under his employ as per the direction of the

Engineer-in-charge.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances with

reference to the said Clause 19-I, it appears that the said

termination of service of Shri Das was not illegal and the

employer of Shri Das viz. M/s. T.K. Enterprise had no

obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the workman Shri Das

was not in continuous service as per the provision of

Section 25B of the said Act.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and the evidence on record and in view of the

discussion made above it appears that the termination of

the workman Shri Niranjan Das cannot be said to be illegal

and unjustified.

Admittedly Shri Das has already received his due

wages, and as such he is not entitled to get any amount

from the management i.e., M/s. T.K. Enterprise.

The reference is disposed of accordingly.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 8th May, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1699-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVs'ku Mk;jsDVj]

vkWy bafM;k jsfM;ks (,;j)] vkd'kok.kh 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 lhthvkbZVh,&89@2004) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@06@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O. 1699.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. CGITA-

89/2004) 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 Station Director, All India Radio

(AIR), Akashwani and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 20/05/2014.

[No. L-42011/6/98-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

4510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-

Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 17th March, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 89/2004

Reference (I.T.C) No. 48 of 1998 (old)

Adjudication order No. L-42011/6/98/IR(DU) dated

16.06.1998

Station Director,

All India Radio (AIR), Akashwani,

Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad-380009

...1st party

AND

Their workman,

Through the President,

All Gujarat Kadar Karmachari Union,

Ashapuri Nagar, Near Swastik Char Rasta,

Amraiwadi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380026

...2nd party

For the First Party

: Shri Hitesh D. Kathrotia,

Advocate

For the Second Party

: Shri G. K. Parmar, President, All

Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari

Union

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour vide

order No. L- 42011/6/98/IR(DU), New Delhi dated

16.06.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad in respect of the matter specified in the

Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of All Gujarat Karmachari

Union is proper, legal and justified in demanding

regularisation and confirmation of all the daily rated

announcers who have put in more than 10 years of

service in casual/temporary manner, by the

management of All India Radio, Akashwani, Ashram

Road, Ahmedabad? If so, what relief the workman

concerned (list of casual pronouncer is enclosed)

are entitled and from what date ?”

2. The case of the 2nd party Union as per statement

of clam (Ext.2) and after amendment of para 3A in the

statement of claim (Ext.4) and statement of claim filed after

amendment (ext.8) is that casual/temporary announcer as

per list are performing the work of announcer in the 1st

party organisation A.I.R., Ahmedabad as daily rated for

the last 10 years, but the management of the 1st party

A.I.R. did not made them permanent due to wrongful act

and these casual announcers are leading retched life and

were giving false assurance for making them permanent.

Then dispute was raised through the Union giving

chartered of demand. 1st party organisation did not frame

rules and regulation regarding making permanent to casual/

temporary announcers appeared in the eligibility test but

were not given pass marks and the 1st party organisation

is taking undue advantage of poverty and unemployment

in the country and in the name of selection process and

are accommodating the person who are closely related to

the senior officers already working in the All India Radio.

One of the casual announcer Shivabhai Laxmanbhai

Parmar was appointed as announcer on 01.04.1986 for 6

to 12 days in a month for 10 years and his last wages was

Rs. 200 per day. When Shivabhai made grievances in the

year 1997 to the management of the 1st party then the 1st

party stopped giving him work of casual announcer from

01.08.1997 and since then he is sitting idle, expecting the

call of announcer as for 6/12 days in a month. Several

junior to Shivabhai Laxmanbhai Parmar have been recruited

casually and made permanent. Heena Vaishnav daughter

of Shri Vaishnav, Station Director of Doordarshan Kendra,

Rajkot was appointed as announcer on permanent basis.

Raju Yagnik of Rajkot who is son of announcer Shri Bharat

Yagnik working as an announcer at Rajkot, A.I.R., is

selected and posted at Ahmedabad. Arti Pandit was initially

recruited as casual Announcer and was made permanent.

Tejal Bhatt working as casual announcer has been treated

as regular employee. Vipul Buch and Sanjay Sagathia have

been regularised as announcer. All those were juniors to

Shivabhai Parmar but have been regularised as

announcers. On these scores, prayer is made to allow the

reference and to grant the benefits of regularisation and

confirmation as announcer to the workman involved in

this reference with back wages and 20% interest and

Rs. 15000 as cost of litigation. List of workman announcers

involved in this reference case was submitted by the

Union(2nd party) vide Ext. 42 showing names of 10

announcers including Sl. No. 1 Shivabhai Laxmanbhai

Parmar who demanded for regularisation.

3. As against this the contention of the 1st party as

per written statement (Ext.34) is that the reference is not

maintainable. The averment of para 1 of S/c is misconceived

that casual announcers have been exploited by the

management of A.I.R. by way of depriving them of regular

permanent job of announcer since based on lack of

knowledge of the functioning and social obligations A.I.R..

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4511

The case of the 1st party is this that casual announcers

are our artists like all other music and drama artist and

talkers. All of them cannot claim employment. At no stage

casual announcers have been assured by the management

of the 1st party for their regularisation in All India Radio.

They were free to apply against regular vacancy and get

them self selected. Those casual announcers have been

paid their due for bookings in A.I.R. as fixed by the

organisation from time to time. The post of announcers is

one of the categories of regular and permanent staff on

the establishment of A.I.R. The procedure for recruitment

of announcers at All India Radio involves advertisements,

inviting application scrutinizing of applications, selection

of eligible candidates, written tests, voice tests and

personal interviews. The requirement of the pot of

announcers in A.I.R. is considered and arrived at after

studying the transmission hours, nature of programme

etc and the Director General, Ministry of Information &

broadcasting, Ministry of finance etc. The provision of

casual announcers is not as a substitute to regular

announcers rather to encourage the talents as programme

presenters. Casual announcers are empaneled after

considering candidate within the city limits of the A.I.R.

stations whereas regular vacancies are filled by inviting

candidates on All India bases. Casual announcers are not

selected against any regular vacancy neither there is any

provision in the Rules/regulation for their regularisation.

Para 2 of S/c is denied stating that it is not true 2nd party

(casual announcers) were appointed as regular

Announcers. Para 3 of S/c is denied saying it is not true

that 1st party attempted to remove the casual announcers

from the post and tried to give him less salary. All India

Radio is an essential service and broadcast by A.I.R.

stations should be uninterrupted and not to be adversely

affected because of man power problem. There cannot be

a break or time deviation in broadcast of programme. The

announcers are human being and therefore prone to fall ill

not being able to report for duty at the eleventh hour. So

A.I.R. is duty bound to have some kind of alternate full

proof arrangement possible to be activated even at a short

notice. So, A.I.R. evolved a system of employment of

casual announcer after voice testing and voice’s broadcast

worthiness who can make themselves available for limited

job of making announcement even at the short notice.

Casuals are empanelled for stop gap arrangement even

when all the posts are filled in the station. Casual

empanelment is not against regular vacancy and there is

no need to follow the procedure prescribed for regular

Announcers. Voice test is essential whether casual or

regular announcers. Casual announcers are making

announcements on microphone at and for limited purpose

and they are required casually not and they are required

casually not for more than 6 scattered days in a month by

law. Victimisation of casual announcers is denied. On this

contention prayer is made to dismiss the reference with

costs.

4. It may not be out of place to mention that on

filing of statement of claim (Ext.2) on 10.08.1998 by the 2nd

party, an amendments application (Ext.4) was filed by the

2nd party on 07.01.1999. On that date an interim application

(Ext.5) was also filed by the 2nd party Union supported

with affidavit of casual announcer Shivabhai Laxmanbhai

Parmar (Ext.6) praying there in for interim direction to the

1st party organisation (A.I.R, Ahmedabad) to give

immediate 12 day working as announcer to Shivabhai

Parmar was being given prior to 01.08.1997 or to pay wages

for minimum days in a month if the 1st party employer

does not want to assign the announcement work to

Shivabhai Laxmanbhai Parmar. As per Ext.7 1st party

submitted adjournment application on 08.03.1999 to file

written statement. Then on 19.06.1999 2nd party submitted

amended statement of claim (Ext.8) and its copy received

on behalf of the 1st party on 05.07.1999. On 02.02.2000

Shivabhai Laxmanbhai Parmar was examined in court (vide

Ext.13) by then Presiding Officer, Industrial Court,

Ahmedabad namely Shri S.S. Panchal. Thereafter order on

interim application (Ext.5) was passed by Shri G.S. Patel

then member Industrial Court, Ahmedabad who was in

session of this case on 22.01.2001 allowing the interim

application exparte and directing the 1st party to give

twelve days works of casual announcer to Shri Shivabhai

Laxmanbhai Parmar and to pay the wages. The 1st party

(station Director, A.I.R, Ahmedabad) preferred special civil

application No. 371 of 2002 against the order dated

22.01.2001 passed on interim application Ext.5 and the

operation of order of central Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad was stayed till further orders. The concerned

casual Announcer Shivabhai Laxmanbhai Parmar had filed

misc. civil Application No. 1332 of 2001 against Station

Director , A.I.R., Shri Vijay Dixit for his will full and

deliberate contempt of court of interim award/Order of

Industrial Court on 19.07.2001 for taking action which was

heard with Misc. Application No. 80 of 2001 and several

other misc. civil application 405 of 001 with misc. civil

Application No .1415 of 2000 and order dated 16.03.2002

was passed that the common judgement dated 07.03.2002

was passed misc. Civil Application no. 64,82,117,132 &

186 of 2002 will be made equally/applicable in the present

cases also. All these applications are dismissed. As per

order dated 07.03.2002 observation had been made that

the petitioner can seek appropriate relief in the concerned

labour/Industrial court. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat

in special Civil application no. 371 of 200 passed final oral

judgment dated 25.11.2005 directed against the order

passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated

22.01.2001 below Ext.5 in reference (I.T.C) No. 48/98 and

also the order dated 30.08.2001 passed below Ext. 26 to 30

in reference I.T.C. 48/98 . Direction was given at para 5 of

the judgment “looking to the overall facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that instead

of deciding the matter on merits, interest of justice would

be met by directing the Tribunal to decide the reference

4512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

within a stipulated period by continuing the interim relief

granted by this court.” At para 6, the Hon’ble Court has

been pleased to direct “Accordingly the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad, is directed to hear and dispose of the

reference (ITC) No. 48/98 within a period of six months

from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The interim

relief granted by this court shall be continued till the

disposal of the aforesaid reference…..”It may be noted

that the Presiding officer of Industrial Tribunal in reference

I.T.C. 48/98 out of various application Ext. 26 to 30 for

restraining the President of Union or its representative to

plead the case, to set aside the interim order, to stay the

interim order, to condone the delay and to open the stage

of filing reply all the applications except which was for

opening the stage of reply was rejected.

5. As per rival contention of the parties in the

statement of claim and the written statement, the following

issues are taken up for discussion and determination:

ISSUES

(i)

Is this reference maintainable?

(ii)

Have the 2nd party Union/concerned

casual Announcer got valid cause of action?

(iii)

Have the concerned contesting casual

announcer Shri Shivabhai Laxmanbhai Parmar or any other

casual announcer as per list provided by the 2nd party

Union vide Ext.42 performed casual works of announcer

in A.I.R. (1st party organisation) for 240 days in any

calendar year? Whether Shivabhai Parmar contesting

casual announcer performed casual work of announcer

for 240 days in calendar prior to 01.08.1997, alleging his

dated of termination as per his re-examination evidence

vide para 8 of Ext.13 on 14.09.2011.?

(iv)

Whether booking of casual announcer

Shivabhai L. Parmar or any other announcer as per list

(Ext.42) for 6 to 12 days intermittently in a month for the

last 10 years give impetus to them for his/their claim of

regularisation and confirmation in All India Radio(1st party

organisation)?

(v)

Whether the demand of the Union All

Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union for regularisation and

confirmation of daily rated casual announcer is proper,

legal and justified?

(vi)

Whether the 2nd party/Union/any

concerned daily rated announcer is entitled for the relief

as claimed?

FINDINGS

6. ISSUE NO. iii, iv & v : Shivabhai Laxmanbhai

deposed in examination in chief (Ext.13) on 02.02.2000 that

he was engaged from 01.04.1986 as casual announcer in

All India Radio, Ahmedabad. He was in casual announcer

category. Shri Bharti Pandit and Tejas Bhatt who were

also casual announcer and junior to him were made regular.

He has submitted six documents in support of his claim

for regularisation as per list Ext.10. Those papers/

documents have been given pucca Exts. 15 to 20. During

cross Examination by Shri H.D. Kathrotia, 1st party lawyer,

he stated vide para-2 he was working as announcer in

A.I.R. and he was getting wages for the days he was

engaged. He admitted it is true that vacancies in All India

Radio was being advertised in newspaper inviting

applications from suitable candidates and there after

interview is being conducted and there after selection

committee select the eligible candidate. He claimed that

his selection/appointment was made through this mode

of selection but he failed to submit any appointment letter

as to selected candidate. He conceded that he has no any

paper to substantiate his claim as selected candidate on

regular basis vide para 2 of cross examination he stated

that station director of All India Radio has power to

regularise the temporary announcer. But he conceded that

he has not challenged the rules and regulation of regular

selection/recruitment made in the All India Radio. He states

that he has given eligibility test in 1986 and again

volunteers on two years interval tests are being taken.

Vide para 3 he admitted that he had given eligibility test

for regular appointment but he did not pass the test that

those who have passed the test he does not know their

names. Besides him how many persons were in the

category of casual/temporary announcer he does not know

and cannot tell their names vide para 4 he stated that

A.I.R. is a Government organisation, he does not know

that there is partial (limited recruitment) process in A.I.R.

Though he claimed that he got appointment letter of

temporary announcer on 01.04.1986 and was given

appointment letter but he failed to submit any appointment

letter to discredit the stand of 1st party that he (Shivabhai)

was casual worker on call in the need of hour as stop gap

arrangement he was called in A.I.R., Ahmedabad for limited

job. Regarding Ext.15 to 20 produced by him as per list Ext.

10, he says that those papers are for his job of casual

announcer for 12 days each in the months which was given

by the 1st party and he got wages for the days of work.

Even if it is presumed that witness Shivabhai worked for

12 days in month from 1986 till July 1997, he never

completed 240 days’ work in any Calendar year in the year

preceding his alleged termination or stopping to give him

work from 01.08.1997. But it can be said that notionally he

completed 240 days of skilled work of an artist in performing

announcer ship because of always his wishes to perform

as an artist in A.I.R. though casual announcer on

examination of Ext.15 to 20 it appears that he was not given

12 days works as per booking in every month. Ext. 15 to 20

are papers of All India Radio, Ahmedabad, Drama Section

addressed to Shivabhai L. Parmar as casual announcer

inviting him to take part in the capacity of actor/performer/

producer in the production to be broadcast as detailed

below— to write and make announcement on 20.12.1986

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4513

to 25.12.1986 (six days) Ext.15, 02.02.1987 and 07.02.1987

(Ext.16). 21.06.1988 (Ext.17), 7, 12 & 14th October, 1989

(three days) (Ext.18), 06.11.1994, 03.12.1994, 04.12.1994

(three days intermittently in two months) (Ext.19) and for

five days in June 1997, 02.06.1997, 06.06.1997, 10.06.1997,

12.06.1997 & 17.06.1997 (Ext.20). For per transmission duty

wages at the prescribed rates was mentioned. More so,

such booking for transmission announcement was given

for advance dates that go to show that he was to keep

himself in readiness always for the schedule dates of

performing announce ship at A.I.R., Ahmedabad station

is notional way of daily works.

7. The Union/2nd party submitted list of worker who

demand for regularisation vide Ext.42. There are names of

10 workers (Casual announcers). At Sl. No. 1 there is name

of Parmar Shivabhai Laxmanbhai (examined at Ext.13 and

cross examined already discussed in above para 6. But

other casual announcer/worker Sl. No. 2 Parmar Prafula

Punambhai, Sl. No. 3 Bhatt Neha Ramjibhai, Sl. No. 4 Dave

Nitinbhai, Sl. No. 5 Desai Mukeshbhai, Sl. No. 6 Ganatra

Dharmesh, Sl. No. 7 Jani Rupalben, Sl No. 8 Thakkar

Kishorbhai, Sl. No. 9 Shah Jayanaben and Sl No. 10.

Pandya Monaben have not come to depose in support of

respective case. Though the Union /2nd party who raised

demand for regularisation and confirmation of all casual

announcers/daily rated but not a single chit of papers

have been produced for other 9 casual/ daily rated worker

in support that they were also engaged/appointed for

casual announcer in the year 1986 or onward or that they

also completed 10 years as casual daily rated announcer

at A.I.R. stations or any contract paper of A.I.R. for those

other 9 casual/daily rated announcers as per list (ext.42).

More so, the witness Shivabhai Laxmanbhai Parmar in his

oral evidence (Ext.13) has not deposed in representative

capacity for the cause of other 9 daily rated worker (as per

list Ext.42) According to his evidence vide Ext.13 he cannot

tell name of any other casual announcer or cannot tell

where in which A.I.R. they were working as casual

announcer. More so, the pleading statement of claim filed

by the Union (All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union) is

centred around cause of Shivabhai Laxman Parmar. So such

plea as per amended para 3A…….”that All India Radio,

Ahmedabad has been taking undue advantage of poverty

and unemployment in the country and in the name of

selection process…….” appears to be a futile allegation

against the Central Government organisation All India

Radio so far as other 9 casual workers are concerned. Such

allegations have been emphatically denied and bounced

back by the 1st party in its pleading written statement

(Ext.34) and through oral and documentary evidence for

the causes of other 9 casual workers as per list (ext.42).

8. The cross examination of 2nd party witness

Shivabhai (ext.13) was allowed as per order passed below

Ext.48 and the witness at Ext.13 was cross examined by

the 1st party’s lawyer Shri Hitesh D. Kathrotia on 14.09.2011

and also re-examined at para 8 on same date 14.09.2011.

9. The 1st party examined in chief through affidavit

(Ext.54) its witness Mahendrakumar Lalshankar Vyas,

Programmer Executive in All India Radio. He works for the

planning and production of programme at AIR stations

and takes work from his subordinate staff vide para 3 he

states that All India Radio recruitment rule is prescribed

by the Government and the permanent post is sanctioned

by the Director General, Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting after approval of Ministry of Finance. As

per recruitment rules to appoint permanent employees

advertisement is given by the 1st party and after inviting

applications scrutinizing the applications and thereafter

list of candidates selected in written test, followed by

audition test will send to Directorate for approval and

appointment will be made after completion of other

formalities like police verification/clearance, medical

fitness examination etc. and that no permanent

appointment can be made without said procedure.

Recruitment of announcer in All India Radio is considering

transmission hours, nature of programme also should be

considered over and above recruitment procedure. He

further stated that casual appointment can be made by the

station Director when permanent employees on leave , or

recruitment process is going on, but station director has

no power to appoint permanent employees without

following the procedure. His further evidence is that the

2nd party workman was not appointed as per Recruitment

rules and that the 2nd party workman was engaged when

and where required and that Ext. 10/1 to 10/6 (pucca Ext.15

to 20) are order issued to 2nd party worker Shivabhai L.

Parmar for specified period as mentioned in the order by

station director. The 2nd party workman (Shivabhai) never

worked as permanent announcer and as per W.S (Ext.34)

page 5 duties of casual announcer and regular announcer

have been mentioned vide para 7 he further states that

when permanent post is vacant casual announcer or

employees can also make an application for permanent

post and after due process of recruitment procedure he

can be selected for the post. The 1st party witness was

cross examined by Shri G.K. Parmar (Union President) in

three adjournments and by that time demanded papers

were produced by the witness of the 1st party marked

Ext.M-55/1 to 55/3 and M-56. The 2nd party Union have

gained much during cross examination to shake and

discredit his testimony. Vide para-9 it has come that there

was no question of termination of casual announcer

Shivabhai since he had not been appointed. The evidence

of the 1st party witness at para 10 of cross examination

that in A.I.R., Ahmedabad station there were 5 regular

announcer and that one retired and that for A.I.R.,

Ahmedabad station there was 10 sanctioned post of

announcer out of which five was filled and Delhi Head

quarter did not give approval for filling up of remaining

4514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vacant post as per recruitment rules. He admitted that some

junior announcer were made permanent as per recruitment

procedure but it is not true that Shivabhai may not be

made permanent so he was removed from the work of casual

announcer. Vide para 14 he stated it is true that Shivabhai

was working as announcer against permanent vacant post

and that permanent vacant post are still existing. He without

any reason deposed during cross examination that his

department A.I.R., Ahmedabad is not ready to keep

Shivabhai as announcer. It has also come that engagement

of casual announcer is quite different to that of recruitment

process of regular announcer.

10. Now coming to examine the documentary

evidence-Ext. M-55/1 to 55/3 and M. -56 of the 1st party.

Ext. 55/1 is announcer’s written examination attendance

sheet of candidate dated 14.04.1991 in which at Roll No.

1451 there is attendance signature of Shivabhai L. Parmar

at written examination. Ext. 55/2 is result of written test

held on 14.04.1991 for the post of programme announcer

(Gujarati Jr. Grade) for A.I.R. Ahmedabad, Baroda in 20

sheets which go to show Shivabhai Roll No. 1451 (Sr. No.

1151) obtained 19 marks in written test. This also give

break up that total candidate were 1393 out of which 243

were absent at written examination on 14.04.1991 and total

candidates including Shivabhai 1150 appeared at written

test. Ext. 55/3 is true copy of procedure of selection

committee for recruitment of programme announcer (Grade

IV) - Gujarati) showing No of vacancies 5, date of

advertisement 15.01.1991. last date of receipt of application

10.03.1991, no. of application received 1676, No. of

candidates full filling including age limit-1391, dates of

written rest on 14.04.1991, voice test & interview from

25.03.1992 to 16.04.1992, No of applicant called for written

test 1392 & 408 in voice/interview and No of candidates

who qualified- (nine) showing their names on page -2. But

the 1st party withheld the names of 408 for voice test with

Roll No. The 1st party is also silent why Shivabhai was

not called for voice test and interview being SC candidates

having secured 19 marks. Shivabhai (concerned workman)

is also admitting that he did not clear the written test exam.

However, from perusal of 20 sheet of marks sheet obtained

by candidates vide Ext. M-55/2 it appears that the selection

committee (encircled) the marks lowest 20 and onward in

order to short out candidates to call for voice test and

interview. But it is apparent that the election committee

selected nine (9) candidates, with surname either ‘Joshi’,

‘Thakore’, ‘Pandit’, ‘Jani’, ‘Bhatt’, ‘Yagnik’ and ‘Shah’.

The 1st party has failed to show that total impartiality was

followed. As per roaster chart, it has not been indicated

as to how many post were for SC/ST candidates OBC and

general and what was fixed for cut off marks for SC/ST

candidates in written test for calling in voice test and

interview. The list of selected candidates does not indicate

that any of them belong to either Schedule caste or

Schedule Tribe. It has been argued on behalf of the 2nd

party that the concerned workman Shivabhai L. Parmar

belong to Schedule caste and he worked as announcer on

vacant post in A.I.R. , Ahmedabad station for 10 years his

candidature was not at all considered in selection process

where as daughter of Director , Door Darshan Kendra,

Rajkot and other kith and kin of A.I.R, Executives were

considered. When concerned workman Shivabhai had

obtained marks 19 in written test being Schedule cast

candidate why he was ignored in calling for voice test and

interview where as his audition test must have been perfect

that enabled him to do the casual announcer ship for 10

years from 1986 to 1997. Had there been no efficiency and

competency in performing the casual works of announcer

in A.I.R., Ahmedabad station by Shivabhai he might not

have been given advance booking in every months for

announcer ship work either in morning, evening

transmission vide Ext. 54 para 13 of cross examination. 1st

party witness admitted that Shivabhai used to perform

work of announcer either in morning transmission or

evening transmission and as per admission at para 14

Shivabhai was performing the work of announcer against

permanent vacant post and the permanent vacant post is

still continuing. It has been also admitted by the 1st party

witness at para-14 that on which permanent vacant post

Shivabhai was performing announcer ship works is

presently performed by his junior. This apparently go to

show the discriminating attitude of the management of

the 1st party against Shivabhai in stopping giving

announcer ship to him from July/August 1997 whereas 5

sanctioned post of announcers are still vacant at A.I.R. ,

Ahmedabad station as per admission of the 1st party

witness (Ext.54) para-10. From perusal of Ext. 15 to 20 of

the 2nd party and Ext. 56 statement showing booking dates

offered to Shivabhai Parmar for casual announcer ship, it

is apparently proved that the concerned workman

Shivabhai was regularly booked for announcer ship in

A.I.R., Ahmedabad station from 1986 to 1997 till 17th June,

1997 and thereafter he was ignored in giving booking and

instead of him juniors were preferred without cogent

reason. This is a question mark that when a performer

(Shivabhai) was performing work of announcer either in

morning transmission or evening transmission for 10 years

satisfactorily then how he was incompetent in not giving

further advance booking on the vacant permanent post

and why junior was preferred. That speaks a volume

against discriminating attitude of the management of the

1st party to eliminate a progressive performer like

concerned Shivabhai L. Parmar. In this connection the 1st

party appears to be speak less by keeping conspicuous

mum and for that reason fit to draw adverse inference

against the 1st party in not coming in this case with clean

hands.

11. Thus as per discussions and consideration in

the foregoing paras. I am of the considered opinion that

though concerned workman Shivabhai L. Parmar has not

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4515

actually worked for 240 days in any calendar year but as

an active and sincere artist he completed 240 days of works

as announcer on permanent vacant post still lying vacant

and also in the calendar year preceding his alleged

removal/termination or to stop giving work to him by the

1st party. But it is further held other 9 workers (Sl. No. 2 to

10 ) as per list (Ext.42) never completed 240 days of work

actually to notionally in any calendar year as artist and so

they [remaining nine (9)] workers as per list are out of

court in this case. I further find and hold that booking of

workman Shivabhai L. Parmar a casual daily rated

announcer in the A.I.R., Ahmedabad station intermittently

in every month for 6-12 days for the last 10 years from

1986 to July 1996 has given impetus to him (Shavabhai L.

Parmar) only for claim of his regularisation/confirmation

as permanent announcer in All India Radio, Akashwani,

Ahmedabad of the 1st party. But such impetus is not

available to other 9 worker as per list (Ext.42) (Sl. No. 2 to

10) since they are out of court. I further find and hold that

the demand of the Union (All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari

Union) for regularisation and confirmation of casual daily

rated announcer Shivabhai Laxmanbhai Parmar is only

proper, legal and justified but for other 9 workers Union’s

demand is not at all justified. Thus, Issue No. iii, iv and v

are decided accordingly.

12. Issue No, i & ii:- As per findings to issue No. iii,

iv & v in the foregoing, I further find and hold that the

reference is maintainable so far as demand for workman

Shivabhai L. Parmar of Union is concerned and the 2nd

party has got valid cause of action to the extent of the

claim of Shivabhai L .Parmar.

13. ISSUE No. vi: - As per findings to issue

No. i, ii, iii, iv & v in the foregoings, I am of the considered

view and therefore further find and hold that the 2nd party

concerned workman Shri Shivabhai Laxmanbhai Parmar is

entitled for confirmation as permanent announcer in All

India Radio, Akashwani, Ahmedabad from 01.08.1997 with

continuity of service with consequential benefit. However

25% of back wages is allowed. The 1st party is directed to

comply with this award within two months of receipt of

this award failing which the back wages will carry interest

@ 9% PA.

The reference is accordingly allowed in part. No.

order for cost.

This is my award.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 of the I.D.

Act, 1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1700-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVs'ku Mk;jsDVj]

dkdjkikj ,VkWfed ikoj LVs'ku] rkih ,oa vnlZ 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 lhthvkbZVh,&59@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@5@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@12@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O. 1700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. CGITA-

59/2011) 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 Station Director, Kakrapar Atomic

Power Station, Tapi and Others and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 20/05/2014.

[No. L-42011/12/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Shri Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

Ahmedabad

Dated : 4th March, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 59/2011

Reference Order No. L-42011/12/2011-IR(DU)

The Station Director,

Kakrapar Atomic Power Station,

Po : Anumala, Taluka: Vyara

Tapi-394651

The Chairman –cum-Managing Director,

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. ,

Anushakti Nagar,

Mumbai

. . . 1st party

AND

Their workman

Through the General Secretary,

Kakrapar Anumathak Karmachari Sangathan,

Kapp Township,

Post : Anumala,

Tapi-394651

. . . 2nd party

4516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the 1st Party

Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate

For the 2nd party

Shri Hitesh D. Kathrotia, Advocate

Shri B.K. Parmar, General

Secretary,

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi, vide its order No. L-42011/12/2011-IR(DU)), dated

22.07.2011, referred the dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of Kakarapar Atomic Power

station and their workman for adjudication to the C.G.I.T.-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matters specified in the schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Kakarapar Anumathak

Karmachari Sangathan not to implement the revised

scheme for allotment of quarters till the 6th CPC

anomalies committee submit its report and final

decision arrived there on is legal and justified? What

relief the concerned Union is entitled to ?”

2. Consequent upon notice both parties appeared

and filed Vakilparta engaging lawyer to take care in this

case. The case is being adjourned for filing statement of

claim by the 2nd party (Union). Today on the date fixed

2nd party Union containing the signature of R.K. Solanki

(President) and B.K. Parmar (General Secretary) and their

lawyer Shri H.D. Khathrotia filed a withdrawal pursis (Ext.6)

upon which the lawyer of the 1st party noted down without

any objection. Through this pursis (Ext.6) the 2nd party

intended to withdraw this dispute uncondionally and so

sought for permission and to pass necessary order.

3. Both sides were heard and perused the record

withdrawal pursis. The 2nd party who raised dispute

against management of the 1st party intent to

unconditionally withdraw from this case.

As such this reference is dismissed as withdrawn

and the terms of reference is answered in negative that the

demand of Union is not legal and justified and the 2nd

party not entitled to any relief.

Let its copy be sent to the appropriate Government

for publication under section 17 of the I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1701-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj]

E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh 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] fnYYkh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 168@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@71@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 23nd May, 2014

S.O. 1701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 168/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The Commisioner, Municipal

Corporation of Delhi and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 18/05/2014.

[No. L-42012/71/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D. No. 168/2012

Shri Suresh Singh,

S/o Late Sh.Bhudev Prasad,

Through The General Secretary,

Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh,

Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624, Sultanpuri,

Delhi.

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006.

...Management

AWARD

A chowkidar employed by Municipal Corporation

of Delhi (in short the Corporation) claimed payment of

overtime allowance, since he was made to work beyond

normal duty hours. His claim was not conceded to by the

Corporation. He approached the Nagar Nigam Karamchari

Sangh (Delhi) (in short the union) for redressal of his

grievances. The union served notice on the Corporation

seeking overtime allowance for duties performed in excess

of normal working hours, wages for weekly holidays,

gazetted holidays and casual leaves, which notice was

not responded to. A dispute was raised before the

Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation contested the

claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4517

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No.L-42012/71/2012-IR(DU) dated 22.11.2012, with

following terms:

“Whether action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in denying overtime

wages to the workman, Shri Suresh Singh, S/o Late

Shri Bhudev Prasad, Chowkidar for performing 10

(ten) hours duty per day since the regularization of

the workman Shri Suresh Singh with effect form

01.04.2004 is justified or not? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to and form which date?”

2. In the reference order, the appropriate

Government commanded the parties to the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list

of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days

of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of

such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved

in the dispute. Despite directions, so given, the Chowkidar,

namely, Shri Suresh Singh opted not to file his claim

statement with the Tribunal.

3. Notice was sent to Shri Suresh Singh by

registered post on 03.12.2012, calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on or before 02.01.2013. This

notice was sent to him through the union, at P-2/624,

Sultanpuri, Delhi, the address provided by the appropriate

Government in order of reference. Neither the claimant nor

the union responded to the notice, so sent.

4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant

to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him by

registered post on 04.01.2013 calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on 29.01.2013. Notice was

transmitted to the claimant by registered post on 31.01.2013

asking him to file his claim statement on or before

20.02.2013. Lastly, notice dated 22.02.2013 was sent by

registered post commanding the claimant to file his claim

statement before the Tribunal on or before 22.03.2013.

Neither the postal articles, referred above, were received

back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained affected in the period, referred above.

Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact

that the above notices were served upon the claimant.

Despite service of these notices, claimant opted to abstain

away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed

on his behalf.

5. Since onus of the question referred for

adjudication was there on the Corporation, it was called

upon to file its response to the reference order. Corporation

filed its response, pleading therein that the dispute was

not properly espoused by the union, hence liable to be

rejected. It further asserted that the dispute has been

raised at a belated stage, hence it became stale. The

Appropriate Government cannot refer such a dispute for

adjudication, as it has become stale. The dispute is liable

to be rejected on this count also, claims the Corporation.

6. The Corporation projects that claimant was

getting overtime allowance @ Rs.625.00 upto a maximum

of 50 hours in a month in accordance with circular dated

15.03.1997. For work performed on Sundays and Holidays,

the chowkidars gets compensatory leave in lieu thereof,

hence not entitled to overtime allowance. Chowkidars are

entitled to 15 days casual leave, 3 national holidays and 6

other holidays of their choice in every calendar year. Their

normal duty hours are 10 hours per day and previously

chowkidars were entitled to 24 hours rest (one day) in

fortnight. Now, a chowkidar is getting overtime allowance

for 100 hours per month in accordance with circular dated

09.05.2011. Details of overtime allowance granted to the

claimant from June’88 to March 2013 are annexed as

Annexure C with the response. In view of these facts,

claimant is not entitled to any relief, claims the corporation.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to advance arguments.

Shri Umesh Gupta, authorized representative, assisted by

Ms. Jaishri, School Inspector, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful considerations

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:

8. At the outset, it has been argued that the dispute

has not acquired status of an industrial dispute since it

has not been validly espoused by the union. For an

answer, definition of the term industrial dispute is to be

construed. For sake of convenience, definition of the term

“industrial dispute”, as defined by section 2(k) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act).

“(k) “Industrial dispute” means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or between

employers and workmen, or between workmen and

workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-

employment or the terms of employment or with the

conditions of labour, of any person”.

9. The definition of “industrial dispute” referred

above, can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of

dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz.(a) employers and

employers, (b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen

and workmen, (3) subject matter of the dispute, which

should be connected with –(i) employment or non-

employment, or (ii) terms of employment, or (iii) condition

of labour of any person, and (4) it should relate to an

“industry”.

10. The definition of “industrial dispute” is worded

in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word “workman” it would seem to

include all “employers”, all “employments” and all

“workmen”, whatever the nature or scope of the

4518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employment may be. Therefore, except in the case where

there can be a dispute between the employers and

employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties

to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of

employees. The first point, therefore, to be noted, perhaps

self evident, is that the phrase “employer and workmen”,

the plural may include singular on either side or any

permutation of singular or plural, the masculine including

the feminine. In order, therefore, to determine as to whether

a controversy or difference or a dispute is an “an industrial

dispute” or not, it must first be determined whether the

workman concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause

satisfy the conditions of clause (s) of section 2 of the Act.

Here in the case, the Corporation does not dispute that

the claimant is workman within the meaning of clause(s)

of section 2 of the Act.

11. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of

“industrial dispute” in Dimakuchi Tea Estate [1958 (1) LLJ

500] and ruled that the expression “any person” in clause

(k) of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such

limitation and qualification as arise from the context, the

two crucial limitations are (i) the dispute must be a real

dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in

the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be

capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the

dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for

whose employment, non-employment, terms of

employment or conditions of labour, as case may be, the

parties dispute for a direct or substantial interest. Where

workman raised a dispute as against their employment,

the person regarding whose employment, non-employer,

terms of employment or conditions of labour, the dispute

is raised need not be strictly speaking “workman” within

the meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose

employment, non-employer, terms of employment, or

conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct

or substantial interest. The observations made by the

Apex Court are to be extracted thus:

“We also agree with the expression “any person” is

not co extensive with any workman, particular or otherwise,

equal with other, that the crucial test is one of community

of interest and the person regarding whom the dispute is

raised must be one in whose employment, non-

employment, terms of employment, conditions of labour

(as the case may be) the parties to the dispute have a

direct or substantial interest. Whether such direct or

substantial interest has been established in a particular

case will depend on its facts and circumstances.”

12. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. [1958

(2) LLJ 660] the Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute

need not be a dispute between the employer and his

workman and that the definition of the expression

“industrial dispute” is wide enough to cater a dispute

raised by the employer’s workman with regard to non-

employment of others, who may not be employed as

workman at the relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay

Union of Journalist [1961 (II) LLJ 436] has observed that

in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute

has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the

test is whether at the date of reference, the dispute was

taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom, the dispute is raised by an

individual workman or by an appreciable number of

workmen. In order, therefore, to convert an individual

dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established

that it has been taken up by the union of employees of the

establishment or by an appreciable number of the

employees of the establishment. As far as union of the

workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem

of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty,

since such workmen who are members of such unions

generally have a continuity of interest with an individual

employee who is one of their fellow workman. But difficulty

arise when the cause of a workman, in a particular

establishment is sponsored by a union which is not of the

workmen of that establishment but is one of which

membership is open to workmen of their establishment as

well as in that industry. In such a case a union which has

only microscopic number of the workmen as its member,

cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen

and the management. A representative character of the

union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual

number of co workers sponsoring the dispute. The mere

fact that a substantial number of workmen of the

establishment in which the concerned workman was

employee were also members of the union would not

constitute sponsorship. It must be shown that they were

connected together and arrived at an understanding by a

resolution or by other means and collectively submitted

the dispute.

13. The expression “industrial disputes” has been

construed by the Apex Court to include individual

disputes, because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu

Nath Gopal Patvardhan [1957(1) LLJ 27] the Apex Court

ruled as to what dispute can be called as an industrial

dispute. It was laid thereon that (1) a dispute between the

employer and a single workman cannot be an industrial

dispute, (2) it can not be per-se be an industrial dispute

but may become if it is taken up by a trade union or a

number of workmen. In Dharampal Prem Chand [1965 (1)

LLJ 668] it was commanded by the Apex Court that a

dispute raised by a single workman cannot become an

industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his union

or in the absence of a union by substantial number of

workmen. Same law was laid in the case of Indian Express

Newspaper (Pvt.) Limited [1970 (1) LLJ 132]. However in

Western India Match Company [1970 (II) LLJ 256], the

Apex Court referred the precedent in Drona Kuchi Tea

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4519

Estate’s case [1958 (1) LLJ 500] and ruled that a dispute

relating to “any person becomes a dispute where the

person in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose

employment, non employment, terms of employment or

conditions of labour, the parties, dispute for a direct or

substantial interest”.

14. What a substantial or considerable number of

workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular

facts of the case. The fact that an “industrial dispute”, is

supported by other workmen will have to be established

either in the form of a resolution of the union of which

workman may be member or of the workmen themselves

who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the

mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

“industrial dispute” concerning an individual workman is

referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the workmen

of the establishment as its members, it cannot be inferred

that the individual dispute has been converted into an

“industrial dispute”. The Tribunal has therefore, to

consider the question as to how many of the fellow

workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned

workman by participating in the particular resolution of

the Union. In the absence of a such a determination by

the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the individual dispute

acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the

Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute. Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an

industrial dispute, it is not necessary that there should

always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable number

of workmen. What is necessary is that there should be

some express or collective will of a substantial or an

appreciable member of the workmen treating the cause of

the individual workman as their own cause. Law to this

effect was laid in P.Somasundrameran [1970 (1) LLJ 558].

15. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is

a registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once

it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman’s cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [1970 (1) LLJ

507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were

filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co-

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were

espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and

unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these

disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized

union does not mean that they were not “industrial

dispute”.

16. It is not expedient that same union should remain

incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute

may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,

through a particular union for making such a dispute an

“industrial dispute”, while the workman may be

represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of Section

36 of the Act by a member of executive or office bearer of

altogether another union. The crux of the matter is that the

dispute should be a dispute between the employer and

his workmen. It is not necessary that the dispute must be

espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union.

Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union

during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings

that would not affect the maintainability of the order of

reference. Law to this effect was laid by the High Court of

Orissa in Gammon India Limited [1974 (II) LLJ 34]. For

ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has

acquired character of an individual dispute, the test is

whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken

up as supported by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom the dispute is raised by the

individual workman or by an appreciable number of the

workman. In other words, the validity of the reference of

an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they

stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on

the date when the cause occurs. Reference can be made to

a precedent in Western India Match Co.Ltd. [1970 (II) LLJ

256].

17. Here in the case, not even an iota of facts are

brought over the record to the effect that the union took

up the cause of the claimant as their own. It is also not

shown that the members of the union had shown their

collective will in favour of the cause of the claimant. Thus

it is evident that there is a complete vacuum of facts to the

effect that the union espoused the cause of the claimant.

Resultantly there is no material to conclude to the effect

that the dispute acquired status of an industrial dispute.

The reference is liable to be answered against the claimant

on that score.

18. Next count of attack made by the Corporation

that the dispute was raised by the claimant after 8 years,

which frustrates the relief in his favour. Section 10 (1) of

the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for

making reference of the dispute for adjudication. The

words ‘at any time’ used in sub-section (1) of Section 10

of Act does not admit of any limitation in making an order

of reference. Law of limitation, which might bar any Civil

Court from giving remedy in respect of lawful rights, cannot

be applied by Industrial Tribunals. However, policy of

industrial adjudication is that stale claim should not be

generally encouraged or allowed unless there is

satisfactory explanation for delay. In Shalimar Works Ltd.

[1959 (2) LLJ 26], the Apex Court pointed out that though

there is no limitation prescribed in making reference of the

dispute to Industrial Tribunal, even so, it is only reasonable

4520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that disputes should be referred as soon as possible after

having arisen and on failure of conciliation proceedings.

In Western India Match Company [1970 (2) LLJ 256] the

Apex Court observed that in exercising its discretion,

Government will take into account time which has lapsed

between its earlier decision and the date when it decides

to consider it in the interest of justice and industrial peace

to make the reference for adjudication. Same view was

taken in Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. [1975 (2) LLJ 326]. In

Gurmail Singh [2000 (1) LLJ 1080] Industrial Adjudicator

dismissed the reference on the ground that there was delay

of 8 years in raising the dispute, which delay was condoned

by the Apex Court and it was ordered that the workman

would not be entitled to any back wages for the period of

8 years but would be entitled to 50% of wages from the

date it raised the dispute till the date of his reinstatement.

In Prahalad Singh [2000 (2) LLJ 1653], the Apex Court

approved the award of the Tribunal in not granting any

relief to the workman who preferred the claim after a period

of 13 years without any reasonable or justifiable grounds.

In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. [2002 (2) SCC 4] a lapse of seven

years in raising the dispute was held to be a factor to

refuse the relief. The Apex Court ruled that the appropriate

Government has to exercise its powers of referring the

dispute in a reasonable manner. Delay of seven years made

the Court to conclude that there was no dispute existing

or apprehended when decision was taken to refer it for

adjudication. Same view was taken in Haryana State Co-

operative Land Development Bank [2005 (5) S.C.C. 91].

From above decisions, it can be said that the law relating

to delay in raising or reference of dispute is bereft of any

principles, which can be easily comprehended by the

litigants.

19. Claimant raised the dispute in respect of overtime

allowance paid to him with effect from 01.04.2004. Thus, it

is emerging over the record that the claimant had raised

the dispute after a long gap of 8 years. No explanation is

offered for this inordinate delay. It appears that there was

no industrial dispute in existence or could be even said to

have been apprehended in the year 2012, when the

appropriate Government applied its mind to the facts of

the present controversy.

20. Corporation contests the dispute on the count

that no notice of demand was served on it prior to raising

a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. These facts also

remained uncontroverted. The object of the Act is to

protect workman against victimization by the employer

and ensure termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful

manner. The Act, however, does not provide for any set of

social and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting

interests. Such norms have been evolved and devised by

industrial adjudication, keeping in view the social and

economic conditions, the needs of the workmen, the

requirement of the industry, social justice, relative interests

of the parties and common good. These norms have given

rights to the industrial employees what may be called

industrial rights, as such rights may not be available at

common law. Disputes as to the conditions of employment

can be resolved by resorting to a technique known as

collective bargaining. This tool is resorted to between an

employer or group of employers and a bonafide labour

union. Policy behind this is to protect workmen as a class

against unfair labour practices. What imparts to the dispute

of a workman the character of an “industrial dispute” is

that it affects the right of the workmen as a class.

21. An industrial dispute comes into existence when

the employer and the workman are at variance and the

dispute/difference is connected with the employment or

non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions

of labour. In other words, dispute or difference arises when

a demand is made by the workman on the employer and it

is rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu Resettlement

Corporation Ltd. [1968(1) LLJ 834], the Apex Court has

held that mere demand, asking the appropriate Government

to refer a dispute for adjudication, without being raised by

the workmen with their employer, regarding such demand,

cannot become an industrial dispute. Hence, an industrial

dispute cannot be said to exist until and unless a demand

is made by the workman or workmen on the employer and

it has been rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd Corporation

Pvt. Ltd.(1970 Lab.I.C.421), High Court of Delhi went a

step ahead and held that “... demand by the workman must

be raised first on the management and rejected by it, before

an industrial dispute can be said to arise and exist and that

the making of such a demand to the Conciliation Officer

and its communication by him to the management, who

rejected the demand, is not sufficient to constitute an

industrial dispute.”

22. The above decision was followed by Orissa High

Court in Orissa Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1976 Lab.I.C. 285) and

Himachal Pradesh High Court in Village Paper Pvt. Ltd.(1993

Lab.I.C. 99). However, the Apex Court in Bombay Union of

Journalists [1961 (2) LLJ 436] had ruled that an industrial

dispute must be in existence or apprehended on the date

of reference. If, therefore, a demand has been made by the

workman and it has been rejected by the employer before

the date of reference, whether direct or through the

Conciliation Officer, it would constitute an industrial

dispute. In Shambhunath Goyal [1978(1) LLJ 484], the

Apex Court appreciated facts that the workman had not

made a formal demand for his reinstatement in service.

However, he had contested his dismissal before the

Enquiry Officer and claimed reinstatement. Against the

findings of the Enquiry Officer, he preferred an appeal to

the Appellate Authority, claiming reinstatement on the

ground that his dismissal was bad in law. Then again, he

claimed reinstatement before the Conciliation Officer in

the course of conciliation proceedings, which was

contested by the employer. Appreciating all these facts,

the Apex court inferred that there was impeccable evidence

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4521

that the workman had persistently demanded

reinstatement, rejection of which brought an industrial

dispute into existence.

23. In New Delhi Tailor Mazdoor Union [1979(39)

FLT 195], High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath

Goyal had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd.

But it had distinguished it on facts. It was also pointed

out that decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu

Resettlement Pvt. Ltd. could not have been overruled by

two Judge bench in Shambunath Goyal. The High Court

concluded that decision in Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd.,

in case of any conflict between the two decisions, must

prevail. The High Court held that making of the demand

by the workman on the management was sine qua non for

giving rise to an industrial dispute.

24. The High Court of Madras in Management of

Needle Industries [1986(1) LLJ 405] has held that dispute

or difference between management and the workman,

automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from

service. His dismissal per se creates a dispute or difference

between the management and the workman. The Court

further observed that “it is nowhere stipulated in the Act,

particular in section 2(k), that existence of the dispute as

such is not enough but then there should be a demand by

the workman on the management to give rise to an

industrial dispute”. However, this decision appears to be

inconsistent with the ratio of decision in Bombay Union

of Journalists(supra) and Sindhu Resettlement (supra). No

doubt, for existence of an industrial dispute, there should

be a demand by the workman and refusal to grant it by the

management. However, a demand should be raised, cannot

be a legal notion of fixity and rigidity. Grievances of the

workman and demand for its redressal must be

communicated to the management. Means and mechanism

of the communication adopted are not matters of much

significance, so long as demand is that of the workman

and it reaches the management. Reference can be made to

the precedent in Ram Krishna Mills Coimbatore Ltd. [1984

(2) LLJ 259].

25. The Act nowhere contemplates that the industrial

dispute can come into existence in any particular, specific

or prescribed manner nor there is any particular or

prescribed manner in which refusal should be

communicated. For an industrial dispute to come into

existence, written claim is not sine qua non. To read into

the definition, requirement of written demand for bringing

an industrial dispute into existence would tantamount to

rewriting the section, announced the Apex Court in

Shambunath Goyal(supra). In other words, oral demand

and its rejection will as much bring into existence an

industrial dispute, as written one. If facts and

circumstances of the case show that the workman had

been making a demand, which the management had been

refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an industrial

dispute between the parties.

26. Since the claimant had not come forward to

project that demand notice was served on the corporation,

under these circumstances, stand taken by the corporation

is to be believed. Corporation projects that no notice of

demand was served on it, before industrial dispute was

raised before the Conciliation Officer. Thus, it is emerging

over the record that it has not been established that

demand was raised on the corporation, which was rejected

by it and as such, dispute has not acquired status of an

industrial dispute.

27. Turning to facts presented by the Corporation,

it emerges that the Corporation takes 10 hours duty from

Chowkidars. Keeping in view the nature of duties

performed, the Corporation was paying intermittent

allowance to Chowkidars for performing more than 10

hours duty. Allowance was paid @ Rs.130.00 per month

for performance of duty upto 12 hours, Rs.180.00 per month

for duties performed for more than 12 hours but upto 16

hours and Rs.190.00 per month for performing duties more

than 16 hours a day. Workers union agitated the issue

and demanded overtime allowance in lieu of intermittent

allowance. On the basis of the resolution, the Corporation,

vide its decision dated 15.03.1997 decided to pay overtime

allowance to the maximum limit of 50 hours. The said

allowance was paid @Rs.625.00 per month. Workers union

further demanded enhancement of maxima limit of overtime

allowance and in consideration of the said demand, the

Corporation started paying overtime allowance with a cap

of 100 hours a month. Now, the Corporation is paying

overtime allowance to Chowkidars at Rs.1250.00, in

pursuance of Office Order dated 09.05.2011.

28. Annexure C, when scanned, highlights that from

January 98 till March 2011, overtime allowance was paid

to the claimant @ Rs.625.00 per month. From April 2011 till

March 2013, overtime allowance has been paid to the

claimant @ 1250.00 per month. Therefore, it is emerging

over the record that overtime allowance is being paid to

the claimant in accordance with the circulars, issued by

the Corporation from time to time.

29. In view of the above reasons, it is evident that

the action of the Corporation in paying overtime allowance

to the claimant @ Rs.625.00 per month till March 2011 and

thereafter Rs.1250.00 till date is in accordance with the

circulars issued from time to time. Claimant is not entitled

to overtime allowance more than the amount referred

above. Resultantly, action of the Corporation is found to

be justified. No relief is available to the claimant. An award

is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Date : 06.12.2013

4522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1702-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

tujy eSustj] VsfydE;wfuds'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;&2] p.Mhx<+

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 508@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@83@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O. 1702.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 508/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Principal General Manager,

Telecommunications, and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 29/5/2014.

[No. L-40012/83/2002-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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.508/2005

Registered on 22.8.2005.

Smt. Kalawati, H.No.2154, Phase II, Ram Darbar,

Chandigarh.

. . . Petitioner

Versus

The Principal General Manager, Telecom, Telephone

Deptt., Sector 18A, Chandigarh.

. . . Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Sh. Chaman Lal Adv.

For the Management

: Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on-2.5.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

83/2002-IR(DU) Dated 21.10.2002, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL in

terminating the service of Smt. Kalawati, ex part time

sweeper is just and legal? If so, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

In response to the notice, the workman submitted

statement of claim pleading that she was engaged as part

time sweeper by the respondent management and she

served from 20.9.1983 to March 1999. That she was eligible

for regularization of her services as per the instructions/

guidelines issued from time to time and she requested the

respondents for the same. The respondents terminated

her services in the month of March 1999 without assigning

any reason and against the provisions of the Act. That

the work is still there against which she was employed

and the persons who were junior to her were not

terminated. That she was eligible for the status of full time

casual labourer as per letter dated 25.8.2000. That the

termination of her services is illegal and she be reinstated

in service with full back wages.

Respondents filed written reply pleading that the

workman was employed as a sweeper for five hours on

contract basis and for a fixed remunerations. She was not

entitled to regularization. That her services came to an

end on the expiry of the contractual period and she was

not to be paid any retrenchment compensation. That she

filed a petition before the Hon’ble Central Administrative

Tribunal challenging her termination and the same was

dismissed vide order dated 24.9.1997. She preferred a writ

petition which she withdrew unconditionally. That the

present reference is not maintainable.

In support of her case workman appeared in the

witness box and filed her affidavit reterating her case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined

Harcharan Singh who filed his affidavit Exhibit R1

reiterating the stand taken by the respondent management

in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Chaman Lal, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar counsel for the

management and perused the file.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the

workman that the workman was appointed on 20.9.1983

and her services were terminated in March 1999 without

payment of retrenchment compensation and therefore the

termination of her services is illegal and she is entitled to

be reinstated in service with all the benefits.

I have considered the contentions of the learned

counsel.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4523

It may be added that though it is admitted that

workman worked with the respondent department but the

workman did not place on record any appointment letter.

According to the respondent management she was

engaged as part time sweeper working for five hours on

contract basis. It is pleaded in para 2 of the statement of

claim that she asked for regularization of her services to

the respondent management meaning thereby she was

not appointed on regular basis. The management itself

placed on record the letters dated 1.3.1995 Exhibit M3,

7.9.1995 Exhibit M4, 12.3.1996 Exhibit M7, 13.9.1996 Exhibit

M9, 14.3.1997 Exhibit M11 and 16.9.1997 Exhibit M13

showing that her services were hired on contract basis for

six months only from time to time on a fixed remuneration.

Thus she was working with the respondent management

as part time worker on contract basis on a fixed

remuneration and on the expiry of the contractual period,

her services came to an end automatically. Since she was

a contractual worker, the termination of her service do not

fall within the definition of ‘retrenchment’ and she was

not entitled to claim any compensation. In this respect

reliance may be placed on Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and

others, Petitioners v. State of Bihar and others,

Respondents wherein it was observed that – They are

temporary employees working on daily wages. Under

these circumstances, their disengagement from service

cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the

Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of retrenchment,

therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to

cover these employees. The learned counsel for the

petitioners seeks to contend that in the High Court, the

petitioners did not contend that it is a case of retrenchment

but termination of their services is arbitrary. Since they

are only daily wage employees and have no right to the

posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary.

Though it is pleaded that her services were to be

regularized as per instructions/guidelines issued by the

department from time to time but no such instructions was

pointed out at the time of arguments and she cannot be

reinstated in service simply on the ground that she worked

as part time worker for a long period.

In result it is held that the termination of the services

of the workman is not illegal and workman is not entitled

to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered

against the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award

be sent to the Central Government for further necessary

action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1703-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMfLVªV eSustj]

VsfydE;wfuds'ku] than 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] p.Mhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@229@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O. 1703.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 22/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of District Manager, Telecommunications,

Jind and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-40012/229/2003-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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. 22/2004

Registered on 30.11.2004

Sh. Ramesh S/o Sh. Tara Chand,

Village and Post Office Bishanpura, Jind

...Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager,

Telecommunication, Jind

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. Rakesh Kaundal Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on-5.5.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

229/2003-IR(DU)) Dated 7.6.2004, 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 :

4524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. BSNL, Jind in terminating the services of

Sh. Ramesh, Labourer S/o Sh. Tara Chand w.e.f.

12.7.2002 is just and legal? If not to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

The workman submitted statement of claim pleading

that he was engaged as Peon by the District Manager,

Jind in February 1998 and he joined service on 2.2.1998 in

the Office of SDO (Telephones) Jind. It is pleaded that his

services were used for clerical duties and he did the work

in the Office of SDO (Telephones) Jind. That he maintained

despatch registers and salary register. That his services

were discontinued on 12.7.2002 without serving him any

charge-sheet, show cause notice and payment of any

retrenchment compensation. Respondent management

allege some contract to the security agency and the same

in fact is a camouflage. Since his services have been

terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act, he is

liable to be reinstated in service with all the benefits.

Respondent management filed written reply

controverting the averments and pleaded that the claimant

was never engaged by the respondent nor he was paid

any wages. There was no relationship of master and servant

between the parties. The respondent department entered

into the contract with the security service who engaged

certain persons and the claimant may have been engaged

by the contractor. If he had helped in a friendly way to

make certain entries in any register, the same do not

establish that he was an employee of the Department.

Parties led their evidence.

In support of his case the workman has examined

Ram Kumar, Jatinder Kumar and himself appeared in the

witness box.

Ram Kumar stated that he work in the department

and used to visit Head Office at Jind where he found the

workman working and handling the official files.

Jitender Kumar, an officer of the department, was

summoned to produce the record.

Ramesh Kumar claimant filed his affidavit reiterating

the case as set out in the claim petition. He has also

placed on record photocopy of the identity card Exhibit

A2, Dak Register Exhibit A3, A4, A6 to A8 and a copy of

On the other hand respondent management examined

Kapoor Singh who filed his Affidavit Exhibit R1 reiterating

the case of the respondents as set out in the written

statement and also placed on record copy of the agreement

Exhibit R2 to R4.

I have heard Sh. Rakesh Kaundal counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management.

It was argued by the learned counsel that the

workman was initially appointed as Peon but used to work

as a Clerk as is evident from the statement of Ram Kumar;

and the statement of workman Ramesh himself stands

corroborated from the documents Exhibit A2 to A8 and

thus it is established on the file that workman was employed

by the respondent management who used to take work

from him as Clerk and he worked from February 1998 to

July, 2002; and since his services have been terminated

without complying with the provisions of the Act, he has

a right to be reinstated in service.

He has further carried me through application at page

16 of the file and submitted that he summoned the record

but was not produced by the department and therefore,

adverse inference be drawn against it.

I have considered the contention raised by the

learned counsel.

It may be added at the outset that the reference is

whether the terminating the services of Sh. Ramesh Kumar,

“Labourer” is just and legal. Thus in the reference the

status of the claimant was mentioned as a “labourer.” But

now he claims that he was appointed and posted as Peon

and work there taken from him was that of a clerk.

Respondent department is a statutory body and has its

own rules and regulations for making the appointments in

the department. There is nothing on the file to suggest

that any such procedure was followed before giving any

appointment to the workman. Again no record has been

placed on the file to show that he was ever paid salary/

wages by the department. Thus it cannot be said that he

was appointed as Peon by the department at any point of

time.

So far as the Dak registers and register regarding

deposit of security are concerned, the same are not verified

by any Officer of the department and at the most these

can be treated as the admission by the workmen in his

own favour and cannot be relied upon. Similarly the identity

card Exhibit A2 is not attested by any officer of the

department and it carries no weight.

The statement of Ram Kumar do not advance the

case of the workman in any way as according to him he

had seen the workman only handling the files and he is

totally silent about his appointment as Peon in the

department. The workman has summoned the record as

mentioned in the application which is at page 16 of the file

but it is not clear how this record prove the appointment

of the workman as a Peon in the department or his working

as a Clerk there. Therefore if the department do not produce

the record, the same is also of no help to the workman.

In result, it is held that the workman has failed to

prove that he was appointed as labourer or Peon by the

department directly and his services were terminated by it

and he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4525

accordingly answered against the workman. Let hard and

soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government

for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1704-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

eSustj] oksMkiQksu bafM;k 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;]

y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 08@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@122@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O. 1704.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 08/2014)

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 Manager, Vodafone India Pvt. Ltd. and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-40012/122/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 08/2014

Ref. No. L-40012/122/2013-IR(DU) dated: 11.02.2014

BETWEEN

Sh. Abhishek S/o Late Sh. Purushottam Singh,

SS-II, 646 D-I, LDA Colony,

Kanpur Road,

Lucknow – 226 022

AND

The Manager,

Vodafone India Pvt. Ltd.,

Shalimar Titanium, Plot No. TC/G 1/1,

Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-40012/122/2013-IR(DU) dated:

11.02.2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Sh. Abhishek S/o

Late Sh. Purushottam Singh, SS-II, 646 D-I, LDA Colony,

Kanpur Road, Lucknow and the Manager, Vodafone India

Pvt. Ltd., Shalimar Titanium, Plot No. TC/G 1/1, Vibhuti

Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA KARMKAAR ABHISHEK PUTRA SWA.

PURUSHOTTAM SINGH KO PRABANDHAN

VODAFONE INDIA PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

DWARA VARSH 2010-2011 KE BONUS KA

BHUGTAAN NA KIYA JANA UCHIT EVAM

VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAHI TO KARMKAAR

KYA ANUTOSH PANE KA ADHIKAARI HAI?”

3. On receipt of the reference order the workman

was issued registered notice to file his statement of claim

complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and

witnesses before Tribunal on 11.04.2014 with an advance

copy to the opposite party. On the date fixed i.e. 11.04.2014,

the workman filed its authority, paper No. W-3, in favour

of Shri Tungesh, Advocate who sought time to file the

statement of claim and 25.04.2014 was fixed for filing the

statement of claim by the workman.

4. On 25.04.2014 the workman filed an application,

W-4, seeking leave of the Court to withdraw his case due

to personal reasons. Accordingly, it has been prayed by

the workman that the present dispute be allowed to be

withdrawn and appropriate orders may be passed.

4. In view of the submission of the workman for

withdrawal of the case, it appears that there is no grievance

left with the workman; accordingly no claim award is

passed. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

5. Award as above.

Lucknow

08th May, 2014

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1705-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk ubZ

lsD;qfjfV iQkslZ C/o. ch,l,u,y ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUUkbZ ds

4526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@86@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O. 1705.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 10/2014)

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. New Security Force C/o. BSNL

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-40011/86/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 21st May, 2014

PRESENT :

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 10/2014

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of New Security Force and their

workman.]

BETWEEN

Sri C. Venkatesan

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

M/s. New Security Force :

2nd Party/

C/o BSNL

Respondent

Vellore SSA

Vellore

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

Absent

For the 2nd Party/Respondent :

Ex-parte

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/86/2013-IR (DU)

dated 12/18.02.2014 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

‘‘Whether the action of the Contractor i.e. M/s. New

Security Force, Trichy regarding non-payment of

minimum bonus of 8.33% to the workers for the year

2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 is justified or not ? If

not, to what relief the workmen is entitled to ?’’

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 10/2014 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner has appeared in person on the date

of first appearance. The Respondent was not present

though notice was served and has been set ex-parte.

3. After the date of first appearance, the petitioner

was continuously absent. He seems to be not interested

in pursuing the matter. He ha not filed any Claim Statement

even. So no material is available to proceed with the matter.

So the ID is closed. 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 21st May, 2014).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witness Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked on both sies :

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1706-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;k xouZesaV

feuV] vyhiksjs 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 24 vkWiQ 2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&16011@10@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O. 1706.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 24 of

2006) 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 India Govt. Mint, Alipore and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-16011/10/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4527

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 24 of 2006

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of India

Govt. Mint, Alipore

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT :

Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of the

: None

Management

On behalf of the

: None

Workmen

State: West Bengal

Industry: Mint

Dated: 20th May, 2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-16011/10/2005-IR(DU) dated

16.06.2006 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 India

Govt. Mint, Alipore, Kolkata in discontinuing the

payment of Non-Productivity linked Bonus (Ad-hoc)

applicable to its employees in terms of OM No.

F-14(6)-E(Coord)/083 dt.10.11.1983 and having

further decided to forthwith recover the amount

already paid on account of aforesaid Bonus, as per

direction ofDeptt. of Economic Affairs, Ministry of

Finance, Govt. of India issued vide letter F. No. 3/34/

03-Cy-III dated 3rd Nov. 03, is legal and justified ? If

not, to what relief the employees are entitled?

2. When the case is taken up for hearing today,

none appears on behalf of either of the parties. It appears

from the record that the parties are absent for the last two

consecutive dates.

3. Considering the above facts and circumstances

and also the conduct of the parties it appears that the

parties are not willing to proceed with this reference further.

Perhaps the matter has been amicably settled between the

parties outside the Tribunal.

4. In view of the above, instant reference is disposed

of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 20th May, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1707-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ned VsDuksykWtht

izkbosV fyfeVsM] cjksnk ,oa vksBslZ 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] p.Mhx<+

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 269@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@105@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014

S.O.

1707.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 269/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the M/s. DEMAC Technologies

Private Ltd., Baroda and Others and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-42012/105/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 269 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/105/2013-IR(DU) dated

18.03.2014

Sh. Subhash Chand, S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Village-

Ratta Khera, Tehsil-Safidon, Jind.

. . . Workman

Versus

M/s. DEMAC Technologies Private Ltd. M/s

DEMAC Technologies Private Ltd, SB-21, Ivory

Terrance, Rc Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda-390007.

M/s. Toyo Engineering India Limited ISRL-SBR

Project, Baholi, Distt. Panipat, Panipat.

. . . Respondents

4528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

None.

For the Management

None.

Award Passed On:-20-05-2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-42012/105/2013-IR(DU) dated 18.03.2014

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication :

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of DEMAC

Tech Private Ltd and Others., over the matter of

termination of Shri Subhash Chand from services is

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

entitled to?”

2. The case was fixed in Lok Adalat. A letter through

registered post has been received from respondent No.1

along with photocopy of no objection certificate dated

25.03.2013 of workman Subhash Chand wherein workman

stated that he has received a sum of Rs. 25,000 against his

full and final settlement and there in nothing balance from

the respondents. Along with the letter, there is also

photocopy of letter dated 30.03.2013 from workman that

he has already received his dues and his case may be

closed. Despite notices to the workman none appeared on

his behalf. It appears that the workman does not want to

continue with his reference. In view of the above the

reference is returned to the Central Govt. as settled.

Chandigarh.

20-05-2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk-

1708-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dfe'uj E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh ds izca/r=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;]

fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 167@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@66@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O.

1708.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 167/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation of Delhi, Delhi and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 30/05/2014.

[No. L-42012/66/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D. No. 167/2012

Shri Ishwar Singh

S/o Shri Jai Lal,

Through The General Secretary,

Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh,

Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624, Sultanpuri,

Delhi.

. . . Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006.

. . .Management

AWARD

A chowkidar employed by Municipal Corporation

of Delhi (in short the Corporation) claimed payment of

overtime allowance, since he was made to work beyond

normal duty hours. His claim was not conceded to by the

Corporation. He approached the Nagar Nigam Karamchari

Sangh (Delhi) (in short the union) for redressal of his

grievances. The union served notice on the Corporation

seeking overtime allowance for duties performed in excess

of normal working hours, wages for weekly holidays,

gazetted holidays and casual leaves, which notice was

not responded to. A dispute was raised before the

Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation contested the

claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No. L-42011/66/2012-IR(DU) dated 16/21.11.2012, with

following terms:

“Whether the action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in denying encashment

of wages of weekly holidays, gazetted holidays and

casual leave which are not availed by the workman,

Shri Ishwar Singh, S/o Shri Jai Lal, ex-Chowkidar

as the same are spent on duty during the period of

service rendered by the workman with the MCD is

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4529

justified or not? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to and form which date?”

2. In the reference order, the appropriate

Government commanded the parties to the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list

of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days

of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of

such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved

in the dispute. Despite directions, so given, the Chowkidar,

namely, Shri Ishwar Singh opted not to file his claim

statement with the Tribunal.

3. Notice was sent to Shri Ishwar Singh by registered

post on 03.12.2012, calling upon him to file claim statement

before the Tribunal on or before 02.01.2013. This notice

was sent to him through the union, at P-2/624, Sultanpuri,

Delhi, the address provided by the appropriate Government

in order of reference. Neither the claimant nor the union

responded to the notice, so sent.

4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant

to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him by

registered post on 02.01.2013 calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on 29.01.2013. Notice was

transmitted to the claimant by registered post on 31.01.2013

asking him to file his claim statement on or before

20.02.2013. Lastly, notice dated 22.02.2013 was sent by

registered post commanding the claimant to file his claim

statement before the Tribunal on or before 22.03.2013.

Neither the postal articles, referred above, were received

back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained affected in the period, referred above.

Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact

that the above notices were served upon the claimant.

Despite service of these notices, claimant opted to abstain

away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed

on his behalf.

5. Since onus of the question referred for

adjudication was there on the Corporation, it was called

upon to file its response to the reference order. Corporation

filed its response, pleading therein that the dispute was

not properly espoused by the union, hence liable to be

rejected. It further asserted that the dispute has been

raised at a belated stage, hence it became stale. The

Appropriate Government cannot refer such a dispute for

adjudication, as it has become stale. The dispute is liable

to be rejected on this count also, claims the Corporation.

6. The Corporation projects that claimant was

getting overtime allowance @ Rs. 625.00 up to a maximum

of 50 hours in a month in accordance with circular dated

15.03.1997. For work performed on Sundays and holidays,

the Chowkidars gets compensatory leave in lieu thereof,

hence not entitled to overtime allowance. Chowkidars are

entitled to 15 days casual leave, 3 national holidays and

6 other holidays of their choice in every calendar year.

Their normal duty hours are 10 hours per day and previously

Chowkidars were entitled to 24 hours rest (one day) in

fortnight. Now, a Chowkidar is getting overtime allowance

for 100 hours per month in accordance with circular dated

09.05.2011. Details of overtime allowance granted to the

claimant from June 88 to March 2013 are annexed as

Annexure C with the response. In view of these facts,

claimant is not entitled to any relief, claims the corporation.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to advance arguments.

Shri Umesh Gupta, authorized representative, assisted by

Ms. Jaishri, School Inspector, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful considerations

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:

8. At the outset, it has been argued that the dispute

has not acquired status of an industrial dispute since it

has not been validly espoused by the union. For an

answer, definition of the term industrial dispute is to be

construed. For sake of convenience, definition of the term

“industrial dispute”, as defined by section 2(k) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act).

“(k) “Industrial dispute” means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment or with the conditions of labour, of any

person”.

9. The definition of “industrial dispute” referred

above, can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of

dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz.(a) employers and

employers, (b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen

and workmen, (3) subject-matter of the dispute, which

should be connected with –(i) employment or non-

employment, or (ii) terms of employment, or (iii) condition

of labour of any person, and (4) it should relate to an

“industry”.

10. The definition of “industrial dispute” is worded

in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word “workman” it would seem to

include all “employers”, all “employments” and all

“workmen”, whatever the nature or scope of the

employment may be. Therefore, except in the case where

there can be a dispute between the employers and

employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties

to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of

employees. The first point, therefore, to be noted, perhaps

self evident, is that the phrase “employer and workmen”,

the plural may include singular on either side or any

permutation of singular or plural, the masculine including

the feminine. In order, therefore, to determine as to whether

4530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

a controversy or difference or a dispute is an “an industrial

dispute” or not, it must first be determined whether the

workman concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause

satisfy the conditions of clause (s) of section 2 of the Act.

Here in the case, the Corporation does not dispute that

the claimant is workman within the meaning of clause(s)

of section 2 of the Act.

11. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of

“industrial dispute” in Dimakuchi Tea Estate [1958 (1) LLJ

500] and ruled that the expression “any person” in clause

(k) of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such

limitation and qualification as arise from the context, the

two crucial limitations are (i) the dispute must be a real

dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in

the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be

capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the

dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for

whose employment, non-employment, terms of

employment or conditions of labour, as case may be, the

parties dispute for a direct or substantial interest. Where

workman raised a dispute as against their employment,

the person regarding whose employment, non-employer,

terms of employment or conditions of labour, the dispute

is raised need not be strictly speaking “workman” within

the meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose

employment, non-employer, terms of employment, or

conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct

or substantial interest. The observations made by the

Apex Court are to be extracted thus:

“We also agree with the expression “any person” is

not co extensive with any workman, particular or

otherwise, equal with other, that the crucial test is

one of community of interest and the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in

whose employment, non-employment, terms of

employment, conditions of labour (as the case may

be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or

substantial interest. Whether such direct or

substantial interest has been established in a

particular case will depend on its facts and

circumstances.”

12. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. [1958

(2) LLJ 660] the Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute

need not be a dispute between the employer and his

workman and that the definition of the expression

“industrial dispute” is wide enough to cater a dispute

raised by the employer’s workman with regard to non

employment of others, who may not be employed as

workman at the relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay

Union of Journalist [1961 (II) LLJ 436] has observed that

in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute

has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the

test is whether at the date of reference, the dispute was

taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom, the dispute is raised by an

individual workman or by an appreciable number of

workmen. In order, therefore, to convert an individual

dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established

that it has been taken up by the union of employees of the

establishment or by an appreciable number of the

employees of the establishment. As far as union of the

workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem

of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty,

since such workmen who are members of such unions

generally have a continuity of interest with an individual

employee who is one of their fellow workman. But difficulty

arise when the cause of a workman, in a particular

establishment is sponsored by a union which is not of the

workmen of that establishment but is one of which

membership is open to workmen of their establishment as

well as in that industry. In such a case a union which has

only microscopic number of the workmen as its member,

cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen

and the management. A representative character of the

union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual

number of co workers sponsoring the dispute. The mere

fact that a substantial number of workmen of the

establishment in which the concerned workman was

employee were also members of the union would not

constitute sponsorship. It must be shown that they were

connected together and arrived at an understanding by a

resolution or by other means and collectively submitted

the dispute.

13. The expression “industrial disputes” has been

construed by the Apex Court to include individual

disputes, because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu

Nath Gopal Patvardhan [1957(1) LLJ 27] the Apex Court

ruled as to what dispute can be called as an industrial

dispute. It was laid thereon that (1) a dispute between the

employer and a single workman cannot be an industrial

dispute, (2) it can not be per-se be an industrial dispute

but may become if it is taken up by a trade union or a

number of workmen. In Dharampal Prem Chand [1965 (1)

LLJ 668] it was commanded by the Apex Court that a

dispute raised by a single workman cannot become an

industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his union

or in the absence of a union by substantial number of

workmen. Same law was laid in the case of Indian Express

Newspaper (Pvt.) Limited [1970 (1) LLJ 132]. However in

Western India Match Company [1970 (II) LLJ 256], the

Apex Court referred the precedent in Drona Kuchi Tea

Estate’s case [1958 (1) LLJ 500] and ruled that a dispute

relating to “any person becomes a dispute where the

person in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose

employment, non employment, terms of employment or

conditions of labour, the parties, dispute for a direct or

substantial interest”.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4531

14. What a substantial or considerable number of

workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular

facts of the case. The fact that an “industrial dispute”, is

supported by other workmen will have to be established

either in the form of a resolution of the union of which

workman may be member or of the workmen themselves

who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the

mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

“industrial dispute” concerning an individual workman is

referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the workmen

of the establishment as its members, it cannot be inferred

that the individual dispute has been converted into an

“industrial dispute”. The Tribunal has therefore, to

consider the question as to how many of the fellow

workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned

workman by participating in the particular resolution of

the Union. In the absence of a such a determination by

the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the individual dispute

acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the

Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute. Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an

industrial dispute, it is not necessary that there should

always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable number

of workmen. What is necessary is that there should be

some express or collective will of a substantial or an

appreciable member of the workmen treating the cause of

the individual workman as their own cause. Law to this

effect was laid in P.Somasundrameran [1970 (1) LLJ 558].

15. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is

a registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once

it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman’s cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [1970 (1) LLJ

507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were

filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co-

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were

espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and

unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these

disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized

union does not mean that they were not “industrial

dispute”.

16. It is not expedient that same union should remain

in charge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute

may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,

through a particular union for making such a dispute an

“industrial dispute”, while the workman may be

represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of section

36 of the Act by a member of executive or office bearer of

altogether another union. The crux of the matter is that the

dispute should be a dispute between the employer and

his workmen. It is not necessary that the dispute must be

espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union.

Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union

during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings

that would not affect the maintainability of the order of

reference. Law to this effect was laid by the High Court of

Orissa in Gammon India Limited [1974 (II) LLJ 34]. For

ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has

acquired character of an individual dispute, the test is

whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken

up as supported by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom the dispute is raised by the

individual workman or by an appreciable number of the

workman. In other words, the validity of the reference of

an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they

stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on

the date when the cause occurs. Reference can be made to

a precedent in Western India Match Co.Ltd. [1970 (II) LLJ

256].

17. Here in the case, not even an iota of facts are

brought over the record to the effect that the union took

up the cause of the claimant as their own. It is also not

shown that the members of the union had shown their

collective will in favour of the cause of the claimant. Thus

it is evident that there is a complete vacuum of facts to the

effect that the union espoused the cause of the claimant.

Resultantly there is no material to conclude to the effect

that the dispute acquired status of an industrial dispute.

The reference is liable to be answered against the claimant

on that score.

18. Next count of attack made by the Corporation

that the dispute was raised by the claimant after 13 years,

which frustrates the relief in his favour. Section 10 (1) of

the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for

making reference of the dispute for adjudication. The

words ‘at any time’ used in sub-section (1) of section 10 of

Act does not admit of any limitation in making an order of

reference. Law of limitation, which might bar any Civil

Court from giving remedy in respect of lawful rights, cannot

be applied by Industrial Tribunals. However, policy of

industrial adjudication is that stale claim should not be

generally encouraged or allowed unless there is

satisfactory explanation for delay. In Shalimar Works Ltd.

[1959 (2) LLJ 26], the Apex Court pointed out that though

there is no limitation prescribed in making reference of the

dispute to Industrial Tribunal, even so, it is only reasonable

that disputes should be referred as soon as possible after

having arisen and on failure of conciliation proceedings.

In Western India Match Company [1970 (2) LLJ 256] the

Apex Court observed that in exercising its discretion,

Government will take into account time which has lapsed

between its earlier decision and the date when it decides

to consider it in the interest of justice and industrial peace

to make the reference for adjudication. Same view was

4532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

taken in Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. [1975 (2) LLJ 326]. In

Gurmail Singh [2000 (1) LLJ 1080] Industrial Adjudicator

dismissed the reference on the ground that there was delay

of 8 years in raising the dispute, which delay was condoned

by the Apex Court and it was ordered that the workman

would not be entitled to any back wages for the period of

8 years but would be entitled to 50% of wages from the

date it raised the dispute till the date of his reinstatement.

In Prahalad Singh [2000 (2) LLJ 1653], the Apex Court

approved the award of the Tribunal in not granting any

relief to the workman who preferred the claim after a period

of 13 years without any reasonable or justifiable grounds.

In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. [2002 (2) SCC 4] a lapse of seven

years in raising the dispute was held to be a factor to

refuse the relief. The Apex Court ruled that the appropriate

Government has to exercise its powers of referring the

dispute in a reasonable manner. Delay of seven years made

the Court to conclude that there was no dispute existing

or apprehended when decision was taken to refer it for

adjudication. Same view was taken in Haryana State Co-

operative Land Development Bank [2005 (5) S.C.C. 91].

From above decisions, it can be said that the law relating

to delay in raising or reference of dispute is bereft of any

principles, which can be easily comprehended by the

litigants.

19. Claimant raised the dispute in respect of overtime

allowance paid to him with effect from 01.01.1997. Thus, it

is emerging over the record that the claimant had raised

the dispute after a long gap of 13 years. No explanation is

offered for this inordinate delay. It appears that there was

no industrial dispute in existence or could be even said to

have been apprehended in the year 2012, when the

appropriate Government applied its mind to the facts of

the present controversy.

20. Corporation contests the dispute on the count

that no notice of demand was served on it prior to raising

a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. These facts also

remained uncontroverted. The object of the Act is to

protect workman against victimization by the employer

and ensure termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful

manner. The Act, however, does not provide for any set of

social and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting

interests. Such norms have been evolved and devised by

industrial adjudication, keeping in view the social and

economic conditions, the needs of the workmen, the

requirement of the industry, social justice, relative interests

of the parties and common good. These norms have given

rights to the industrial employees what may be called

industrial rights, as such rights may not be available at

common law. Disputes as to the conditions of employment

can be resolved by resorting to a technique known as

collective bargaining. This tool is resorted to between an

employer or group of employers and a bona fide labour

union. Policy behind this is to protect workmen as a class

against unfair labour practices. What imparts to the dispute

of a workman the character of an “industrial dispute” is

that it affects the right of the workmen as a class.

21. An industrial dispute comes into existence when

the employer and the workman are at variance and the

dispute/difference is connected with the employment or

non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions

of labour. In other words, dispute or difference arises when

a demand is made by the workman on the employer and it

is rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu Resettlement

Corporation Ltd. [1968(1) LLJ 834], the Apex Court has

held that mere demand, asking the appropriate Government

to refer a dispute for adjudication, without being raised by

the workmen with their employer, regarding such demand,

cannot become an industrial dispute. Hence, an industrial

dispute cannot be said to exist until and unless a demand

is made by the workman or workmen on the employer and

it has been rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd Corporation

Pvt. Ltd. [1970 Lab.I.C.421], High Court of Delhi went a

step ahead and held that “... demand by the workman must

be raised first on the management and rejected by it, before

an industrial dispute can be said to arise and exist and that

the making of such a demand to the Conciliation Officer

and its communication by him to the management, who

rejected the demand, is not sufficient to constitute an

industrial dispute.”

22. The above decision was followed by Orissa High

Court in Orissa Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1976 Lab.I.C. 285) and

Himachal Pradesh High Court in Village Paper Pvt. Ltd.(1993

Lab.I.C. 99). However, the Apex Court in Bombay Union of

Journalists [1961 (2) LLJ 436] had ruled that an industrial

dispute must be in existence or apprehended on the date

of reference. If, therefore, a demand has been made by the

workman and it has been rejected by the employer before

the date of reference, whether direct or through the

Conciliation Officer, it would constitute an industrial

dispute. In Shambhunath Goyal [1978(1) LLJ 484], the

Apex Court appreciated facts that the workman had not

made a formal demand for his reinstatement in service.

However, he had contested his dismissal before the

Enquiry Officer and claimed reinstatement. Against the

findings of the Enquiry Officer, he preferred an appeal to

the Appellate Authority, claiming reinstatement on the

ground that his dismissal was bad in law. Then again, he

claimed reinstatement before the Conciliation Officer in

the course of conciliation proceedings, which was

contested by the employer. Appreciating all these facts,

the Apex court inferred that there was impeccable evidence

that the workman had persistently demanded

reinstatement, rejection of which brought an industrial

dispute into existence.

23. In New Delhi Tailor Mazdoor Union [1979(39)

FLT 195], High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath

Goyal had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd.

But it had distinguished it on facts. It was also pointed

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4533

out that decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu

Resettlement Pvt. Ltd. could not have been overruled by

two Judge bench in Shambunath Goyal. The High Court

concluded that decision in Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd.,

in case of any conflict between the two decisions, must

prevail. The High Court held that making of the demand

by the workman on the management was sine qua non for

giving rise to an industrial dispute.

24. The High Court of Madras in Management of

Needle Industries [1986(1) LLJ 405] has held that dispute

or difference between management and the workman,

automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from

service. His dismissal per se creates a dispute or difference

between the management and the workman. The Court

further observed that “it is nowhere stipulated in the Act,

particular in section 2(k), that existence of the dispute as

such is not enough but then there should be a demand by

the workman on the management to give rise to an

industrial dispute”. However, this decision appears to be

inconsistent with the ratio of decision in Bombay Union

of Journalists(supra) and Sindhu Resettlement (supra). No

doubt, for existence of an industrial dispute, there should

be a demand by the workman and refusal to grant it by the

management. However, a demand should be raised, cannot

be a legal notion of fixity and rigidity. Grievances of the

workman and demand for its redressal must be

communicated to the management. Means and mechanism

of the communication adopted are not matters of much

significance, so long as demand is that of the workman

and it reaches the management. Reference can be made to

the precedent in Ram Krishna Mills Coimbatore Ltd. [1984

(2) LLJ 259].

25. The Act nowhere contemplates that the industrial

dispute can come into existence in any particular, specific

or prescribed manner nor there is any particular or

prescribed manner in which refusal should be

communicated. For an industrial dispute to come into

existence, written claim is not sine qua non. To read into

the definition, requirement of written demand for bringing

an industrial dispute into existence would tantamount to

rewriting the section, announced the Apex Court in

Shambunath Goyal(supra). In other words, oral demand

and its rejection will as much bring into existence an

industrial dispute, as written one. If facts and

circumstances of the case show that the workman had

been making a demand, which the management had been

refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an industrial

dispute between the parties.

26. Since the claimant had not come forward to

project that demand notice was served on the corporation,

under these circumstances, stand taken by the Corporation

is to be believed. Corporation projects that no notice of

demand was served on it, before industrial dispute was

raised before the Conciliation Officer. Thus, it is emerging

over the record that it has not been established that

demand was raised on the corporation, which was rejected

by it and as such, dispute has not acquired status of an

industrial dispute.

27. Turning to facts presented by the Corporation,

it emerges that the Corporation takes 10 hours duty from

Chowkidars. Keeping in view the nature of duties

performed, the Corporation was paying intermittent

allowance to Chowkidars for performing more than 10

hours duty. Allowance was paid @ Rs.130.00 per month

for performance of duty up to 12 hours, Rs.180.00 per

month for duties performed for more than 12 hours but up

to 16 hours and Rs.190.00 per month for performing duties

more than 16 hours a day. Workers union agitated the

issue and demanded overtime allowance in lieu of

intermittent allowance. On the basis of the resolution, the

Corporation, vide its decision dated 15.03.1997 decided to

pay overtime allowance to the maximum limit of 50 hours.

The said allowance was paid @Rs.625.00 per month.

Workers union further demanded enhancement of maxima

limit of overtime allowance and in consideration of the

said demand, the Corporation started paying overtime

allowance with a cap of 100 hours a month. Now, the

Corporation is paying overtime allowance to Chowkidars

at Rs.1250.00, in pursuance of Office Order dated

09.05.2011.

28. Annexure C, when scanned, highlights that from

January 98 till March 2011, overtime allowance was paid

to the claimant @ Rs.625.00 per month. From April 2011 till

March 2013, overtime allowance has been paid to the

claimant @ 1250.00 per month. Therefore, it is emerging

over the record that overtime allowance is being paid to

the claimant in accordance with the circulars, issued by

the Corporation from time to time.

29. In view of the above reasons, it is evident that

the action of the Corporation in paying overtime allowance

to the claimant @ Rs.625.00 per month till March 2011 and

thereafter Rs.1250.00 till date is in accordance with the

circulars issued from time to time. Claimant is not entitled

to overtime allowance more than the amount referred

above. Resultantly, action of the Corporation is found to

be justified. No relief is available to the claimant. An award

is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated : 20.12.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1709-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj]

iksLVy lfoZl] jk;iqj ,oa vkFklZ ds izca/ra=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

4534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@08@93) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@23@91&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O.

1709.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/08/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Director, Postal Service, Raipur

and Others and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-40011/23/91-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/8/93

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri R.P.Mishra, Secretary,

Bhartiya Dak Karmachari Sangh,

Class-III, 517, B.T.Road, Garha,

Jabalpur

. . . Workman

Versus

Director,

Postal service, Raipur.

Sr.Superintendent of Post Office,

Jabalpur Division,

Jabalpur

. . . Managements

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of April, 2014

1. As per letter dated 7-1-93 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40011/

23/91-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of Sr.Superintendent of Post

Office, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur MP in not

revising subsistence allowance after 3 months

during suspension period of Shri R.P.Mishra, Asstt.

Post Master is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled for?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 4/1 to 4/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed

as P.A in postal department on 10-12-59. He rendered 35

years service. That during past 10-12 years, he was office

bearer of the Union. He was taking active part in Union

activities. Consequently the higher authorities developed

prejudice against him. He was subjected to harassment

without his fault. That he was placed under suspension

on 8-2-91 by Sr. Suptd. of Post. That charter of demand

was submitted to Sr. Suptd. of Post Office on 3-7-91 for

settlement. Conciliation proceeding was initiated before

ALC, Jabalpur. That Writ petition No. MOC-562 of 1985

was filed before Hon’ble High Court at Jabalpur. Judgment

was delivered in favour of the workman. The administrative

authorities made prestige point that workman had filed

contempt of court. The authorities got annoyed by filing

said petition.

3. Workman further submits since revocation of

his suspension, he requested authorities for his posting

at Jabalpur while he was posted at Katni Head Post Office.

Director of postal service did not take any notice of his

request. He was put to financial hardships. That he had

requested Competent Authority to renew order of his

suspension time to time after expiry of 90 days suspension

but no action was taken on his request. On such ground,

workman prays that suspension period be treated as duty

period for all purpose and suspension allowance be

granted after expiry of 90 days period.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 5/1 to

5/4. IInd party raised preliminary objection that Ist party is

not covered as workman under I.D.Act as salary of Ist

party is more than Rs.1600/- per month. The grievance of

workman falls within jurisdiction of CAT. Provision of

I.D.Act are not applicable to IInd party in view of rules

framed under Article 307 & 309 of the constitution. It is

not disputed that Ist party was employee of the

department. He is retired on 28-2-95. Ist party workman

was placed under suspension on 8-2-91 for disciplinary

action on account of lapses. The enquiry is pending.

Workman was reinstated on 10-9-92. His suspension

period can only be regularized after final outcome of the

proceeding. All other contentions of workman in that

regard are denied. Workman had proceeded on leave

submitting medical certificate dated 16-6-86. The licence

fee is admissible to Govt. servant who are posted as in-

charge of office and entitled for free residential

accommodation. In case no accommodation is available,

licence fee is paid to such Govt. servant, workman was

transferred and posted at Jabalpur in subordinate capacity.

He was not entitled to rent free accommodation or licence

fee in lieu thereof. The claim of Ist party workman to treat

suspension period as duty period for all purpose including

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4535

promotion will be decided after the final outcome of the

proceeding. The review of suspension allowance after

expiry of 90 days was carried out and enhanced to 20 % of

subsistence allowance as per memorandum dated 3-6-92.

Said claim was raised by workman before CAT, Jabalpur in

Case No. 215/92. Therefore same claim cannot be

adjudicated in view of bar of res-judicata. On such

grounds. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of Sr.

In Affirmative

Superintendent of Post

Office, Jabalpur Division,

Jabalpur MP in not revising

subsistence allowance

after 3 months during

suspension period of

Shri R.P.Mishra, Asstt.

Post Master is legal

and justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

prayed by him.

REASONS

6. The workman has raised dispute about denial of

review of subsistence allowance after 90 days during

period of his suspension. IInd party denied claim of

workman on the ground that review of subsistence

allowance was already made. 20 % subsistence allowance

was paid. Workman had failed to participate in the

proceeding. No evidence is adduced by workman.

Management also failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of

management is closed on 1-10-2013. Parties remain absent.

In absence of evidence to substantiate claim of workman,

I record my finding on Point No.1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of Sr.Superintendent of Post Office,

Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur MP in not revising

subsistence allowance after 3 months during

suspension period of Shri R.P.Mishra, Asstt. Post

Master is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1710-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,XthD;wfVo

viQlj] emQ dSaVksuesaV cksMZ] emQ ds izca/r=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@167@00) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&13012@5@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1710.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/167/00) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Executive Officer,

Mhow Cantonment Board, Mhow and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-13012/5/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/167/00

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Yogesh S/o Mohanlal Arya,

1990, Bhoi Mohalla,

Mhow.

. . . Workman

Versus

Executive Officer,

Mhow Cantt. Board,

Mhow,

Indore

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of May 2014

1. As per letter dated 25-9-00 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-13012/

5/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Mhow

Cantonment Board in terminating the services of

4536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri Yogesh Arya S/o Mohanlal Arya w.e.f. 6-6-98 is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. workman submitted statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/3. The case of Ist party workman is that he was

engaged on the post of junior clerk from 23-10-96 by

Executive Officer of IInd party Mr. Mohinderlal.

Appointment order in writing was not given to him. His

attendance was recorded. He was paid salary Rs. 1653/-

under voucher. His services were discontinued from

5-6-98. Onkarlal Dhakone Accountant told him that as per

directions of Chief Officer Rajeev Srivastava, his services

were terminated. He should not attend office from 6-6-98.

On his request termination order in writing was not given

to him. his services were orally terminated. That he had

completed 240 days continuous service. His services were

terminated without notice, without paying retrenchment

compensation in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Junior

employees were continued on work. His services were

terminated in violation of Section 25-G of I.D.Act. Workman

prays for reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written statement at Page 5/1 to

5/5. IInd party denied claim of the Ist party workman. It is

submitted that appointment in IInd party are made as per

Cantonment Fund Servant Rules 1937. Circulars issued

on 10-2-88 & 27-8-98. Ist party workman was got appointed

in compliance of above circulars. Even for engaging a

person on daily wages, it is necessary to call names from

Employment Exchange. Name of workman was not called

from Employment Exchange. Appointment letter was not

given to him. The vacancy was not displayed on notice

board. Workman is son of Mohanlal who was working

with IInd party. He got his appointment illegally as clerk in

violation of rules. The record shows that he was paid daily

wages for some period. Workman was not illegally

appointed. After new chief officer joined, the workman

was not appointed as clerk. On such ground, IInd party

prays for rejection of claim.

4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/2

reiterating his contentions in statement that he was

appointed as clerk and he was continuously working. His

services were terminated without notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Mhow

Cantonment Board in

terminating the services

of Shri Yogesh Arya

S/o Mohanlal Arya w.e.f.

6-6-98 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

prayed by him.

REASONS

6. In support of his claim, workman filed affidavit of

his evidence. He has stated that he was appointed as junior

clerk with IInd party by Executive Officer. Appointment

order in writing was not received. He was working till

4-6-98. He was paid salary Rs. 1653/- per month. He was

continuously working during above said period. His

submissions were orally terminated without notice. No

retrenchment compensation was paid. In his cross-

examination, workman says no appointment letter was

given to him. He was doing work of recovery of tax and tax

posting of tax. He was working in accounts section. He

was preparing bills, general receipts making, public notice

was issued before appointment. He has not submitted

application for the post. His name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. He had not appeared for

written test, oral interviews. His submissions were orally

terminated. He did not request for re-appointment. In 1998,

post of Sr. Clerk was advertised. He submitted application

for such post. He appeared for written test, he was called

for interview. When he was not selected, he filed present

reference. The evidence of workman shows that any kind

of recruitment process was not followed, appointment letter

is not produced.

7. Management filed affidavit of Shri Ram

Narayan Koushal working as Superintendent. He has

stated in his affidavit that for appointment on daily wages,

names are called from Employment Exchange. Name of

workman was not sponsored through Employment

Exchange. permission for appointment was not obtained.

He supported contentions of management that workman

was not working as employee. He himself left office after

joining of new Chief Officer. Evidence of management

witness remained unchallenged. I donot find reason to

disbelieve the evidence. Considering evidence,

appointment of workman for the post of Jr. clerk cannot be

said legal. His evidence is not cogent about his working

as Jr.Clerk on 23-10-96 till 4-6-98. Documents submitted by

workman with list, no effort is taken for proving these

documents. As the evidence is not reliable, claim of

workman cannot be accepted. therefore I record my finding

in Point No.l in Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Mhow

Cantonment Board in terminating the services of

Shri Yogesh Arya S/o Mohanlal Arya w.e.f.

6-6-98 is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4537

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1711-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMIVh Mk;jsDVj]

fefyVªh iQkElZ] gsMDokVZj] lsaVªy dekaM] y[kumQ ,oa vkFklZ ds

izca/ra=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

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@61@02) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@91@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1711.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/61/02) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Deputy Director, Military Farms,

Hqr., Central Command, Lucknow and Others and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-14012/91/2001-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/61/2002

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Wisheshwar Prasad,

Plot No.9, Peat Road,

Tehsil Mhow,

Indore

. . . Workman

Versus

Dy.Director,

Military Farms, Hqr.,

Central Command,

Lucknow(UP)

The Officer-Incharge,

Military Farms,

Mhow

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of May, 2014

1. As per letter dated 3-4-2002 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-14012/

91/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of

Dy.Director, Military Farms in terminating the

services of Shri Wisheshwar Prasad S/o Shri

Pancham w.e.f. 10-6-97 and not regularizing him even

after completing 240 days in a calendar year is

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

for?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. During pendency of reference, workman died

on 20-7-03, his LRs are brought on record. Statement of

claim is filed by LR of deceased at Page 12/1 to 12/2. The

case of LRs of deceased is that since past 6-7 years, he is

working as Security Guard in place of his father. His wages

are paid by contractor. He prays for his appointment in

place of his father as Security Guard.

3. IInd party failed to file Written Statement. IInd

party is proceeded exparte on 14-12-2010.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of

In Affirmative

the management of Dy.

Director, Military Farms

in terminating the services

of Shri Wisheshwar Prasad

S/o Shri Pancham w.e.f.

10-6-97 and not regularizing

him even after completing

240 days in a calendar

year is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the LR

LR is not entitled

of deceased workman

to relief prayed

is entitled to?”

by him.

REASONS

5. The terms of reference relates to legality of

termination of service of Shri Wishveshwar Singh by IInd

party and not regularizing his service even after completing

240 days continuous service. Workman died during

pendency of reference proceeding. His LR is brought on

record. The claim submitted by LR is absolutely silent

about illegality of termination of services of deceased

workman. LR has pleaded appointment in place of his

4538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

father. He has also pleaded that he is working Security

Guard in place of his father. His wages are paid by

contractor. Thus the point under reference is not covered

in the pleadings filed by LR.

6. The affidavit of evidence filed by LR Omprakash

has stated that his father died on 20-7-03. His father was

working in Military Farm, Mhow as Security Guard. That

he is working as Security Guard in Dairy Farm. His father

was working for 20 years in the Military Farm. He was

paid salary Rs.300/- per month in 1987, Rs.900/- during

1988 to 1995, Rs.2000/- was paid onwards till 13-7-07. His

father was continuously working. His father was eligible

for permanency. He prays for his appointment on

compassionate ground. Thus pleading and evidence are

not consistent. There is absolutely no evidence about

illegality of the order of termination of the father of

deceased workman. Therefore I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Dy. Director,

Military Farms in terminating the services of

Shri Wisheshwar Prasad S/o Shri Pancham w.e.f.

10-6-97 and not regularizing him even after

completing 240 days is legal and proper.

(2)

Relief prayed by LR of deceased workman for

compassionate appointment is rejected.

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1712-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

,XthD;wfVo viQlj] dSaVksuesaV cksMZ] egks ds izca/r=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@23@06)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&13012@4@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1712.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/23/06) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Cantonment Executive Officer,

Cantonment Board, Mhow and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-13012/4/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/23/2006

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

General Secretary,

Suraksha Asainik Karmchari Sangh,

Garden No.19, Peat Road,

Mhow.

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

Cantonment Executive Officer,

Cantonment Board,

Mhow.

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of May, 2014

1. As per letter dated 14-6-06 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-13012/

4/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of

Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board,

Mhow in terminating the services of Shri Mukesh

Kumar Pandey w.e.f. 1998 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. workman submitted statement of claim at Page

3/2 to 3/6. Case of workman is that he was working as

Coolie/Helper at drinking water supply pump house at

cantonment Board Mhow. He was paid Rs.1200/- per

month. He was working with IInd party from October 1996

to 1998. He was selected for the post of Helper/Coolie

after passing prescribed tests/interview conducted by the

appropriate authorities of Cantt Board Mhow. That he had

successfully completed trial duties rendered to the entire

satisfaction of controlling authorities. That he completed

services without any complaints. That he was within

prescribed age limit. He was possessing technical

qualification for the post of Helper/Coolie at drinking

water motor pump house to operate electric motor. That

he had adequate electrical knowledge and experience of

wager supply work. His services were terminated in

violation of scheme for regularization of casual employees

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4539

1993. If he had completed more than 240 days service, his

services are illegally terminated. Workman prays for

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement. Case of IInd

party is that Ist party workman was engaged on daily

wages in October 1996 at wages Rs.43.90 per day. His

engagement was as per requirement of work. Procedure

for appointment of regular employee was not followed.

Workman was engaged on daily wages. He worked for 8

days in August 1996, 21 days in November 1996, 27 days

in December 1996. His working days in 1997-98 are shown

by IInd party. Working days of workman were 56 days in

1996, 105 days in 1997, 128 days in 1998. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. On such ground,

IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

4. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his

contentions in Statement of claim. IInd party has not

quoted any authority under which no appointment letter

is to be issued. It is reiterated that he was continuously

working from October 1996 till 1998. IInd party has not

followed procedure for regularization of services of

workman.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Cantonment

Executive Officer, Cantonment

Board, Mhow in terminating

the services of Shri Mukesh

Kumar Pandey w.e.f. 1998

is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Relief prayed

workman is entitled to?”

by workman

is rejected.

REASONS

6. In support of his claim, workman filed affidavit

of his evidence. He has stated that he was appointed as

helper in October 1996 on monthly pay Rs.1200/-. That the

services were orally discontinued from December 1998.

Prior to it, he was continuously working for more than 240

days. He was paid nominal pay for about 3 years. Workman

failed to appear for his cross-examination. Thereafter party

did not participate in reference proceeding. Evidence of

workman cannot be considered as he failed to appear for

his cross-examination. Ordersheet dated 14-10-10 shows

that workman was absent since long. The case was fixed

for cross-examination of workman, it shows that workman

had no interest. His evidence was closed. The evidence of

workman will not be looked into. Thus the claim of workman

is not supported by any evidence. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The action of the management of Cantonment

Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mhow in

terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar

Pandey w.e.f. 1998 is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1713-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vkWiQ iksLV vkWfiQl] fMikVZesaV vkWiQ iksLV] fcykliqj fMohtu ds

izca/ra=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

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@181@93) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@96@92&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1713.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/181/93) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Suptd. of Post Office,

Deptt. of Post, Bilaspur Division and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-40012/96/92-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/181/93

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Sanatram Patre,

Ex-Branch Postman,

Munmuna ( Pandariya),

Distt. Bilaspur (CG)

. . . Workman

Versus

4540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Suptdt. of Post Office,

Deptt. of Post,

Bilaspur Division,

PO & Distt. Bilaspur (CG)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of April 2014

1. As per letter dated 8-9-93 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

96/92-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Superintendent of Post Office, Bilaspur in terminating

the services of Shri Sanat Ram EDA w.e.f. 30-12-89 is

justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted his statement of claim.

However the parties are not shown correctly. Workman

should have shown as Ist party and Suptd. of Post Office

as IInd party. Party shall be referred in the later part of

judgment. Case of workman is that he was illegally

terminated, he was not allowed assistance of legal

practitioner or co-worker even after his request. He was

not allowed permission to cross-examine the witnesses of

the management. Copies of documents were not supplied

by Enquiry Officer. That Enquiry Officer was friend of Shri

M.K.Jain, Postal Inspector. Enquiry was not conducted

properly. Enquiry Officer tried to save Mr. Devangan.

Workman has submitted application for change of Enquiry

Officer, his request was not considered. Workman further

submits that amount of bicycle rent is recovered. He had

paid amount of Rs. 60/- . He also submits that his character

is good, certificates are issued by Sarpanch and Ex-

Sarpanch of his village. That he was involved in the matter.

He claims to be innocent. His services are illegally

terminated. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party management filed Written Statement.

IInd party denied all material allegations of workman that

enquiry was conducted against workman as per rules.

Chargesheet was issued to him. Workman was put on the

duty by Regional Office. The witnesses of the management

were presently cross-examined by workman. The

documents shown in the chargesheet were supplied to

workman by Enquiry Officer. That Mr. M.K.Jain was not

Enquiry Officer. He had inquired into the allegations in

complaint issued against workman. No application was

received by Enquiry Officer for change of Enquiry Officer.

The documents were supplied to workman on 30-4-90.

Certificates submitted by workman about his innocence

are not relevant. For proved charges, workman was

dismissed from service.

4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/3

reiterating his contentions in Statement of Claim. That

enquiry conducted against him was not fair and proper.

5. My predecessor decided preliminary issue on 8-

8-2011 and found that the Departmental Enquiry conducted

by management against workman is not proper and legal.

6. Considering pleadings and findings on

preliminary issue, the points which arise for my

consideration and determination are as under. My findings

are recorded against each of them for the reasons as

below :

(i)

Whether the IInd party

In Negative

management proves mis-

conduct against workman?

(ii)

Whether punishment of

In Negative

termination of service of

workman w.e.f. 30-12-89 is

justified?

(ii)

If so, to what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?”

orders.

REASONS

7. As per order dated 8-8-2011, enquiry conducted

by management against workman is found not legal and

proper. Management was required to prove the charges

by adducing evidence. Workman filed affidavit of

evidence. He has stated that he was terminated from

service. The charge was not proved against him. No

enquiry was conducted against Mr. Dewangan and

Inspector Mungeri. The punishment imposed against him

is exorbitant. In his cross-examination workman says at

the time of his termination, he was working at village

Munmuna. He was doing writing work in Post Office. He

reiterates that he was terminated in false allegations. Shri

M.K.Jain was Sub Post Master. He was not witness in the

matter. That he was in charge of the record. While

proceeding on leave, he was handing over charge to the

officer.

8. Management filed affidavit of witness Thakur

Ramdeen. Witness of the management has stated in his

affidavit that Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry properly.

Presenting Officer was appointed. Workman himself cross-

examined witnesses. That Mr. M.K.Jain was not Enquiry

Officer. Santram Patre, Ex Branch Post Master was directed

to make enquiry against workman. After enquiry charges

against workman were found proved. Workman was

terminated from service. In his cross-examination

management’s witness says he is not acquitted with

workman. He doesnot know what work was done by the

workman. He claims ignorance whether amount as per

receipt 89 was paid or not. The enquiry was made about

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4541

tearing two money order receipts. The witness of the

management has no personal knowledge. The management

has not produced record of enquiry. No effort is taken to

examine witnesses about the alleged misconduct. The

evidence of management’s witness doesnot disclose

exactly what was the charge alleged against workman. Any

witness is about the incident of misconduct are not

examined by management. The evidence of management’s

witness is absolutely not relevant to any of the misconduct

rather it is devoted about the enquiry conducted against

workman. In view of order on preliminary issue dated 8-8-

2011, management was required to adduce evidence to

prove charge against workman but no evidence is adduced

on the point.

9. The written notes of argument submitted by

parties doesnot refer to any evidence against workman. In

absence of evidence about the misconduct alleged against

workman, the charge against workman cannot be proved.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

10. Point No.2 & 3- workman is terminated from

service. However as per my finding on Point No.1, any

misconduct alleged against workman cannot be proved

therefore termination of service cannot be said legal. The

order of termination of workman deserves to be quashed

and set-aside. As misconduct is not proved and workman

is terminated from service, it would be appropriate to

reinstate workman. The question arises whether workman

should be awarded back wages. The evidence of workman

is absolutely silent what work he was doing after

termination from service. IInd party has also not adduced

evidence whether workman was in gainful employment.

Considering above aspects of evidence in my considered

view, reinstatement of workman with 40 % back wages

would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I record my

finding in Point No.2,3.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Superintendent

of Post Office, Bilaspur in terminating the services

of Shri Sanat Ram EDA w.e.f. 30-12-89 is illegal

and is set-aside.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service with 40 % back wages.

12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1714-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV]

fefyVªh dkWyst vkWiQ VsfDudy bath¯u;fjax] emQ ds izca/ra=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@

vkj@123@05) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@5@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/123/05) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Commandant, Military

College of Technical Engineering, Mhow and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-14012/5/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/123/05

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Smt. Usha Sudhakar Rao,

Ward No.3, Teja Mohalla,

Vill. Kodariya,

Mhow.

. . . Workman

Versus

The Commandant,

Military College of Technical Engineering,

Mhow.

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of May 2014

1. As per letter dated 28-10-05 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-14012/

5/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Commandant, Military College of Technical

4542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Engineering in terminating the services of Smt. Usha

Sudhakar Rao w.e.f. 3-8-2001 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled for?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Union Representative submitted statement of

claim at Page 2. It is submitted by Union Secretary that

services of workman be regularized as Class-IV employees,

pay and allowance of said post be paid to them.

Compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is also claimed. Statement of

claim is absolutely silent how the termination of services

of Ist party workman Smt. Usha Sudhakar Rao suffers from

illegality.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to

5/2. IInd party submits that workman Smt. Usha Sudhakar

Rao was employed as temporary Aaya from 15-8-96. There

were no regular vacancy in the school. The employment

of teacher and administrative staff is of temporary nature

based on strength of students. Since the strength of

student officers, JCOs, Jawans and their families including

children keep varying mainly due to their exigency of

duties. The staff employed in the Regimental Institutions

are required to be reduced/increased according to the

requirement of staff from time to time. It is submitted that

during 2001-02, strength of students fell down from 357 to

278. It resulted in reducing the staff during the year 2001-

02 including Smt. Usha Sudhakaran Rao. There is no

permanent post. The administrative staff employed

temporarily as per the strength of student varies. That

Smt. Usha had withdrawn her court case unconditionally.

She was offered vacancy of aayah in January 2003. Despite

of letters dated 31-1-03, 5-2-03, she failed to respond. It is

further submitted that IInd party is not covered as industry.

Ist party is not covered as workman.

4. Rejoinder is filed reiterating his contentions

in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Commandant,

Military College of Technical

Engineering in terminating

the services of Smt. Usha

Sudhakar Rao w.e.f. 3-8-2001

is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Relief is

workman is entitled to?”

rejected.

REASONS

6. As stated above, statement of claim submitted

by Union Representative is silent how termination of

services of workman suffered from illegality. Workman filed

affidavit of her evidence stating that she completed 240

days continuous service. her services were orally

terminated. Workman failed to appear for her cross-

examination. The evidence of workman was closed

observing that her evidence will not be looked into. As

per ordersheet dated 14-10-2010, IInd party failed to

participate in the reference proceeding. For want of

evidence, claim of workman cannot be accepted. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Commandant,

Military College of Technical Engineering in

terminating the services of Smt. Usha Sudhakar

Rao w.e.f. 3-8-2001 is proper.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1715-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ tujy

eSustj] VsyhdkWe] Hkksiky ds izca/ra=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@123@00) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@120@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/123/00) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief General

Manager, Telecom, Bhopal and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-40012/120/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4543

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/123/2000

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Abdul Razaque,

S/o Naseer Khan,

R/o Balbatpura,

Tehsil Nrsinghgarh,

Rajgarh

. . . Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Telecom Bhawan,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of May 2014

1. As per letter dated 30-6-00 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

120/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom in terminating the

services of Shri Abdul Razaque S/o Naseer Khan

w.e.f. April 1995 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued

to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially appointed in September 89 in Telecom Deptt. as

casual labour. He was working in different Telecom

Exchange under Sub Divisional Officer, Biaora, Distt.

Rajgarh. He was continuously working from 1989 till April

1995. He completed more than 240 days continuous service.

His services are terminated without notice, no

retrenchment compensation was paid. Termination of his

service was without giving opportunity of hearing. The

termination of service is by way of victimization. Any kind

of enquiry was not conducted against him. On such

ground, workman is praying for his reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to

4/2. IInd party submits that workman had not completed

240 days continuous service. He was engaged as casual

employee. Working days of workman were 127 days in

1989, 48 days in 1990, 230 days in 1991, 30 days in 1992.

Workman was not discontinued, he himself remained

absent. There was no question of termination of his service.

All other adverse contentions of workman are denied. It is

submitted that workman is not entitled for reinstatement.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Chief General

Manager, Telecom in

terminating the services

of Shri Abdul Razaque

S/o Naseer Khan w.e.f.

April 1995 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

5. Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The workman

contents that he had completed 240 days continuous

service prior to his services were terminated. IInd party

denied all above material contentions of workman. Affidavit

of evidence is filed by workman covering most of his

contentions in Statement of claim. However he failed to

appear for his cross-examination. His evidence was closed

on 31-12-09 with a note that his evidence will not be looked

as he did not turn up for cross-examination. Thus evidence

of workman cannot be considered in support of his claim.

Management filed affidavit of evidence Ramzan Khan.

Witness of management has stated that workman had

completed 240 days continuous service during any of the

year. The working days of workman are shown in para-4 of

the affidavit. The witness in his cross-examination denies

that every year workman had completed more than 350

days. As evidence of workman cannot be considered for

his failure to appear for cross-examination, the claim of Ist

party workman cannot be accepted. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General

Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of

Shri Abdul Razaque S/o Naseer Khan w.e.f. April

1995 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief as prayed by

him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

4544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1716-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ tujy

eSustj] fMikVZesaV vkWiQ VsyhdkWe] Hkksiky ds izca/ra=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@80@98)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@16@97&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O.

1716.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/80/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Chief General Manager,

Department of Telecom, Bhopal and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-40011/16/97-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/80/98

SHRI R.B. P ATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Ganesh Ram Sharma, President,

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,

Through Ganesh Medical Stores,

Morena (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road,

M.P. Circle,

Bhopal

District Manager,

Door Sanchar,

Deptt. of Telecom,

Morena (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

( Passed on this 1st day of May 2014)

As per letter dated 1-16/4/98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40011/

16/97-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to :

“Whether the action of the management of Door

Sanchar Morena in treating S/Shri Vasudev S/o

Ramhet, Lal Singh S/o Duk Singh, Captan Singh

S/o Ram Swaroop and S/Shri Sughar Singh S/o Ram

Swaroop, Phalodia S/o Ram Swaroop, Pancham

Singh S/o Duk Singh, Rakeya S/o Phool Singh and

Gajendra Singh S/o Prabhoo Dayal working as

Casual Labour continuously w.e.f. 4-1-88 and

9-1-90 respectively as contract labours, and

terminating their services is legal and justified ? If

not, to what relief the workman are entitled for ?’’

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 5 to 9. Case of Ist party workmen is that they were

continuously employed as casual labour by IInd party

from 4-1-88 and 9-1-90. They were working under direct

control and supervision of the management. They worked

under Sub-divisional Officer, Morena. There were two

junior Telecom Officers working under SDO called indoor

and out door Telecom Officers. All workman were paid

salary as per muster roll. Cash book was maintained in

office of SDO Telecom Morena. Payment of salary to

applicants is shown in cash book. The salary was paid to

workmen in AC-17 vouchers. All workers were signing on

it. The entries were taken from cash book of SDO Officer.

That services are terminated by IInd party without issuing

notice, retrenchment compensation not paid to them. The

termination of services of workman is in violation of Section

25-F of I.D. Act. It is illegal. Ist party workman also submits

that termination of their services is in violation of Section

25-G of I.D. Act. They prays for reinstatement with back

wages.

3. IInd party filed Written statement at Page 19 to

23. IInd party submits that reference is bad in law as

workmen were not engaged by management of IInd party.

There was no question of termination of their services.

There was no employer employee relationship between

parties. Workmen contends that they were rendering

service from 1988 till termination of their service in 1996.

That the management has not engaged any casual labour

as the employment of casual labour was prohibited. Ist

party workmen were not employees of the department.

That management had engaged one M/s. Surendra Security

Guard Services. Shri M.S. Rathore was proprietor of said

agency. Some of the workmen were employed by contractor

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4545

and not by the management. For absence of particulars,

IInd party was unable to give details about the services

rendered by workmen through contractor. IInd party

denied violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, it is submitted

that the recruitment of casual labour is covered by rules.

The rules having stated, no recruitment would be done

without compliance of recruitment rules. 1st party workmen

cannot be regularised as the post were not sanctioned.

Workmen were not sponsored through Employment

Exchange. On such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection

of claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Door

Sanchar Morena in treating

S/Shri Vasudev S/o Ramhet,

Lal Singh S/o Duk Singh,

Captan Singh S/o Ram

Swaroop and S/Shri Sughar

Singh S/o Ram Swaroop,

Phalodia S/o Ram Swaroop,

Pancham Singh S/o Duk

Singh, Rakeya S/o Phool

Singh and Gajendra Singh

S/o Parbhoo Dayal working

as Casual Labour continuously

w.e.f. 4-1-88 and 9-1-90

respectively as contract labours,

and terminating their services is

legal and justified ?

(Ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

5. 1st party workmen are challenging termination of

their services by IInd party for violation of Section 25-F of

I.D. Act. Management of IInd party denied all material

contentions of workman. Identical affidavit of evidence of

all workmen are filed. Workmen in their affidavit have stated

that workmen Shri Phalodia S/o Ram Swaroop, Pancham

Singh S/o Duk Singh, Rakeya S/o Phool Singh and

Gajendra Singh S/o Parbhoo Dayal has stated that they

were working with IInd party from 1990 to 1996. Workmen

Shri Vasudev S/o Ramhet, Lal Singh, S/o Duk Singh, Captan

Singh S/o Ram Swaroop and S/Shri Sughar Singh S/o Ram

Swaroop have stated that they were working with IInd

party from 1988 to 1996. That their salary were paid in

AC-17 voucher. Its entries were taken in cash book of

SDO, Morena. They have worked under contractor. They

were not paid retrenchment compensation, they were

continuously working during the period stated in their

respective affidavit. They were working under different

names. All the workmen were cross-examined. Fodalla in

his cross-examination says he was not permanently

appointed, he was paid wages on daily wage basis. He

was getting four holidays in a month. No order of

termination was given. Management was insisting payment

of wages in different names. As he did not agree, he was

discontinued. Pancham Singh in his cross-examination

says letter of appointment was not given to him. That he

was not working with contractors. He was doing work of

digging tunnels. The said work was given to contractor

therefore his services were discontinued. He never worked

under contractor. Vasudev in his cross-examination says

he was not given permanent appointment, he was working

on muster roll, he was paid wages on monthly wages. He

was orlly terminated. Captan Singh, Lal Singh, Saghar

Singh, Gajendra Singh, Rakeya in their cross-examination

says has deposed similarly. Though all the workmen are

cross-examined, they have denied working through

contractor. IInd party did not examine any witness despite

of repeated chances granted. IInd party failed to prove

that all those workmen were engaged through contractor.

IInd party did not produce any documents, cash book,

vouchers. Ist party workmen has produced zerox copies

of vouchers. Application was filed by workmen that IInd

party be directed to produce documents. Despite of it, no

documents are produced. Therefore I donot find reason

to disbelieve evidence of all the workmen that they were

continuously workmg with IInd party from 1988, 1990 till

1996. Their services were terminated. That they were

continuously working. Their services were terminated

without notice though retrenchment compensation is paid

to them. Therefore the evidence is sufficient to hold that

the termination of services of all those workmen is in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

6. In view of my finding in Point No.1 that termination

of services of workmen are illegal for violation of Section

25-F of I.D. Act, question arises as to whether the workmen

are entitled for reinstatement with back wages. The

evidence in cross-examination of Ist party workmen is

clear that they were not appointed against permanent post.

They were not appointed following recruitment rules, their

names were not sponsored through Employment Exchange.

All the workmen were paid on daily wage basis. Legal

position is rather settled that casual employee engaged

on daily wage basis are not entitled for regularization,

reinstatement with reasonable compensation would be

appropriate relief. In my considered view, considering

workmen were engaged as casual employees on daily wage

basis, compensation Rs. 40,000 to each workmen would

meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I record my finding

in Point No. 2.

4546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. In the result, award is passed as under :

(l)

The action of the management of Door Sanchar

Morena in treating S/Shri Vasudev S/o Ramhet,

Lal Singh S/o Duk Singh, Captan Singh S/o Ram

Swaroop and S/Shri Sughar Singh S/o Ram

Swaroop, Phalodia S/o Ram Swaroop, Pancham

Singh S/o Duk Singh, Rakeya S/o Phool Singh

and Gajendra Singh S/o Parbhoo Dayal working

as Casual Labour continuously w.e.f. 4-1-88 and

9-1-90 respectively as contract labours, and

terminating their services is illegal.

(2)

Management is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 40,000 to each workmen namely S/Shri

Vasudev S/o Ramhet, Lal Singh S/o Duk Singh,

Captan Singh S/o Ram Swaroop and S/Shri

Sughar Singh S/o Ram Swaroop, Phalodia S/o

Ram Swaroop, Pancham Singh S/o Duk Singh,

Rakeya S/o Phool Singh and Gajendra Singh S/o

Parbhoo Dayal.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1717-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

flD;ksfjVh isij fey] gks'kaxkckn ds izca/r=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@54@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&16011@3@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1717.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIL/

LC/R/54/2005) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the General Manager,

Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-16011/3/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/54/2005

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.

General Secretary,

SPM Employees Union, Type-II/63,

Phase-II, SPM,

Hoshangabad.

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Security Paper Mill,

Hoshangabad.

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of April 2014

1. As per letter dated 13-6-05 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-16011/

3/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad in

reversion of Shri Bhagchand Machine Operator to

the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 for a period of 4 years

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

entitled for ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Despite of repeated notices, workman failed

to appear, statement of claim is not filed. Workman is

proceeded exparte on 27-1-2012. IInd party management

not filed Written Statement. It appears that without filing

Written Statement, affidavit of evidence is filed by IInd

party contending that workman was availing LTC but not

going for journey. He had taken advance of Rs. 3000 for

going to Kanyakumari in February 1997. He had not

travelled said destination neither refunded amount of

advance. Chargesheet was issued to workman on 30-5-97

after conducting enquiry as per rules. The charges were

found proved. Workman was shown leniency and the

punishment of reduction to a lower pay scale was imposed.

Workman did not participate in the proceeding.

3. 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 :

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4547

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of General

Manager, Security Paper

Mill, Hoshangabad in

reversion of Shri Bhagchand

Machine Operator to the pay

scale of Rs. 3050-4590 for a

period of 4 years is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman Workman is

is entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

4. The reference relates to the legality of reversion

of workman to pay scale Rs. 3050-4590. Workman failed to

participate in the reference proceeding. He has not filed

Statement of Claim. IInd party management instead of filing

Written Statement, filed affidavit of witness Shri Kedar

Nath Mahapatra along with documents. As workman has

failed to submit statement of claim or adduced evidence in

support of claim, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

5. In the result, award is passed as under:

(1)

The action of the management of General

Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad in

reversion of Shri Bhagchand Machine Operator

to the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 for a period of 4

years is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1718-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

bathfu;j] ,ebZ,l] Hkksiky ds izca/ra=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@19@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@8@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1718.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/19/2005) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Garrison Engineer,

MES, Bhopal and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-14011/8/2004-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/2005

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Vishwadev Sharma,

Secretary,

MES Employees Union,

Jabalpur Area, MES Colony,

Near Om Vidya Mandir School,

Bhopal (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

Garrison Engineer,

MES, Bairagarh,

Bhopal (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 16th day of May, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 28-1-2005 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-14011/

8/2004-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Garrison

Engineer, MES Bhopal MP in not granting the

promotion under ACP Scheme and other benefits to

Shri V.D.Sharma, Electrician HS Grade II is legal and

just? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman failed to file statement of

claim. he is proceeded exparte on 16-11-07.

3. IInd party filed exparte Written Statement. Case

of IInd party is that at intervention of Union, workman

was paid washing allowance Rs. 8 per month for the period

January 1998 to April 2000. The arrears of washing

allowance were paid to the employees for the same period.

That in conciliation proceeding before ALC, discussion

had taken place on 4-10-04. Parties failed to have amicable

settlement. That the dispute relating to payment of waching

4548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

allowance doesnot exist. The pleadings in written

statement of IInd party are quite relevant with the terms of

reference. The reference relates to denial of promotion as

per ACP scheme to Ist party workman.

4. Considering pleadings, the points which arise

for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons

as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Garrison

Engineer, MES Bhopal MP

in not granting the promotion

under ACP Scheme and other

benefits to Shri V.D.Sharma,

Electrician HS Grade II is

proper ?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

claimed.

REASONS

5. As per terms of reference, denial of promotion

as per ACP scheme to workman is required to be decided.

Workman failed to participate in reference proceeding. He

is proceeded exparte. Statement of claim is not filed. Written

Statement filed by IInd party doesnot cover the point

under reference relating to the denial of promotion as per

ACP Scheme to the workman. IInd party has failed to

adduce evidence. It failed to participate in the reference

proceeding. In absence of pleadings and evidence on part

of workman, claim under reference cannot be allowed in

favour of workman. Therefore I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Garrison

Engineer, MES Bhopal MP in not granting the

promotion under ACP Scheme and other benefits

to Shri V.D.Sharma, Electrician HS Grade II is

proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1719-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ tujy

eSustj] VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izca/ra=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@102@98) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@103@97&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1719.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/102/98) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief General

Manager, Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

29/05/2014.

[No. L-40012/103/97-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/102/98

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Mohd. Haroon,

S/o Shri Mohd. Jahoor,

Pardeshi pura,

Imlipura,

Khandwa (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Telecommunication,

MP Circle, Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 21st day of April, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 12-5-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

103/97-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecommunication in terminating

Shri Mohd. Haroon S/o Mohd. Jahoor w.e.f.

15-12-90 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled for?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4549

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. workman filed statement of claim at Page 11/1

to 11/3. Case of workman is that he was working since

1983 in muster roll under direct control and supervision of

SDOT, Sehore. In 1983, he worked for 171 days, again it

appears typing mistake he worked for 326 days in 1986-

341 days, in 1989-297 days, in 1988-304 days in 1989 -300

days. That he was continuously working to the satisfaction

of his superiors. He was required to work under control of

Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bhopal, SDOT, Sehore.

His services were suddenly terminated from September

1988. No notice was given to him. Termination of his service

is illegal. That he had completed 240 days in calendar year.

His services should have been regularized instead his

services are terminated without notice. On such ground,

workman prays that is termination be held illegal and

consequential benefits be given.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 13/1 to

13/4. IInd party opposed to relief prayed by workman. It is

submitted that workman was absent from March 1984 for

more than one year. He is not covered under scheme for

grant of regular status. There was break in service for

more than one year. Workman did not render his services

in muster roll on his own accord between March 84 to

April 1985. As per direction of Department of

Telecommunication dated 30-3-85, engagement of casual

labour was prohibited. That telecom department is not an

industry. Workman is not entitled to retrenchment

compensation. Working days of workman are shown 111

days in 1982, 60 days in 1984. It is reiterated that workman

had not completed 240 days continuous service. He is not

entitled to protection under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. relief

prayed by workman be rejected.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Chief General

Manager, Telecommunication

in terminating Shri Mohd.

Haroon S/o Mohd. Jahoor

w.e.f. 15-12-90 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is

workman is entitled to?”

not entitled to

relief prayed

by him.

REASONS

5. Though workman is challenging termination of

his services for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act,

workman has not adduced evidence in support of his claim.

Evidence of workman is closed on 6-9-2011. Management

filed affidavit of evidence of witness Tapan Kumar

Chatterjee. The witness of the management has stated

most of the facts pleaded in Written Statement that

workman had not completed 240 days continuous service.

He was absent during the period from March 84 to April

1985. The evidence of management’s witness remained

unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

The evidence of management’s witness Rajesh Kumar

also remained unchallenged. In absence of evidence of

workman, action of the management terminating services

of workman cannot be said illegal. Therefore I record my

finding on Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General

Manager, Telecommunication in terminating

Shri Mohd. Haroon S/o Mohd. Jahoor w.e.f.

15-12-90 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1720-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

,XthD;qfVo viQlj] ipekjh ds izca/ra=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@204@92) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&13012@13@91&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O.

1720.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/204/92) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Cantonment Executive

Officer, Pachmarhi and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-13012/13/91-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

4550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/204/92

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.

Shri Basant Kumar,

S/o Shri Babulal Kumar,

Jata shanker Marg,

Hoshangabad (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

Cantonment Executive Officer,

Pachmarhi,

Distt. Hoshangabad (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 17th day of April 2014)

1. As per letter dated 30-9-92 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-13012/

13/91-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Cantonment Executive Officer, Pachmarhi in

terminating the services of Shri Basant Kumar is

justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned

is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. workman submitted statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was employed as

passenger Tax Moharrir on daily wages by the IInd party.

In 981, he was continuously working till 18-10-85. He also

claims to be working sweeper till 14-5-86. His services

were terminated without notice. That he was continuously

working more than 5 years. His services were not regularized

with malafide intention to deny benefits of permanent

employee. On 29-4-86, interview for the post of Moharrir

was held but he was not informed about it. He had

submitted repeated applications to the management

without any favourable response. That termination of his

services is illegal. He prays for reinstatement with back

wages. Workman has also referred to certain discussions

during conciliation proceedings. IInd party had requested

to postponed conciliation hearing on the ground that claim

of workman was under active consideration of the

department. However after failure of conciliation, reference

has been made. On such grounds, workman is praying for

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to

4/3. IInd party submits that it is not covered as industry.

The reference is not tenable. It is submitted that workman

was engaged on daily wages for collecting passenger tax

on behalf of Cantonment Board, Pachmarhi. That

Directorate Defence Estates, Headquarter sanctioned post

of Moharrirs for recovery of passenger tax for period of

one year as per letter dated 11-2-86. As per provisions of

the Cantonment Fund Service Rule 1937, the engagement

of Moharrirs was required to be done through the

Employment Exchange. IInd party had approached

Employment Exchange Hoshangabad to sponsor

candidates. Workman was also informed to approach

Employment Exchange in order to have his name

sponsored. The name of workman was not included in the

list form Employment Exchange. It was the reason workman

could not be considered for employment.

4. The work on which workman was engaged was

casual. Workman was required to work for 8 hours and not

completed 240 days continuous service. Termination of

workman doesnot amount to retrenchment. Workman is

not entitled to employment as conditions for employment

are not fulfilled by him. Workman did not fulfill conditions

of age limit, minimum qualifications required. Workman

was engaged on daily wages. He was not terminated, his

services were not required, work was not given to him.

His services are not terminated in violation of natural

justice. on such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of

claim of workman.

5. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 5/1 to 5/3. It is

submitted that the reference is legally made. It is denied

that name of workman was not included in list sponsored

by Employment Exchange. It is denied that the workman

was engaged on casual nature of work. All other

contentions in Written Statement of IInd party are denied.

It is denied that workman was not fulfilling conditions of

employment.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Cantonment

Executive Officer, Pachmarhi

in terminating the services

of Shri Basant Kumar is

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman

workman is entitled to?”

not entitled to

relief prayed by

him.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4551

REASONS

7. Workman is challenging termination of his service

that he was terminated without notice, he was working

with IInd party from 1981 to 18-10-85 and thereafter as

sweeper till 14-5-86. He was not informed about interview

held for the post of Moharrirs on 29-4-86. That

discontinuing him from service is legal and amounts to

unfair labour practice. After filing affidavit case was fixed

for cross-examination of workman. Ordersheet indicates

that before workman could be cross-examined, he was

reported dead on 7-12-2004. Thereafter case was

repeatedly adjourned. LRs of Ist party are not brought on

record. Management has not participated in reference

proceeding. Details of LRs of deceased workman are not

produced by management. Neither LRs have taken any

interest to participate in the reference proceeding nor any

document is produced that workman is continuously

working for 240 days preceding his termination/

discontinuation. No document is produced about payment

of wages or leave. No co-employee is examined.

Uncorroborated affidavit of evidence of workman cannot

be sufficient proof to support contentions of workman.

For above reasons I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Cantonment

Executive Officer, Pachmarhi in terminating the

services of Shri Basant Kumar is proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief claimed by

him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1721-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

bathfu;j VsfydkWe izkstsDV] jk;iqj ds izca/ra=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@2@99) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@39@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1721.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/

LC/R/2/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-40012/39/98-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/2/99

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Chandramani,

S/o Shri Lalmani,

Vill Ghatkachhar, PO Signora,

Tehsil Saraipali,

Raipur

. . . Workman

Versus

Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II,

Choubey Colony,

Raipur

. . . Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 28th day of April, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 30-10/18-11/88by the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal

under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-40012/39/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to :

“ Whether the action of the management of

Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP)

in terminating the services of Shri Chandramani S/o

Shri Lalmani, Ex-Mazdoor, is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page

7/1 to 7/3. The case of workman is that he was appointed

as permanent post of mazdoor in 1986. His services were

discontinued since 16-2-86. That he completed 240 days

continuous service in 1986-87. The dispute was raised

before ALC, Raipur against his termination. During

conciliation proceeding dated 27-12-89, workman was

immediately reinstated without back wages. Thereafter

4552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman was discontinued from 1-11-91 by IInd party on

the ground that work was not available. That he completed

240 days continuous service preceding 12 months of his

termination. His services were terminated without notice,

not paying retrenchment compensation, termination of his

service is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. that in

Original Application No. 196/90, CAT Jabalpur allowed

regularization to the employees junior to him on the same

principle. Ist party workman is praying for his reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

3. Despite of notices issued to management, Written

Statement is not filed. However it appears that the

workman was cross-examined by Advocate Kapoor for

IInd party.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur (MP) in terminating

the services of Shri Chandramani

S/o Shri Lalmani, Ex-Mazdoor,

is legal and justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?

order.

REASONS

5. Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence. He has stated that he was

appointed by management of IInd party against permanent

post of mazdoor in 1986. He continuously worked from

16-2-86 to 1-11-91. He had completed 240 days continuous

service. His services are terminated without notice in

termination of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, he was not paid

retrenchment compensation. He also referred to the order

passed in Original Application No. 196/90 before CAT,

Jabalpur whereby the employees were reinstated. On Parity,

workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential

benefits. In his cross-examination, workman says he was

not given appointment order. The post was not advertised.

He was engaged for special work of laying cables. He was

paid wages for his working days. He was working in co-

axial cable project. He was not working in DE Project. He

claims ignorance whether in his affidavit, he has stated

that he is working in co-axial project. From his evidence in

cross-examination, it is clear that workman had completed

240 days continuous service is not challenged. It is also

not challenged that his services were terminated without

notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid, therefore

termination of service of workman is in violation of Section

25-F of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Negative.

6. Point No. 2 : In view of my finding in Point No.1

that services of workman are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D. Act, question arises whether workman

is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Though

workman is referring judgment passed by CAT, Jabalpur

in Original application No. 196/90, the said judgment is

not produced on record. The cross-examination of

workman shows that he was not appointed after following

selection process. He was engaged on daily wages. Wages

for working days were paid to him. Considering the period,

workman was engaged by IInd party on daily wages,

reinstatement of workman cannot be granted. In my

considered view, reasonable compensation would be

appropriate. Considering the period of working,

compensation Rs. 75,000 would be proper. Accordingly,

I record my finding in Point No.2.

7. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The action of the management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in

terminating the services of Shri Chandramani S/o

Shri Lalmani is not proper and legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 75,000 to Ist party workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1722-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

xu dSfjt iQSDVªh] tcyiqj ds izca/ra=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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@38@90) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@20@89&Mh&2 (ch)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1722.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4553

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. CGIL/

LC/R/38/90) 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 the General Manager, Gun Carriage

Factory, Jabalpur and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-14012/20/89-D-2 (B)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/38/90

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Sukhlal Patel,

Gram & Post Bela,

Tehsil Sihore,

Distt. Jabalpur (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 11th day of April, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 31-1-90 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-14012/

20/89-D-2(B). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Gun

Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Sukhlal Patel, Ex-Checker w.e.f.

4-4-84 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 5 to 15. Case of workman is that he was working as

checker at GCF, Jabalpur, chargesheet was issued to him

on 25-1-87 for allegations of cheating and mis-

appropriation of Government money. Enquiry Officer Mr.

K.Sundermurthy was appointed. Workman has alleged that

enquiry was not conducted properly. He was not given

opportunity for his defence. The documents were not

supplied to him. Enquiry conducted against workman is

found proper and legal therefore the detailed pleadings

on the point are not narrated.

3. Ist party workman submits that chargesheet was

issued to him on so called admission. The Enquiry Officer

should not have considered the admission. The findings

of the Enquiry Officer are not based on evidence. Enquiry

Officer permitted production of large number of registers

cash books, those documents were not shown to him.

Enquiry Officer ignored evidence of defence witnesses

while recording his findings. Enquiry Officer without

justification reopened enquiry on 8-3-84. Management

failed to give proper explanation as to what was done with

the amount deposited by workman. Amount deposited by

workman has been accepted and amount already been

recovered no action can be taken against him. The

Appellate Authority acted mechanically and rejected his

appeal before proper consideration. On such ground,

workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential

benefits.

4. IInd party submitted Written Statement. IInd

party submits that workman was employed as checker in

cash office of GCF. He was entrusted with duty of

collecting cash against coupons for sale of Timber

Firewood and depositing the same on daily basis during

the year 1973 to 79. But the amount was not properly

deposited. Workman failed to deposit all amount collected

from sale of Firewood. The chargesheet was issued to

workman. After conducting proper enquiry, workman was

suspended, mode of enquiry was constituted. Mr. P.U.

Bhavikkatti, the Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria

was appointed as Enquiry Officer. It was held that prima

facie case against workman regarding defalcation of Rs.

39,628.75 and negligence in duties. Enquiry was conducted

under CCS Rules. Workman was allowed to engage Shri

S.K.Nagpal as Defence Assistant. Subsequently Shri

N.P.Tiwari was his Defence Assistant. Workman was

allowed to examine documents, cross-examining witnesses.

Workman was allowed to examine defence witnesses. It is

denied that enquiry was conducted against principles of

natural justice. The Appellate Authority rejected appeal

after full consideration of evidence and documents. IInd

party submits that it is not industry under Section 2(j) of

I.D.Act. therefore reference is not tenable. IInd party prays

for rejection of the claim.

5. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 46 to 47

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim that

enquiry conducted against him was not proper and legal.

He was not given opportunity for his defence.

6. The exparte award appears to have been passed

on 17-1-96. Exparte award was set-aside on applications

of workman.

4554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. Preliminary issue was decided on 14-3-13. Enquiry

conducted against workman is found fair and legal.

8. Considering pleadings and issues already framed

on record, the issues No. 3 to 5 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 charges of

In Affirmative

misconduct are proved

on the facts of the case?

(ii)

Whether the punishment

In Affirmative

awarded is proper and legal ?

(iii)

Relief and costs?

Workman is

not entitled to

relief prayed

by him.

REASONS

9. As discussed above, enquiry conducted against

workman is found proper and legal, question remains to

be decided whether the misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings

and whether punishment of dismissal imposed on the

workman is proper and legal. In view of enquiry is found

legal, evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs

consideration for deciding whether the misconduct alleged

against workman is proved or not. Chargesheet is issued

to workman. Charge No.1 is issued to workman. Charge

No.1 relates to that workman Shri S.C.Patel while

functioning as checker in cash office and entrusted with

above duty to collect cash against sale and depositing

same on daily basis during 1973, 1979 committed gross

misconduct and failed to maintain the accounts properly-

conduct willful neglect of duty. Charge No.2 is that Said

S.L.Patel while functioning as checker in cash office and

entrusted with above duty failed to deposit all the money

collected by him as sale proceeds and committed Gross

misconduct- cheating and misappropriation Government

money which is unbecoming of a Govt. employee. Enquiry

Officer recorded statements of 5 witnesses, all those

witnesses were cross-examined by Defence Assistant.

Several documents and registers were also produced.

Considering oral and documentary evidence, the Enquiry

Officer held misconduct against workman is proved.

10. Counsel for workman Shri Golandas argued that

chargesheet was issued to the workman with the allegation

of cheating, misappropriation of money alleged but amount

was not specified in the chargesheet. Despite of enquiry

was found proper and legal, learned counsel advanced

some arguments that statement of Shri Purohit was not

supplied to the workman. That Charge No.1 relates to sale

of Timber Firewood , failed to maintain proper accounts

by workman. It is submitted that workman was not

assigned duty to maintain accounts but only collecting

amount. That MW-3 settlement dated 20-7-82 was

produced in enquiry that his cross-examination shows that

Rs.70.05 discrepancies’ was noticed. That the amount

related to dealing of 5 persons other employees are not

examined as witness. The Account register showing

discrepancy. The chargesheet issued to workman is not

proper. Statement of Narendra narrates misappropriation

of Rs. 38,000/. Statement of witness M.S.Shankar relates

to conclusion of amount deposited with cashier. The duties

of workman are not shattered. Statement of witness No. 2

M.P. Rawla shows that cashier is entitled to get allowance.

Any document of audit report is not produced. It is

submitted that charge against workman is not proved. The

punishment of dismissal is illegal. Learned counsel for

IInd party Mr. P.S. Shankaran submitted that there were

two charges against workman. Enquiry Officer has

recorded reasons while holding the charges against

workman are proved. The delinquent admitted duties

before Enquiry Officer. Charge is silent about the amount

misappropriated. However documents are produced that

management lost amount of Rs. 17,000. First I am inclined

to deal citation relied by learned counsel for both parties

in support of their argument and then consider the

evidence. Workman counsel relies on ratio held in :

Case of Kashinath Dikshita versus Union of India reported

in AIR 1986-SC-2118. Their Lordship dealing with non-

supply of copies of statements of witnesses document

relied upon by Disciplinary Authority. Govt. failed to show

that no prejudice occasioned to employee. The order of

dismissal was held violative of Article 311(2).

Ratio in above case cannot be considered at this

stage as enquiry conducted against workman is found

proper and legal vide order dated 14-3-2013. Said order is

not challenged by workman as such received finality.

Reliance is also placed in Union of India versus

Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in 1990 Judgments Today-

456. Their Lordship held that delinquent is entitled to copy

of such report and will also be entitled to make a

representation against it. Non-furnishing of report would

amount to violation of rules of natural justice.

The ratio held in the case cannot be applied at this

stage. It is not case of workman that copy of Enquiry

Report was not received by him. The findings on

preliminary issue was not challenged.

11. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. P.Shankaran

relies on ratio held in Case of workmen of Balmadies

Estates versus Management of Balmadies Estates and

others reported in 2008(4) Supreme Court Cases 517. Their

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4555

Lordship held on facts, findings of Labour Court are

perverse and can be termed to be based on misconception

of law. The facts of the case were two workmen were

dismissed from service for committing theft, on conclusion

of enquiry. Labour Court held that there was no direct

evidence to show that the two workmen had committed

theft. The findings of Labour Court were found perverse

by their Lordship.

12. As stated above, Enquiry Officer has referred to

statements of management’s witnesses and documents in

enquiry while concluding the charges against workman

are proved. The evidence cannot be re-appreciated by

this Tribunal as sitting as an Appellate Court , the findings

of Enquiry Officer can be interfered only if findings of

Enquiry Officer are found perverse not supported by any

evidence. Keeping above legal position in view, the

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs to be considered.

13. Management’s witness No. 1 Shri M. S.

Shankaran in reply to Q.3 says that coupons for sale were

issued and were brought by individuals to cash counter.

The individuals responsible to collect the cash receipt,

coupons and money and then prepare receipt GCF 380.

These transactions are entered in Timber Store Cash

Receipt Register GCF 389 and total amount handed over

to cashier. At the end of the day, same is totaled up and

IAFA 175 for entering amount is prepared ad handed over

to cashier by individual concerned who collects money.

Cashier signs IAFA 175 for having received the money.

Thus procedure is narrated by the witness. In reply to Q.4,

he says that collection should be deposited to cashier on

day to day basis. While going through the examination,

it was found that amount was not shown in the timber

be refunded. Reply to Q.7, 10 given by witness shows the

discrepancy was of the period of S.N. Patel i.e. the

workman. The witness had seen the order in which Shri

S.N. Patel had been allotted duties of collection money.

The evidence of witness No.1 on above point is not

shattered. In reply to Q.1 in his cross-examination witness

says there is no set of duties category-wise. In reply to Q.

2, he says as per duty , one staff is assigned with the

duties of collection of cash in connection with timber

firewood. During this period, the said job was entrusted

to Shri S.C. Jain checker. The checker is sot entitled to

Special pay only cashier is entitled to special pay. Witness

No. 2 Shri M.N. Rawla in reply to Q.1 says after retirement

of Mr. Tiwari in 1976, he has taken charge of cash office

and continued till 1990. In reply to Q.3 he says when he

become Divisional officer during 1976, he came to know

that Mr. Patel was already doing said work. His further

evidence is devoted that only cashier was entitled to get

cash allowance. In reply to Q.8, the witness says he

recollects some mistakes was there and his impression

that Shri S.N. Patel questioned by him indicated that there

were some discrepancies and mistakes, you should be

prepared to make them good. In reply to Q.10, he says that

mistakes and discrepancies mainly was of short deposit.

Workman has rejected his suggestions and made certain

discrepancies. He also shown his readiness to deposit the

amount. That statement of Shri S.L. Patel given on 24-7-89

in question and answer forms was produced document P-

5. In reply to Q.17, the witness says the money was

collected, receipt were posted in register and at the end of

the day amount received was calculated and handed over

to cashier by Shri Patel. IAFA 175 was prepared for the

amount, same was posted in cash book etc. In reply to

Q.18, MW-2 says that Shri Patel had not performed his

duties satisfactorily. The evidence of MW-2 on the point

is not shattered in his cross-examination. The evidence of

management’s witnesses is clear that the discrepancies

were found that amount collected by workman for sale of

timber firewood noted on the receipt was not deposited

with the cashier, less amount was deposited with cashier.

The evidence of MW-2 is clear that after disclosure by the

workman, he has deposited shortage amount, amount of

Rs. 50 per month was also deducted from the salary of

workman towards deficiencies. Workman had given in

writing for making recovery of the same. All those facts

corroborates evidence of management’s witness. The

entries that large number of receipt books and cash

registers were examined and the less deposit was

submitted by the Presenting Officer about 40 items. The

evidence on said point also remained unchallenged. The

matter of less deposited was reported to the Head office.

It was directed to make enquiry and ascertain the amount

of loss. However the chargesheet was issued to workman

relating to less deposited by him on sale of timber firewood

to the cashier, negligence of duties etc. the evidence of

witnesses of the management is mainly related to the duties

of workman to collect amount of sale of timber firewood

and depositing the said amount to the cashier was not

properly carried. The argument advanced by learned

counsel for Ist party that chargesheet is silent about the

amount misappropriated and therefore harsh punishment

cannot be imposed on the workman. The burden of proof

in judicial cases cannot be accepted in the matter to

disciplinary proceedings. The accuracy of claiming charge

and recording evidence cannot be of quality as in the

matter of criminal cases. The evidence of management’s

witness is sufficient that workman was assigned duty to

collect amount of sale/timber firewood. The workman had

deposited less amount with cashier. The amount was not

tallying. The evidence on above point is not shattered in

cross-examination of witnesses of the management.

Witness No. 3 in reply to Q. 8, 9 says that he used to do

the work of preparation of cash receipt GCF-380 on daily

basis. He was reluctant to say anything about the entries

amount in 1976. In reply to Q.10, he says after tallying

4556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Form GCF-380 and 389, then only he used to make Govt.

cash receipt in IAFA171. That amount of Rs.70.05 is not

only from his account, the amount belong to the bill of 5

persons, no amount was recovered from each. In reply to

Q.3, in his cross-examination, MW-3 says summaries were

prepared by him in payment register which he used to

maintain that register is kept as a record. Witness No. 4

Shri S.C. Jain in his evidence has stated that the other

duties were collection of Govt. receipts and making

miscellaneous payments. In Reply to Q. 7, he says after

totaling the cash in timber register, he used to prepare

split of details of cash carrying notes, change etc. The

Presenting Officer produced 9 cash receipt books

GCF 380- Exhibit P-7 the books have not been accounted

corresponding to the Register GCF-389 referred to Page

38 of the Enquiry Proceedings. That the amount entered

in the timber store register of GCF 389 was not tallied. In all

those cases, amount in 389 is less than the amount

indicated in receipts. At Page 39, the details of amount

detected less in 40 item is given by the Presenting Officer.

14. Learned counsel for management Shri P.

Shankaran relies on ratio held in :

Case of S.C. Mukherjee versus Chairman state Bank

of India and others reported in 2010(4) MPHT 266. His

Lordship dealing with second ground of challenged was

that findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. His

Lordship held it is to be noted that scope of judicial review

is very limited. The judicial review is of the decision making

process and not of the decision itself on merits. Re-

appreciation of evidence and substitution of a finding by

an independent finding is not permissible. Interference

is permissible only if the finding is perverse i.e. where

there is no evidence at all the record that finding or the

finding is such that no prudent person would record that

finding.

In present case, the evidence of management’s

witness cannot be re-appreciated as the findings of Enquiry

Officer is supported by some evidence of the management’s

witnesses. The findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said

perverse. Therefore findings of Enquiry Officer that

charges of negligence in duties are proved against workman

dosnot call for interference. Therefore I record my finding

on Issue No.1 in Affirmative.

15. Though management has pleaded that it is not

covered as industry under Section 2(j) of I.D.Act,

management has not adduced evidence about the activities

carried by it. Workman was working in timber depot , its

working cannot be said sovereign function of the state

and therefore contention of management that it is not

covered as an Industry cannot be accepted.

16. Point No. 2 : Punishment of dismissal is imposed

against workman for negligence in duties, depositing less

amount of sale of Timber Firewood. Quantum of

punishment is challenged by workman. On the point,

learned counsel for management relies on ratio held in :

“Case of Divisional Controller, NEKRTC versus

H.Amaresh reported in 2006(6) supreme Court Cases

187. In above cited case, misappropriation of a small

amount of SRTC funds of Rs. 360.95 paise by

conductor was held grave act of misconduct which

resulted in financial loss. The charge proved in

domestic enquiry, therefore their Lordship held when

employee is found guilty of pilferage or of

misappropriating the corporations fund, there is

nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence

or faith in such an employee and awarding

punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no

place for generousity or misplaced sympathy on the

part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore

with the quantum of punishment.”

Considering the ratio held in above cited case, I

donot find reason to interfere with the order of dismissal

of workman. For above reasons, I record my finding in

above point in Affirmative.

17. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The action of the management of Gun Carriage

Factory, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services

of Shri Sukhlal Patel, Ex-Checker w.e.f. 4-4-84 is

legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1723-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ DosLV

fjVsy izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/r=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 65@13) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@29@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2014

S.O. 1723.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4557

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 65/13)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the M/s. Quest Retail Pvt. Limited and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-42011/29/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

DELHI

PRESENT :

SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID No. 65/13

Sh. Rajiv Sirohi

Versus

M/s. Quest Retail Pvt. Limited.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42011/29/2013-IR(DU) dated

23.05.2013. referred the following industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :

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

Quest Retail Pvt. Ltd. in termination the services of

Sh. Rajiv Sirohi S/o Sh. Dharmender Singh, Ex-Store

Supervisor w.e.f. 28.10.11 is justified or not? To What

relief the workman is entitled to and from which

date?

On 8/7/13 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 65/2013 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant Sh. Rajiv

Sirohi not filed claim statement but Claimant moved an

application on 11.11.13 through which he prayed that his

statement of claim be dismissed.

Management also moved following application on

24.10.2013 :

1. That the above noted matter is pending before

this Hon’ble Court and same is fixed for today i.e.

24.10.2013.

2. That it is submitted herein that the complainant

has not approached the Hon’ble Court with clean hands

and has suppressed the true and material facts, as a matter

between the same parties with same cause of action has

already been pending before the Hon’ble Court of

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court –II, Room No. 33,

Block A, Ground Floor, Karkardooma Court Complex,

Karkardooma, Delhi -110032 under ID No. 65/13 which was

firstly fixed for 12.08.2013 and now the same is pending for

04.12.2013 for filing of claim statement and presence of the

complaint /petitioner. The copy of reference order dated

23.05.2013 issued by Sh. Johan Topno, Under Secretary

Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/

Shram Mantralya under reference No. L-42011/29/2013-

IR(DU), and notice issued by presiding officer Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-II , Room No. 33 , Block A,

Ground Floor , Karkardooma Court Complex, Karkardooma,

Delhi-110032 are attached herewith as for ready reference

please as well as another demand notice/complaint was

pending between same parties with same cause of action

before The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

4th Floor, Jeevandeep Building, Parliament Street, New

Delhi which was being dismissed on 18.10.2013. Photo

copy of order dated 18.10.2013 is attached herewith for

ready reference please. On the said grounds the present

matter is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court :

3. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the

demand notice being given by complainant is not complete

one as some pages of same are missing.

4. That it is further submitted herein that in the

event the said matter would not be dismissed at the initial

stage for the reasons mentioned herein above, in that

eventuality, the respondent /management reserves its

rights get complete copy of demand notice in order to file

detailed reply of said demand notice on a later stage as

and when directed by the Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER

So, keeping in view the above stated facts and

circumstances, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that

the present matter may kindly be dismissed throughout,

in the interest of justice.

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 is 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 : 09/05/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

4558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1724-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkehZ csl

odZ'kkWi ds izca/r=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

156@12) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@5@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@4@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2014

S.O. 1724.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 156/12)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Army Base Workshop and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 29/05/2014.

[No. L-14012/4/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

DELHI

PRESENT :

SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID No. 156/12

Sh. Pankaj Kumar

Versus

Army Base Workshop

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-14012/4/2012-IR(DU) dated

06/11/2012 referred the following industrial Dispute

to this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of 510,

Army Base Workshop, Merut Cantt holding the

election of works committee Treating the workshop

as single constituency without ascertaining Nos. of

the union and who are not member of union, is

unjustified if so, What relief workmen are entitled

to?”

On 19/11/2012 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 156/2012 and claimants

were called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen

days from date of service of notice. Which was required

to be accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

Workman Sh. Pankaj Kumar filed Claim statement

on 19.3.2013. On the basis of contents of claim statement.

Workmen/claimants prayed that strict punitive action be

taken against management /election officer for conducting

election illegally of executive committee for the year

2011-2013

Management filed written statement wherein

allegation of claim statement has been denied.

My Ld. Predecessors on 26.04.2013 framed following

issues :

Whether the dispute has not acquired status of

an industrial dispute for want of espousal by a

union or considerable number of workmen in the

establishment of the management?

As in terms of reference.

Opportunity to adduce their evidence was given to

claimants/workmen but inspite of several opportunities

workman fail to adduce his evidence in support of his

case.

Hence his right of adducing evidence has been

closed. Management was provided opportunity to adduce

its evidence.

In support of its case management produced its

evidence by way of producing witness MW1 Sh. D.C

Gaddi, EME Officer (Civ). None on behalf of workmen

appeared to cross-examine witness of management .

Hence there is unrebutted testimony of MW1 Sh.

D.C. Gaddi, EME Officer (Civ).

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of

considered view that reference of workmen is liable to be

dismissed. Which is accordingly dismissed. Reference is

thus decided in favour of management and against

workmen.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-09/05/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4559

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1725-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

106@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@63@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O.

1725.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 106/

99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/63/1999-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference No. 106 of 1999

Employer in relation to the management of

Katras.Area of M/S. BCCL.

AND

Their workman

PRESENT :

Sri R. K.Saran, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers

None

For the Workman

Sri B.B. Pandey, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal.

Dated : 23/4/2014

AWARD

By order No.-L-200 12/63/1999-IR (C-I), dated

04/06/1999 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

Section (I) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“ Kya B.C.C.L. Katras Area ke prabandh tantra dwara

date 19.09.96 se sri Rajendra Hari, loader ko

anadhikrit anupasthit ka karan seva se barkhashat

kiya jana bidhiwat awan nayayashangat hai ? yadi

nahi to karmakar kish rahat ke patra hai ?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 15.06.1999. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 27.11.2008. And the management files their

written statement -cum-rejoinder on 05.03.2009. The point

involved in the reference is that the workman has been

dismissed from his services on absenteeism.

3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty.

But he has already out of service for 18 years. It is felt to

give another chance to the workman to serve.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee.

But the workman be kept under probation for a period one

year and his performance report be given to the under

signed. Therefore the question of back wages does not

arise at all.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1726-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2000) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@323@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O. 1726.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2000)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in

4560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. CCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/323/1999-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s. 10(1)(D)(2A) of I.D. Act,

1947

Ref. No. 69 of 2000

Employers in relation to the management of Tapin

South Colliery of M/s. CCL.

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated. : 11/4/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/323/99- (C-I), dated.28/01/2000,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the demand of the Union/workmen for

regularization of S/Sri Lilu Mahato, Basdeo Mahto,

Kari Turi, Ram Swroop Singh, Dasrath Mahto and

Jagarnath Ram, P.R.W of Tapin South Colliery of

M/s. CCL to Time rated category and payment of

Group-V wages and S.P.R.A etc is fair and justified?

If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are

entitled ?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 09.02.2000. After receipt of the reference both parties

are noticed. The workman files their written statement on

12.10.2001.

3. The Short point involved in the case is, whether

the workman entitled to get group-V wages with SPRA.

The case of the workmen is that they were time rated

workers and after their conversion to piece rated workers,

they are to be paid Group V wages with SPRA.

4. It is admitted by the management that the

workman who were piece rated workmen converted to time

rated workmen but they were not paid S.P.R.A.

5. On the other hand the management at paragraph 4

has admitted that the concerned workmen were provided

piece rated job of Group-V. On some occasion they received

the Group-V wages according to the computation. But the

management has not specifically stated up to what date

the workmen were paid group-V wages and from what

date that was discontinued. Unless that is specifically

pleaded and proved the workman has right to get Group-

V wages.

6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the

case I hold that the demand of the Union /workmen for

regularization of S/Sri Lilu Mahato, Basdeo Mahto, Kari

Turi, Ram Swroop Singh, Dasrath Mahto and Jagarnath

Ram, P.R.W. of Tapin South Colliery of M/s. CCL to Time

rated category and payment of Group-V wages and

S.P.R.A. etc is fair. Hence they are to be given Group-V

wages and consequential benefits such as SPRA be given.

It is also seen that the workman Kari Turi is died during

the pendency of the case, hence his legal representative

namly Smt. Jirwa Devi w/o of deceased workman be given

all monetary benefits.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1727-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

55@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@477@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O. 1727.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 55/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/477/2000-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4561

ANNEXURE

BEFORE TH E CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 55 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of Katras

Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers

Sri U. N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

Sri S. K. Sinha, Advocate

State : Bihar

Industry : Coal

Dated : 21/4/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/477/2000-IR(C-I), dated

19/02/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the demand of the Union for providing

employment to the dependent brother of late

Rajendra Singh from the management of Gaslitand

Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified ? If so, to what

relief is the said dependent is entitled ?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 08.03.2001. After notice, both parties appeared, the

workman files their written statement on 05.11.2001 and

the management files their written statement on 11.06.2002.

3. The short point involved in the case is that as

the applicant applied for job for dependent employment

delayedly, his claim for job was rejected.

4. Admitted case is the applicant was entitled for job

in the year 1984 when he was about 22 or 23. But there was

a dispute for job for which the applicant was asked to

produced the succession certificate.

5. Finally it was produced and the applicant again

applied for job and his claim was refused as he was

36 years i.e he crossed 35.

6. The applicant raised I.D. reference received and

registered in 2001 . In the meantime 13 years has been

spent in the court. This being the situation, every body

contributed for the delay. Of course now the applicant is

53 years of age. Since for such a long delay, alone the

workman is not responsible.

7. Considering the facts and circumstance of this

case, I hold that the demand of the Union for providing

employment to the dependent brother of late Rajendra

Singh from the management of Gaslitand Colliery of M/s.

BCCL is justified Hence, he be given a job after observing

all formalities. However management need not been so

stringent, for medical fitness etc of the applicant before

taking the applicant in job within one month from the date

of publication of the award in the gazette.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1728-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj bf.M;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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh 2@5 dk 2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 04@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@19@2004&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O. 1728.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. CGIT-

2/5 of 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Air India Limited, and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-11012/19/2004-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K. B. KATAKE, B.A.LL.M, Presiding Officer

4562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REFERENCE No. CGIT 2/5 of 2005

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF AIR INDIA LTD.

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Air India Ltd.

Old Airport, Kalina

Santacruz (E),

Mumbai-400029

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The President,

Air India Service Engineers’ Association

18, Tower Building

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Dadar (W)

Mumbai-400 028

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. L. L. D’Souza,

Representative

FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. A.S. Peerzada, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 1st January, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-11012/19/2004 -IR (C-I)

dated 06/10/2004 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 :

^^D;k ,vj bafM;k eqEcbZ ds izca/ra=k }kjk fons'kksa esa inLFk

lfoZl bathfu;jksa dks fn, tkus okys Productivity Linked

Incentive vxLr 2002 ls can dj fn;k tkuk fof/or~

mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS \ ;fn ugha rks lacaf/r deZdkj fdl

ykHk ds ik=k gSa \**

2. After receipt of the reference, the notices were

issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the

second party union filed their statement of claim at Ex-11.

According to them the first party is one of the leading

Airlines and doing good business. The second party

workmen are Service Engineers for the purpose of

maintenance of the aircrafts of the first party. They are

workmen and employees of the firstparty.

The

first

party company has signed a memorandum of settlement

with Air India Aircraft Maintenance Engineers’ Association

on 3/5/1996 and finalized the charter of demands submitted

by the said association. The clause 7 & 8 of the

Memorandum of Settlement, inter alia provides for the

introduction of performance/productivity linked incentive

scheme (for brevity referred as PLI). This PLI Scheme work

practices covered by the settlement is also applicable to

the service engineers who are posted on duty outside

India and the payment in respect of the same is to be made

in equivalent foreign currency of their respective stations

at the current lATA rate of exchange. The said settlement

was signed during pendency of Ref. no. NTB 1 of 1990

before this Tribunal. The said settlement was placed before

Tribunal and accordingly the award was passed in terms

of the said settlement and the settlement has effect of

award and binding on the parties. The service Engineers

were thus getting the benefit of the said award since May

1996 onwards and they were being paid PLI benefits in

equivalent foreign currency of their respective stations at

the current lATA rate of exchange for their discharging

duties outstation like their counter parts.

3. Surprisingly without any prior intimation or

notice, all of a sudden first party has withdrawn

unilaterally, illegally and arbitrarily the said PLI in respect

of the Service Engineers w.e.f. 23/09/2002 under the guise

and false pretext of keeping the said in abeyance till further

notice. The action of the first party was discriminatory,

illegal and unjustified. The union therefore served the first

party with a notice of strike. On the basis of said strike

notice and demand raised by the second party conciliation

proceeding was held before ALC (C) Mumbai. As the

conciliation failed on the report of ALC (C), Labour

Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal. The

second party union therefore prays that the first party be

directed to restore the benefit of PLI to the Service

Engineers forthwith with retrospective effect from August

2002 together with interest @ 18%. They also prayed to

direct first party to pay benefits of PLI in pursuance of the

memorandum of settlement to Service Engineers regularly

on their posting on duty at foreign stations and also pray

for cost.

4. The first party management resisted the statement

of claim of the union vide their written statement at Ex-16.

According to them as per the order of Ministry of Corporate

Affairs, Government of India, Air India Ltd. and Indian

Airlines Ltd. are amalgamated with the National Aviation

Co. of India Ltd. According to them the statement of claim

is not signed by the Association and it was signed by

Shri G. Ray Choudhary and 6 Ors. Therefore cognizance of

statement of claim cannot be taken. According to them the

employees working in India were entitled to the payment

of PLI and there was no provision for making such payment

to the employees posted abroad. The posting orders

issued to the Service Engineers posted abroad specifically

indicate the salary and allowances that would be paid to

them on such postings. It does not include PLI. The

payments of PLI were erroneously and inadvertently paid

to the Service Engineers posted abroad and the said

erroneous payment was pointed out by Govt. Auditors.

Consequently the said payments were discontinued. They

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4563

denied all the contents in the statement of claim and

submitted that the Service Engineers posted abroad are

not entitled to get PLI. Therefore the company has rightly

discontinued their PLI. According to them they are not

entitled to get the said payment. Therefore the first party

prays that the reference be dismissed with cost.

5. Following are the issues for my determination I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether Service Engineers

Yes

posted in foreign countries

are entitled for payment of

“Productivity Linked

Incentive” w.e.f. August 2002 ?

Whether decision taken by

No.

first party of discontinued

payment of Productivity Linked

Incentive w.e.f. August 2002

is just and legal?

What relief can be availed?

As Per

order

below.

What order?

As per

order

below.

REASONS

Issue No.1 & 2 :

6. Both the issues are interlinked, therefore, in order

to avoid of repetition of discussion, they are discussed

and decided simultaneously. In this reference a short

question for my determination is whether the Service

Engineers posted in foreign countries are entitled for the

Productivity Linked Incentive Scheme. In this respect I

would like to point out that the fact is not disputed that

there was dispute between the Aircraft Maintenance

Engineers and the first party. The first party had agreed to

pay the PLI to the Maintenance Engineers and settlement/

agreement was signed on 3/5/1996. As per the said

agreement, award was passed in the Ref.1/1990.

Accordingly the PLI was being paid to Maintenance

Engineers as well as Service Engineers who were serving

abroad. It is a fact that the payment of PLI was withheld

by the first party as the Govt. Auditor has raised objection

for the said payment to the Service Engineers serving

abroad. In this respect MW-1 has stated in his cross at

Ex-26 that, Service Engineers are actually making the

aircraft serviceable for flying both in India and abroad. He

admitted that the Aircraft Engineers are merely certifying

the work done by Aircraft Service Engineers. He further

says that considering this aspect Aircraft Service Engineers

were also paid PLI in the line of Aircraft Engineers. PLI

was withheld or discontinued from 23/9/2002 in respect of

Service Engineers posted abroad beyond 45 days whereas,

the Aircraft Engineers continue to receive PLI even

thereafter. In this respect Id. adv. for the second party

union submitted that there is no reason for such

discrimination. On the other hand he submitted that the

Aircraft Engineers are not manually working on the aircraft

as like Service Engineers. Inspite of that PLI is being paid

to them. The Service Engineers are infact working manually

on the aircraft and making the aircraft serviceable for flying.

In such circumstances it is clear that the service Engineers

are more desirable to get PLI. MW-1 has admitted in his

cross at Ex-26 that besides salary the Aircraft Service

Engineers serving abroad do not get any other monthly

benefit. In the circumstances, there is no reason to justify

the action of the management to discontinue PLI of the

Aircraft Service Engineers posted abroad. Discontinuation

of PLI violates the right of equality of the Aircraft Service

Engineers. In this back drop I come to the conclusion that

the Service Engineers posted in foreign countries are

entitled to get Productivity Linked Incentive as prayed for

and also hold that discontinuation of the same by the first

party w.e.f. August 2002 is not just and legal. Thus I decide

the issue no.1 in the affirmative and issue no.2 in the

negative and proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is allowed with no order as to cost.

Withholding the PLI of Aircraft Service Engineers

serving abroad is found not just and legal. The first party

is directed to release the PLI of these Service Engineers

since August 2002.

Date : 01/01/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1729-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

12@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@478@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O. 1729.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

4564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 12/

2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/478/2001-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRlBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO. 12 OF 2002.

PARTIES :

The Regional Secretary,

U.C. W.U.E.J. Area, Ram Mitra Bhawan,

PO : Bhowra, Distt;Dhanbad

Vs. Project Officer, Bhowra (S) Colliery of

M/s. BCCL, PO: Bhowra, Dist: Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/478/2001-IR(C-1)

dt.20.02.2002

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/ :

Mr. S. C. Gaur,

Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the

Mr. D.K. Verma,

Management

Ld. Advocate

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

Dhanbad, dated the 29th April, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No.L-20012/478/2001-IR(C-I) dt.20.02.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

M/s. BCCL Bhowra (S) Colliery in denying

employment as per provision of NCWA- V to

Subhash Saw dependent son of Late Rajbali Saw is

justified ? If not, to what relief is the said dependent

entitled ?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/478/2001-IR(C-

I) dt.20.02.2002 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 12 of 2002 was registered on 1st April,2002 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

Learned Counsels appeared in, and contested the case.

2. The case of petitioner Subhash Saw as sponsored

by the U.C.W.U. is that his father Rajbali Saw as the D.C.L.

workman of the BCCL at Bhowra (S) Colliery of E.J.Area

died in harness on 02.05.1994, leaving his wife Kalawati

Devi, and son petitioner. In spite of the most lackadaisical

non-cooperative attitudes of the employers towards the

widow of the workman for his employment as the

dependent of the workman under the clause 9.3.2. under

the Social Security of NCWA-V as similar in the NCWA-

VI meant for Labour and Social Welfare, she even after

many hurdles at every level of the Management had applied

in the prescribed form of many paraphernalia on 23.03.1995

within nine months of her husband’s death on 02.05.1994.

But she was disqualified for it being over 45 years as per

the letter of the Management dt.04.06.1997, instructing

her that she would be granted monetary compensation

under clause 9.5.0. (ii).She also waited for such monetary

compensation but no order came for it. Meanwhile the

widow as a matter of right decided to opt for employment

of her son under said relevant provision of NCWA-V, by

forgoing her monetary compensation. The consequently

her son petitioner the dependant of the deceased workman

on her direction, timely submitted his prescribed

application on 21.08.1998 within one year and 2 and half a

month on the for her employment under the said provision.

But by devising a way to discard his claim, the

Management as per the Order dt.16.5.2000 of the H.Qr. of

the BCCL rejected this application/claim for employment

of Sri Subhash Saw on no other ground except on belated

one. Though the NCWA provides no time limit for making

such application to the management for such dependant

employment. The taking long time by the Management

from 21.08.1998 to 16.05.2000 in regretting the application

of the applicant for his employment not only made him

suffer for their own delay but also deprived the petitioner

of his legal right to employment contrary to the NCWA,

which is the agreement between the employer and JBCCI.

It was out and out latches on their post even the employers

did not pay the widow the monetary compensation. No

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4565

management can take advantage of its own wrong as the

principle of equity mandates. Though the employers have

been providing employment to dependants under the

provision of NCWA-V even on the applications received

after five years or so, the applications of the petitioner

regretted as belated. The decision of the employers is

malafide arbitrary, illegal and justified. Even at the

intervention of the Asstt.Labour Commissioner (Central),

Dhanbad- III in the Industrial Dispute raised by the Union

concerned, though the employers submitted their statement

on 10.04.2002,its failure in conciliation resulted in the

reference for an adjudication. In case of non-compliance

of the relevant provisions of the NCWA-V by the

employers, the petitioner has also sought damage of the

wages per day as specified in his written statement.

3. The Union Representative in the rejoinder on

behalf of the petitioner has denied all the allegations of

the O.P./Management, and stated that the reference is

legally maintainable, after exhausting all avenues to get

justice, the I.D. was raised. No limitation Act is applicable

to the I.D.Act. The widow has the first claim for

employment. She has the option for accepting

compensation or for claim employment to one of her

leaving dependent son. The dependent son Subhash Saw

had applied for self employment after getting no objection

from his mother. The claim of the petitioner is legal and

justified.

4. Just adversely challenging the maintainability of

the reference in law and facts, the case of the Management

with categorical denials is that no employer-employee

relationship exists between the Management and petitioner

Subhash Saw, as the latter is not a workman in the terms of

Sec. 2S of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Union

concerned has raised the reference in the year 2001 after

seven years following the death of Late Rajbali Saw. The

dispute is stale one liable to be rejected summarily. None

of the dependents of the workman applied for employment

after the death of Late Rajbali Saw in the year 1994.

However, in the year 1995,one Kalawati Devi claimed her

employment in place of deceased workman, alleging as

his widow, without enclosing “No objection” of other legal

dependents as found by the Management after examination

of her applacation. Besides,the Management after

considering her application also found that she being

about 45 years old was not entitled to employment, so she

was rightly advised to apply for monetary compensation

as under the clause 9.5.0. of the NCWA V, but she did not

apply for it. After several years, Sri Subhash Saw over

delayedly applied for employment under the Management

of M/s. BCCL on compassionate gound.But the

Management also regretted the application of the petitioner

as belated. Further the plea of the Management about the

provision of the NCWA for providing an employment is

that it is a contravention of the Constitution of India. It is

the settled law that the compassionate appointment is not

legal right invocable by any person at any time. The

petitioner had not applied for employment immediately

after the death of his deceased father. It shows that he

was not dependent of the deceased workman at the time

of his death. So, the demand of the Union is neither legal

nor justified.

5. In the rejoinder of the OP/Management,

categorically denying the allegations of the petitioner, it

has been alleged that the Union concerned has no locus

standi to raise the I.D. on behalf of a person who is not

workman u/s 2S of the I.D. Act. Payment of monetary

compensation in lieu of employment is stipulated under

clause 9.5.0. of the NCWA.

Mr. S.C. Gaur, Learned Counsel for the Union/

petitioner concerned has to submit that Kalawati Devi

(WWI),the widow of the deceased employee Rajbali Saw

following his death during service on 2.5.94 had applied

for her employment as per her application on 23.03.1995

(Ext.W.l),but the Management as its letter dt. 3/4.6.1997

(Ext.W.3) regretted her application on ground of her being

about more in 45 years of age, instructing her to apply for

her monetary compensation, then she timely submitted

the representation (dt.21.8.1998 - Ext. W.4) within the

prescribed application for employment of her son Subhash

Saw, but the Management did not provide employment to

her son as per letter (dt.15/16.5.2000- Ext.W.5) regretting it

belated in disregard to the provision under clauses 9.3.3.

and 9.3.4 of the NCWA-V which mandatorily provide for

employment to any of the dependents including wife or

son of the deceased workman, so the action of the

Management is illegal and unjustified. In support of his

argument, Mr. Gaur has relied upon the case of Sakaldeep

Munda Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd reported in 2009 (4 )

JLJR 702(SB) as it relates to, has submitted that over

compassionate appointment under clause 9.3.0 of the

N.C.W.A., rejection of claim for it on the ground that elder

brother (Step-brother) of petitioner was already employed

against this mother died as a regular employee of CCL in

respondent Company, and any Circular/Order can not be

unilaterally issued by employer prescribing any period of

limitation or putting any condition for obtaining a

compassionate appointment by a dependent of regular

employee who died in harness, which is not there in the

settlement/agreement. Whereas the petitioner applied for

appointment on compassionate ground against death of

his father who being a regular employee died in harness;

so impugned order of rejection can not be substained,and

accordingly quashed, and application allowed (Para 5 to

9).The ruling has been also relied upon 2007 (4) JLJR

(SC)144, Mohan Mahato Vs. Central Coal field Ltd. & Ors.

In the instant case, Mr.Gaur, Learned Counsel for the

petitioner has contended that there is nothing delay on

the part of the petitioner, rather latches on the part of the

employer who had lastly regretted the petitioner’s

application as per their letter dt.16.5.2000 (Ext.W.5);

4566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

moreover no NCWA provides for any limitation or any

circular by the employer for application for employment

on compassionate ground as upheld by the Hon’ble Apex

Comport in the aforesaid relied ruling.

In response to it, Mr. D.K. Verma, Learned Counsel

for the O.P./Management has contended that indisputably

the workman died in the year 1994 but the petitioner had

made his claim for employment in the 2000,after much delay,

so he is not entitled to any such relief, as in similar case of

Chhata Devi Vs Bharat Coking Coal India Ltd. reported in

2012 (4) JLJR 349(SB) it has be enheld that if the claim has

made after 18 months,the claimant is not entitled to any

relief, as it is not the sweet will of the petitioner to apply

for employment, so considering the case of Mohan Mahato

reported in 2007(8) SCC 549 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court was pleased to hold that an application for

compassionate employment must be preferred without

undue delay and within a reasonable period.

6. On the perusal of the materials available on the

case record, it is apparent the death of late workman Rajbali

Saw in harness on 2.5.94,thereafter within a year on 23.3.95

as per application dt.23.3.1995 (Ext.W.1),his illiterate widow

Kalawati Devi had applied in the prescribed form with all

enclosures for her employment, but the management as

per their letter dt.3/4.6.1997 (Ext W.3) appears to have

regretted it and acted beyond jurisdiction in assessing

her age above 45 years whereas she appeared to be 41

years evidently by her age 35 as on 29.06.1987 recorded in

the workman’s Service Excerpt.(Ext.W.2).So in such

circumstance the instruction of the Management for her

to apply for monetary compensation under clause 9.5.0. of

the NCWA-V which is only applicable to female

dependents appears to a malafide misguide to the illiterate

innocent widow. The same clause under its sub-clause (ii)

specifies: ‘In case of death ... if the female dependent is

below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to

accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 2000 per month

or employment’. Just after the rejection of her application

by the Management, the widow filed her application in

prescribed Forms (triplicate) received on behalf of the

Management on 21.8.1998(Ext.W.4) for the compassionate

employment of her younger son petitioner Subhash Sao

under clause 9.3.2. of the NCWA-V which holds good

with employment to one dependent of the worker who

dies in harness, but the case of the petitioner was regretted

being a belated case of 1994 as per the letter dt15/16.5.2000

of the Personnel Manager (MP & R) (Ext.W5) after more

than one and half a year. There was apparently no delay

on the part of the widow in filing her application firstly, for

her employment, then for employment of her said son

within reasonable time. At this point, the argument of

Mr.S.C,.Gaur,the Learned Counsel for the Union/petitioner

outweighs that of Mr.D.K.Verma,Learned advocate for the

O.P.Management in view of the Settled Law upheld in the

case of Rajendra Pd.State of Jharkhand, 2009(4) JLJR

703(SB) relied upon 2007(4) JLJR (SC), Mohan Mahato

Vs. M/s. Central Coal field Ltd. & Ors.

In result, it is, hereby, awarded that the action of the

Management of BCCL, Bhowra (S) Colliery in denying

employment as per provision of NCWA -V to Sri Subhash

dependent son of Late Rajbali Saw is totally unjustified.

Hence; the said dependent is entitled to his employment

under 9.3.4. of the NCWA-V as qualified at the relevant

time. The O.P./Management is directed to implement the

Award within one month from the receipt of its publication

by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi, in the Gazette of India, even by

relaxing his age.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1730-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

160@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

04@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@68@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O.

1730.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 160/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/68/2001-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4567

REFERENCE NO. 160 OF 2001

PARTIES :

Shri B.S.Pandey,

Jt.Secretary,Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

Gopalichak Colliery of M/s. BCCL,

Kusunda, Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

P.B.Area of M/s. BCCL, Kusunda, Dhanbad.

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/68/2001—C-I dt.

22.5.2001

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman/ :

Mr.T. P. Jha,

Union

Advocate

On behalf of the

Mr. D. K. Verma,

Management

Ld. Advocate

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

Dated, Dhanbad, the 3rd April, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. l0(l)(d)

of the l.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

68/2001 C-l dt.22.5.2001.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union to regularize

Sri Sagar Nand Napit as Attendance clerk is proper

and justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled and from what date ?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/68/2001-C.1 dt.

22.5.2001 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, the Reference Case No. 160 of

2001 was registered on 03.07. 2001 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing

them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file

their written statements along with the relevant documents.

In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

workman and the O.P./Management through their Lawyers

appeared in, and contested the case.

2. The case of workman Sagar Nand Napit as

sponsored by the Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Gopalichak

Colliery is that he though the underground Munshi has

been working as the Attendance Clerk w.e.f. 30.04.1988 on

having been unauthorized by the Competent Authority of

the Gopalichak Colliery to do so as per the Office Order dt.

same. He has been unblemishedly working at the Colliery

for 30 years. Out of the two others ernployees S/Shri Dalbag

Singh and Praduman Lal along with the workman were

authorized to do different job as per the Office Order

30.4.1988.The former long back and the latter have been

regularized and absorbed as the Attendance Clerk and the

Mining Sardar respectively, but the workman’s

regularization despite recommendation by the Colliery

Authorities to the Area Management was unconsidered,

rather it was denied. It resulted in the reference for

adjudication. Thus, the workman is entitled to

regularization as Attendance Clerk in Grade II with all

financial benefits from the said date.

In the rejoinder on behalf of the workman, all the

allegations of the O.P./Management have been specifically

denied, and it is stated that by virtue of due Authority of

the Management, he has been continuously working as

the Attendance Clerk for more than 14 years since

30.04.1988. How a workman can work on the post of the

Attendance Clerk against temporary vacancy for more than

14 years since 30.04.1988. The demand of the workman for

regularization as the Attendance Clerk is as per rules.

3. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./

Management with categorical denials is that the present

reference is legally unmaintainable, as the workman has

been working in the capacity of the underground Munshi

at Gopalichak Colliery. The underground Munshi performs

the clerical duties as well as supervisory duties inside the

Mine regarding supply of tubs, loading of tubs with coal

from working place. He stands in clerical grade similar to

the Attendance Clerk on the surface. The underground

Munshi and the Attendance Clerks of the same grade are

temporary but alternately engaged in view of the nature of

the similar jobs according to the requirement or surpluses.

The workman concerned was accordingly given to work

as the Attendance Clerk on the surface against temporary

vacancy or requirement as per the official Od er of the

Agent of the colliery. So, the demand of the workman for

regularization as the Attendance Clerk on permanent basis

is against the rules of the Company, and it is unacceptable,

because the requirement of the underground Munshi

fluctuates from time to time, the Management is bound to

keep sufficiently experienced persons on the roll as the

underground Munshi to look after the proper loading of

coal, the supply of tubs and loading of coal inside the

Mine. So employment of the workman as the Attendance

Clerk on permanent post is too difficult for the

Management. No workman can claim for regularization as

the Attendance Clerk on the surface by virtue of his

opportunity to serve so on temporary basis or at the

instance of some powerful Union Leader or for some

consideration, as the Management had made it clear that

the persons working in underground should not be

regularized on the surface job save and except on the

4568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

compelling circumstances of health conditions or

otherwise. The workers prefer working on the surface to

that in the underground. The workman has the permanent

status of underground Munshi, he cannot demand for

change of his status as Attendance Clerk by way of

regularization. Thus, he is not entitled to any relief.

4. Categorically denying the allegations of the

workman, the O.P./Management has stated in its rejoinder

that the workman was given a chance to work as the

attendance Clerk on temporary basis during leave and sick

vacancies of the permanent Attendance Clerk. The

purported letter dt.30.4.1988 is not the authorization for it

as per the provision of the Coal Mines Regularization,

1957.This was purely a temporary arrangement. The

workman may be alternatively employed, upgraded or

promoted on the basis of obtaining statutory certificate or

of merit in the performance of duties. There can not be any

general rule for regularization of all such persons on

different posts other than the post on which they were

appointed on permanent basis.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. In the reference case,WWI Sagar Nand Napit, the

workman himself, on behalf of the Union, and MWI

Narbdeshwar Nath,the Dealing Assistant, Legal

Section,P.B.Area for the Management have been

respectively examined.

The statement of workman Sagar Nand Napit (WWI)

manifests his initial appointment as the undergound

Munshi, but as per the letter of authorization(Photocopy

dt.30.4.1988 Ext.W.l), he along with Dalwar (Dalbag) Singh

and Perduman Lal was authorized to work as the

Attendance Clerk, and later on aforesaid Dalwag and

Parduman were regularized by the Management as

Attendance clerk and Mining Sardar respectively. Having

continuously worked as the Attendance Clerk for years,

he submitted his representation (dt.22.6.1998 -Ext.W.2) as

also represented by the Union the representation

(dt.27.1.1999- Ext.W.2/1).As per the Office Order

(Dt.30.6.1998- Ext.W.3), he was allotted to the duty of

Attendance clerk. But accepting his status of the

underground Munshi whose work is clerical, the workman

has affirmed his resumption of his duty as the Loading

Munshi,relieving him of the work of the Attendance clerk

as per the said letter of the Management, under whose

order he was working as the Attendance Clerk without

change in his status.

6. Whereas the contention of Mr.D.K.Verma, Learned

Advocate for the O.P./Management is that the function of

the underground Munshi, which is clerical Grade-II, is the

performance of clerical work as well as supervisory duty;

Attendance Clerk also lies under clerical Grade-II. The

workman has to work of supervision over the work of the

piece rated workers by maintaining the Attendance

the Attendance Clerk on the surface which is not legally

permissible. Further it has been submitted on behalf of

Mr.Verma that no difference lies in the wages for both the

posts except underground allowances for the underground

workers; as such the workman is not entitled to

regularization.

After perusal of the materials available on the case

record, I find that the Office Order dt.30.4.1988 of the

Management (Ext.W.l) was virtually the instruction of the

Management to the workmen along with others, namely,

Dalbag Singh and Praduman Lal to work as Attendance

Clerk purely on temporary basis. The another Office Order

dt. 30.6.1998 of the Management (Ext.W.3) clearly indicates

the resumption of his duty as U/G Munshi at Pit No.2.lt

was virtually the Administrative Order of the management

which need not any interference.

Under these circumstances I find the workman has

no merits for regularization as Attendance Clerk; hence it

is hereby awarded that the demand of the Union to

regularize Sagar Nand Nait Attendance Clerk is neither

proper nor justified. So the workman is not entitled to any

relief from any date.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1731-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

306 dk 2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

04@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@452@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O.

1731.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 306/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad, now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/452/2001-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4569

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 306 OF 2001

PARTIES :

The Joint Secretary,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

Rajender Path, Dhanbad .

Vs.

The General Manager,

Sijua Area No. 5, Sijua , Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/452/2001-IR(C-I)

dt. 29.11.2001

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman/ :

Mr.N. G. Arun,

Union

Ld. Advocate-cum-

Union

Representative

On behalf of the

Mr. D. K. Verma,

Management

Ld. Advocate

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

Dated, Dhanbad, the 4h April, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(1)

(d) of the I.D. Act, I 947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/452/2001-IR(C-I) dt. 29.11.2001.

SCHEDULE

“Whether action of the Management in denial of

the employment to Smt.Kiran Devi, Daughter-in-Law

of Late Chintaman Mallah is justified? If not, to what

relief is the said Smt.Kiran Devi entitled.’’

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/452/2001-IR(C-I)

dt.29.11.2001 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, the Reference Case No. 306 of

2001 was registered on 10.12. 2001 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing

them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file

their written statements along with the relevant documents.

In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

workman and the O.P./Management through their Lawyers

appeared in, and contested the case.

2. The case of petitioner Kiran Devi as represented

by the sponsoring Union is that Late Chintamani corrected

as Chintaman Mallah vide Ministry’s letter

dt.6.12.2005,who had been working as Fitter Helper at

Tetulmari Colliery, expired on 16.10.1996,leaving his only

son Yogendra Mahhal,who also expired on 24.9.1997 for

some chronic disease. On the demise of the said workman,

his petitioner daughter-in-law, his Kiran Devi applied for

employment under clause 9.3.3. of National Coal Wage

Agreement. Having highly recommended, the Management

of Tetulmari Colliery., and of Sijua Area forwarded her

prescribed application with other relevant papers for

administrative approval of H.Or of M/s BCCL,Koyla

Bhawan, Dhanbad, but after more than one year, the H.Qr.

Management informed her of her application having been

regretted, without any reason. The refusal to her

employment under the said clause is also endorsed in

NCWA-VI is breach of the Agreement National Coal Wage.

The action of the Management in not providing

employment to the dependant is not only volative of the

said provision of NCWA, but also against the Articles 14

to 19 of the India Constitution. Even making the matter

too ambiguous by the Management before the

A.L.C.(C),Dhanbad, clearly manifests an anti-labour

attitude of the Management. At last the failure in its

conciliation resulted in the reference for adjudication.

3. The sponsoring Union in its rejoinder has

categorically denied the allegations of the O.P./

Management, and stated that no employer by his remarks

can disregard rules of the NCWA, rather he is bound to

obey it; moreover, only Service Excerpt is not a criterion to

decide the name of dependent for providing an

employment. The son of the deceased workman in course

of preparing all the relevant documents for the application

suddenly expired on 24.9.1997. The present petitioner as

the sole dependent of the deceased workman is entitled to

employment with all benefits.

4. Whereas with specific denials, the contra pleaded

case of the O.P./Management is that deceased workman

Chintaman Mallah, a permanent employee of Tetulmari,

had died in harness on 16.10.1996.He had recorded the

name of his son Jogendra Mallah in his Service Excerpt /

record for the purpose of employment in the even of his

premature death. But the deceased workman never

mentioned the name of his daughter-in-law Smt. Kiran Devi

as his dependant in his service record at any time.

4570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Smt. Jogendra Mallah, the directly dependent son of the

deceased workman during his life did not approach for the

employment for NCWA by filing any prescribed application

with requisites after the death of his father, but aforesaid

Jogendra died on 24.9.1997. Offering an employment to

widow daughter-in-law under the provision of NCWA

arises if no such direct dependent is available for

employment at the relevant time. Petitioner Kiran Devi was

not widow daughter-in-law of the deceased workman at

the time of his death. Submitting of her application after

more than one year of the workman’s death indicated the

survival of the deceased’s family for that period without

earning. As per the settled law, the right of employment in

such case extinguishes, and unexists due to delay in

claiming for employment. Besides, the petitioner seems

not dependent upon the deceased workman in any way of

his Service Record. She is not entitled to employment under

the NCWA.

In its rejoinder, the OP. /Management has also

specifically denied the allegations of the petitioner as

baseless.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5 In the instant case, WWI Smt. Kiran Dev, the

daughter- in-law of deceased workman, for the Union

concened, and MWI Kumar Tanmay, Sr. Officer (Pers.)

and MW2 Narendra Kumar Singh, the Office Supdt.,

Tetulmari Colliery for the O.P./Management have been

respectively examined.

Mr. N.G. Arun, the Learned Advocate-cum-Union

Representative, has to submit that petitioner Smt.Kiran

Devi is widow wife of Late Jogendra Mallah (her Election

ID Card - Ext.W.3)and daughter-in-law of the Late Ex-Fitter

Helper Chintaman Mallah, following the death of her said

husband and father-in-law on 24.09.1997 and 16.10.1996

(as per their original Death certificate (Ext.W and 4/1)

respectively, and Mother-in-Iaw had predeceased on

31.10.1985 as per her original Death Certificate (Ext.W4/2).

She was married to her said husband Jogendra Mallah in

the year 1994 who was factually alive just as her married

“Nanad” Kanti Devi at the time of her father-in-law’s death,

but her said husband also expired thereafter due to

incurable chromic disease. Having got her Successive

Certificate from the Distt, delegate,Dhanbad,(Ext.W.1), she

was paid the P.F. as well as arrear of her father-in-law on

her application (Ext.W.2) .Though she had applied for

employment by fulfilling all the criteria thereof, it was

rejected unreasonably after keeping it more than one year,

as such the petitioner is entitled to employment as

daughter-in-law of Late Chintaman Mallah.

6. Whereas vehemently opposing to it, Mr. D.K.

Verma, Learned Counsel for the O.P./Management has

contended that no daughter-in-law is the direct dependent

of the deceased workman, so she is not entitled to any

relief under the NCWA as held by the Hon’ble High Court,

Ranchi, Jharkhand. In the case of Kari Devi Vs. M/s Bharat

Coking Coal Ltd., reported in 2007 (2) JUR 686. But the

statement of MWI Kumar Tanmay,Sr.officer (Pers) of

Tetulmari Colliery tangibly reveals that the petitioner’s

husband Yogendra Mallah, the son of workman Chitnaman

Mullah dying in harness, had also died at the time of her

application for employment that as per the NCWA

provision any dependent of the deceased employee may

get employment, and that in case there is no direct

dependent of the deceased employee, indirect dependent

of the deceased employee may apply for employment the

cross paras 5 to 7 of MWI respectively).The same facts

appear to have been corroborated by MW2 Narendra

Kumar Singh, the Officer Superintendent of the same

colliery.

After hearing the contention of M.Verma, the Learned

Counsel for the O.P./Management, I have meticulously

studied the aforesaid ruling cited on his behalf. The ruling

relates to the widow of a deceased employee did not seek

her appointment, rather she had claimed it for her son-in-

law on the ground that she having only one daughter, was

fully dependent on her son-in-law, so the question of giving

employment to son-in-law did not arise at all, rather at

best widow could be held entitled for monetary

compensation as held by the Hon’ble High Court,

Jharkhand therein. But the factum of the instant case under

adjudication as contrasted with that of the ruling is quite

distinct in the manner that in the present, only the petitioner

daughter-in-law has survived following the death of the

workman in harness, then of her husband Jogendra Mallah

in a year, whereas her mother-in-law (Savitri Kamin W/o

the workman) had already predeceased on 31.10.1985 as

per her death certificate (Ext.W.4/2).So aforesaid ruling

clearly seems to be inapplicable to this case.

At the point, the National Coal Wage Agreement

(NCWA)-VI which is enforced w.e.f. 01.07.1996 under it

clause 9.3.3. read with 9.3.2. heading “Employment to one

dependent of the worker who dies while in service.”

postulates: “ ... If no such direct dependent is available for

employment, brother widowed daughter/widowed

daughter-in-law residing with the deceased and almost

wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased may

be considered to be the dependent of the deceased. Thus

the petitioner as the female dependant undoubtedly comes

under the category. Aforesaid main heading clause 9.3.2.

of the NCWA obviously dictates” In so far as female

dependents are concerned, their employment/payment of

monetary compensation would be governed by its para

9.5.0 with heading” Employment /Monetary compensation

to female dependent, “which in its sub para (ii) postulates

that in case of death ... If the female dependant is below

the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to

accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3, 000 per month

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4571

or employment. In the instant case, the female petitioner

has got the CMPF amount of her deceased workman

farther-in-law, which stands beyond any challenge. Under

such circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner’s

application dt.ll.2.1998 (Ext.M.-5 series) by the O.P./

Management as per their letter dt.22.3./8.4.1999 (Ext.M.6)

in relation to her employment in place of her deceased

workman father-in-law prima facie appears to be quite illegal

and unjustified.

In result, it is hereby awarded that the action of the

Management concerned in denial to the employment of

Smt. Kiran Devi, the Daughter-in-law of Late Chintamani

(read as Chintaman)Mallah is totally unjustified and

illegal.Hence,the said Kiran Devi is entitled to her

employment as the sole heir of/in place of the said workman

under clause 9.5.0 read with clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA VI.

The O.P./Management is directed to humanly implement

the Award within one month from the date of its receipt

following its publication in the Gazette of India by the

Government of India, Ministry of Labouer & Employment,

New Delhi.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1732-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds

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

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

U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87@1999) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@53@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O.

1732.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 87/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/53/1998-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 87 OF 1999

PARTIES :

The Vice President,

J.S.S., Phatka, Shampur Colliery, Nirsachagtti,

Dhanbad.

Vs.

General Manager, Shampur Colliery of ECL,

Nirsachatti, Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/53/98-IR(C-I) dt.

29.01.l999

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman/ :

Mr. A. K. Sinha,

Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the

None

Management

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

AWARD

Dhanbad, Dated the 2nd April, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.

10(1)(d) of the LD. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/53/98-IR(C-I) dt. 29.01.l999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Shampur

Colliery in the Mugma area of ECL in denying

employment to the dependent of Late Sarathi Bauri,

Ex-Pump Khalasi having I.D. Card No.885161 under

Para 9.4.2 of the NCWA-IV or 9.3.2 of the NCWA-V

is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workmen entitled to?’’

2. Mr. A.K. Sinha, Ld. Advocate for petitioner Himani

Baour in appeared and filed a petition for withdrawal of

the Reference. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits

that the applicant Himani Bourin has become old and sick,

so she does not want to proceed with the case.

Perused the case record, and I find the Schedule to

the Reference does not refer to the name of the applicant

as the dependent of Late Ex-Pump Khalasi, Sarathi Bauri

in relation to an issue about the denial of the Management

4572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to her employment under the NCWA. It is the settled Law

that once the Reference has been made by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication, it

can not be withdrawn. Since the Petitioner is unwilling to

proceed with her case which was raised by J.S.S., Phatka,/

Shampur Colliery, Dhanbad, it is futile to proceed with the

case. Hence the case is closed as no Industrial Dispute

existent. Accordingly, No Dispute Award is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1733-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

230@1998) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@145@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O.

1733.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 230/

1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/

s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/145/1998-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 230 OF 1998

PARTIES :

The President ,

Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Chirkunda, Distt. Burdwan

Vs.

Chief General Manager, C.V. Area of M/s. BCCL,

Barakar, Dhanbad.

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/145/98-IR(C-1) dt.

01.l2.1998.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman/ :

Jr. to Late B.M.

Union

Prasad, Ld.

Advocate

On behalf of the

Mr.. D. K.Verma, &

Management

Sri S.N.Ghosh

Ld.Advocates

respectively

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

AWARD

Dhanbad, Dated the 23rd April, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/145/98-IR (C-I) dt. 1. 12. 1998.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of NLOCP/

CV Area in BCCL in not regularizing Sri Dharmadeo

Prasad Singh, General Mazdoor as Storekeeper

although he is performing the job of Store Issue

Clerk for last 3/4 years is justified? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to ?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/145/98-IR(C-I)

dt.01.l2.1998. of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 230 of 1998 was registered on 22nd December,

1998 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to

issue notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

workman and the O.P./Management through their Lawyers

appeared in, and contested the case.

2. The case of sponsoring BPCMC ,Chirkunda, for

workman Dharmadeo Prasad Singh as per the written

statement is that the workman has been a permanent

employee of New Laikdih Open Cast Project, New

Laikdih,P.O.Chirkunda,District Dhanbad since his

appointment as General Mazdoor in the year 1989, but

subsequently he has been authorized to work as a helper

to Store Keeper and then as the Store Issue Clerk in 1990,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4573

since then he has performed the job of the Store Issue

Clerk with spotless service record. Despite his several

times appeals to the Management for his regularization in

the post of the Store Issue Clerk, payment of wages

differences and other benefits as also represented by the

Union, the Management failed to take appropriate steps.

Finally, the dispute raised by the Union on failure of its

conciliation resulted in the reference for an adjudication.

As the workman has got sufficient experience and

education qualification for the post of the Store Issue

Clerk by virtue of his accordingly working since 1990, he

is also quite eligible for promotion to the said post. He has

been designated as “Store Issue Clerk” by the

Management of the said Project and Chanch Victoria Area,

in course of their official correspondences supportive to

his such claim, as the Management of both the places

have had exchange of correspondences for approval of

his such regularization in the said post. The denial of the

Management to his instant claim is a victimization matter

of unfair Labour practice against the principle of natural

justice. He was never warned of or prevented against such

authorization for doing the job of the Store Issue Clerk. So

the action of the Management in not regularizing him in

the post of the Store Issue Clerk and the Store Keeper is

not justified, as the Management can neither deny the

legitimate right of the workman for it, nor utilize his service

without providing his due claim and benefits for it.

In the rejoinder under the signature of Mr.S.Prakash,

Ld.Advocate for the workman, categorically denying the

allegations of the O.P./Management, it has been interalia

stated that soon after his appointment as the General

Mazdoor (T), Category -I, he was deployed to the post of

the Issue Clerk in the store for more than four year out of

his ability since then, working as the Store Issue Clerk,

but without change in his wages.

3. In challenge to it, the case of the O.P./Management

with categorical denials is that the reference is

unmaintainable for the reason of the Union lacking

requisite strength to sponsor the case of the workman.

The workman belongs to the Time-rated Category, and he

was working as the General Manager to the Open Cast

Project. His services were utilized for the cleaning, dusting

the store room, and subsequently for carrying on tools

from the General Store, bringing the same to the Transit

Store from where the tools and appliances used to be taken

by the Helpers of different fitters and mechanics for

carrying on repair and maintenance jobs. He was

regularized as helper in excavation cadre as he was attached

to excavation section in the Transit Store, and was fixed in

Excavation Category E w.e.f. 28.9.1996.The Storekeeper

and the Store Issue Clerk belong to the Clerical Cadre, so

no scope is for regularization of a time rated worker in any

post of the Clerical Grades as per the circulars of the JBCCI

and those and directions of the company. As per the Cadre

Scheme, all eligible candidates working in an area under

the control of the General Manager may apply for the post

of the clerical cadre in Grade-III in the event of vacancies.

The selection of eligible candidates based on their

qualifications, experience and merits are effected by the

D.P.C. constituted by the General Manager for it in order

to fill up existing vacancies in clerical grade. It has no

short cut procedure for regularization and entry of a time

rated worker into clerical grade in connivance with local

Management or the Controlling Officer of the time rated

workers. The Storekeeper and the Store Issue Clerk perform

their duties of maintaining the record, ledgers, and

accounts etc. and the store Mazdoors take out the materials

from the store and hand over the same to the parties on

the basis of their slips issued. The workman concerned

was performing the duties of Store Mazdoor and he was

designated as helper in Excavation Category- E attached

to Transit Store, working similar to helpers of the Store

Issue Clerk/Storekeeper or Mechanics and Fitters. At

times, he remained the In-charge of the Transit Store

whenever the Storekeeper fell ill or absented for any other

reasons, and he (workman) controlled the transit store

without performing the duties of any Clerk or a store

keeper. The workman was neither selected by the Selection

Committee/DPC nor ever authorized by any Competent

Authority, i.e., G.M. of the Area to work as the Store Issue

Clerk or the Storekeeper. As per the Cadre Scheme and the

Company’s circular, there is no scope for his regularizations

Storekeeper/Store Issue Clerk even if he performed certain

clerical jobs at the instance of the Storekeeper or the Local

Management. So the claim of the workman for his

regularization is liable to be summarily rejected as meritless.

He is not entitled to any relief.

4. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder categorically

denying the allegations of the workman has alleged that

the local management has no right to designate the

workman as the Store Issue Clerk without any authority. If

he did any unauthorized act without due approval, he can

not get any wages for such work. The action of the

Management in refusing to regularize him in clerical grade

was justified.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. In the instant case,WW1 Dhirendra Nayak,WW2

Ram Janam Singh, WW3 Dharamdeo Pd. Singh,the

workman himself for the union, and MW1 Indranil

Banerjee,the Personnel Officer for the O.P./Management

have been respectively examined.

As the statement of workman Dharamdeo Pd.Singh

(WW3) reveals his initial appointment as Excavation

Mazdoor Trainee in August 1989; thereafter on his

deputation in the store to work as Issue Material Clerk, he

as the Store Keeper used to issue materials as well as to

collect the same from the Regional Stores as per the letter

(Ext.W.1) issued by the Managment. He is alleged to have

been continuously working from Jan 1990 upto the relevant

4574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

date according against the regular post of the Store

Material Issue Clerk. He had submitted his representation

(Ext.W.2) to the Management for his regularization initially

taken by Janta Karamchari Sangh,but after its mergence

with the present Union, the Industrial dispute was raised

on his behalf. But the Indisputable fact is that his name is

enrolled as Mazdoor in the Excavation Sections where he

was regularized in Cat-E in the year 1996 on SLU after

eight years. Materials are used to be distributed to different

places from Transit Store. The workman appears to have

overrelied upon his letter dt.19/20.12.1997 addressed to

him working as Store Keeper KCOCP - which is warning

letter for his lapse in improperly unloading of lubricant

drums resulting in damage to them and wastage of ½ (half)

drum Lubricant on earth, amounting to his gross

misconduct. The fair admission of WW1 Dhirendra

Nayak,the fitter at the Project clearly affirms no scope for

any worker of any category to switch over to any cadre

post directly by local administration as well as the existence

of the General Manager as the Competent Authority at

the Area to issue an order of promotion in favour any

workman. To him, the Excavation Helper comes in

Excavation Grade- E. Sri Ram Janam Singh (WW2) has not

even seen any letter of appointment to the workman for

working as the Store Keeper. The nature and discharge of

the duty of the workman as Mazdoor in the Transit Store

of the Project has been flatly denied by the workman and

his colleague concerned.

6. But on the other hand, the unrebutted statement

of MW1 Indranil Banerjee, the Personnel Officer of the

O.P./Management positively but explicitly establishes the

virtual status of the workman as General Mazdoor/Helper

working in the Transit Stores wherefrom implements are

issued to Mechanics etc. for taking up work, and those

equipments after completion of work are preserved in the

said Transit Stores after receiving the same from the

respective workers; cleaning of the equipments for better

use is the duty of the workman concerned; he was given

the Excavation Cat-E wages in the year 1996;he is a time

Rated worker, but he never worked as Monthly Rated

Worker; no provision exists for switching over of a Time

rated Worker (TRW) to the post of the Monthly Rated

Worker (MRW). He never worked as the Store Keeper. A

workman for promotion to the post of the Storekeeper has

to pass through the D.P.C., which considers the

qualifications, experience and merits of a workman for

recommendation of the promotion. The affirmation of the

Management witness is that in case of emergency when

the Store Keeper is not available, the Store Helper may be

allowed to release materials from the store by putting his

signature on the slips for its noting in the Store Register.

7. Having gone through the materials available on

the case record, I find the case of the workman has not

merits at all, as he never performed the job of Store Keeper

for last three/four years. Hence, it is hereby in the terms of

the reference, awarded that the action of the Management

of NLOCP/CV Area of BCCL in not regularization Sri

Dharmdeo Prasad Singh the General Mazdoor as Store

Keeper is quite justified, as he has never worked as the

Store Issue Clerk for last three/four years. Therefore, the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1734-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

28@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@447@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O.

1734.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 28/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/447/1997-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 28 OF 1999

PARTIES :

The Area Secretary,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Mahuda

Washery, Mahuda, Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager, Mahuda Area No. II of

M/s. BCCL, Mahuda, Dhanbad.

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/447/97-IR(C-1) dt.

08.01.1999.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4575

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/

Mr.Surender

Union

Prasad,The

Union

Representative

On behalf of the

Mr. U. K. Dubey,

Management

as Personnel

Manager,

Management

Representative

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

AWARD

Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd April, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under

Sec. 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/447/97-IR(C-I) dt. 08.0 l.l 999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

BCCL in dismissing Sh. Shobhan Modi from the

services is justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to ?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/447/97-IR(C-I)

dt. 08.01.l999 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 28 of 1999 was registered on 21st January, 1999

and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to

issue notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

Representatives appeared in, and contested the case.

2. The case of sponsoring R.C.M.S. for workman

Shobhan Modi is that he was unblemishedly a permanent

loader of Bhatdee Colliey of M/s. BCCL.The workman was

issued the charge- sheet dt. 28.6.1991 for the charge of

fraud and dishonesty to impersonate Shobhan Modi

whose name recorded in the Form B Register which was

punishable under clause 26.1.11 of the Certified Standing

Orders of BCCL, suspending him also pending the enquiry.

The workman also submitted his reply/letter dt. 6.7.1991.

He was not paid any subsistence allowance, pending his

suspension despite his requests as also made by the Union.

The Management appointed the Enquiry Officer with

inordinate delay for conducting enquiry, and the workman

was intimated of it further delayedly. He attended the

enquiry before the enquiry Officer on several dates, but it

was all along postponed due to the absence of the

Management Representative, and the Enquiry Officer did

not complete the enquiry ex-parte, disregarding the

requests of the workman and his co-worker, the Area

Secretary of the recognized Union. But the Enquiry Officer

conducted and completed the enquiry ex-parte on 17.2.1994

in absence of the workman irrespective of its intimation to

him after 2 years and 8 months. It stands evident that the

enquiry was held biasedly and against the principle of

natural justice. After further delay of about 7 months, the

workman was dismissed from service as per the letter

No.1855 dt. 22.9.1994. It is also alleged that during

pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, the workman

was malafide issued the notice of superannuation dt. 30/

31.3.1994, intimating him of his superannuation on and

from 30.09.94, as well as instructing him to apply in Form-

I for payment of gratuity to him on the date of his retirement.

It was issued motivatedly so as to effect his dismissal

since 22.9.1994. He was also dismissed on perverse finding

of the enquiry report, without furnishing him with the

copies of enquiry proceeding, enquiry report or any second

show cause. So the action of the Management of M/s.

BCCL in dismissing the workman Shobhan Modi was illegal

and unjustified, as such his dismissal is liable to be set

aside with relief of reinstatement with all back wages and

other benefits.

3. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the Union/

workman, the allegation of the OP/Management have been

specifically denied, and it has been alleged the dismissal

of the workman after several years of his unblemished

service. Besides, he was not issued any copy of the enquiry

report so as to submit his Second Show Cause. The

dismissal of the workman is fit to be set aside.

4. Whereas the counter case of the O.P./Management

with categorical denials is that the reference being vague

is legally unsustainable. One person in the name of

Shobhan Modi was working as a Loader in the Bhatdee

Colliery. The person was charge-sheeted as per the

chargesheet dt.28.6.1991 for impersonation under the

Certified Standing Order of the BCCL. He submitted his

reply to it. Finding his reply unsatisfactory, the Enquiry

Officer was appointed to hold a departmental enquiry into

the charges levelled against-Sri Sobhan Modi. On notice

of enquiry, the chargesheeted employee attended the

enquiry along with his co-worker, fully participating in the

enquiry proceeding, in which he also examined his

witnesses for his defence, but on 17.2.1994, the last day of

the enquiry, he attended the office of the Enquiry Officer,

but he left the enquiry without any reason; the enquiry

was held in his absence. It was held in accordance with

the principle of natural justice.

4576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Consequently, the Enquiry Officer submitted his

enquiry report/finding, holding the person guilty of the

charges levelled against him as in the chargesheet.The

Disciplinary authority thoroughly examined the findings,

enquiry proceedings and other documents of the enquiry

in details, applied his mind in it, and dismissed the person

from service from 22.9.94 in view of the gravity for his

misconduct.

5. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder categorically

denied the allegations of the Union/workman as baseless

and exaggerated, and stated that the person concerned in

the instant dispute is not Shobhan Modi, rather an

imposter. The chargesheeted employee deliberately

evaded the enquiry on 17.2.1994.The dismissal of Shobhan

Modi as an imposter was justified, so he is not entitled to

any relief. The O.P./Management also sought the

permission for substantiating the charges of his

misconduct levelled against Sri Shobhan Modi, in case

the enquiry held unfair.

FINDING WITH REASONS

6. On the examinations of the Sri Sovan Modi,the

workman as WW1 at the preliminary issue following the

failure of the O.P./Management to examine any witness on

its behalf at the point on two consecutive dates, the

Tribunal as per its Order No.19 dt. 8.6.2006 held the

domestic enquiry unfair and improper. So the case came

up for the evidence of the O.P./Management and the

workman both on merits. The record of the case reveals

the examinations of MW1 Bhutnath Manjhi, the Clerk and

MW2 Rohan Modi,the Soil Cutter, on behalf of the O.P./

Management and WWI Shovan Modi,WW2 Gorakh Nath

Harijan, Retd. BCCL Munshi and WW3 Mohant Singh,

Retd. Night Guard of Bhatdee Colliery for the Union/

workman respectively on merits.

Mr. Surendra Prasad, the Union Representative for

the workman has vociferously advanced his long

argument oral and written as well that no proper justice

was meted out to the workman, as he had to reply to the

charge-sheet within 48 hours instead of seven days under

clause 27.1. and 27.2 for any minor or major punishments

under clauses 29.1. of the Certified Standing Orders of the

M/s. BCCL respectively. There was inordinate delay in

the enquiry which was held ex-parte. No response by the

Appellate Authority to the appeal of the workman (Ext.

W/1) amounted to violation. Neither police verification

held nor the document of erstwhile workman’s appointment

submitted by the Management. MW1 Bhutnath Manjhi

appears to be no eye witness. The plain Death Certificate

of Sohban Modi dt.13.3.1990 issued by Mukhiya (Ext.M.3)

is not on the proper form, so it is not admissible. According

to MW2 Rohan Modi’s son of Late Shobhan Modi, his

uncle complainant Hari Modi got totally blind by both

eyes, and also died 15 years ago ( in 1996), and the person

working in place of his father also expired, but his evidence

is not trustworthy. The Union Representative emphatically

further submitted that the Stamp Paper duly witnessed by

WW2 Gorakh Nath Harizon testified the person named

Sobhan Modi working was the real Sobhan Modi, in this

case, no factual witness of the Management has been

examined, therefore person Sobhan is entitled to monetary

benefits of his suspension, and of his retrial ones, as his

dismissal was improper and illegal. The Union

Representative has referred the following four rulings, and

accordingly submitted that inordinate delay vitiates

disciplinary enquiry as held in 2005 Lab IC 4332 (SC),

P.V.Maghadevan V.M.D,.Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The

ruling relates to initiation of inordinate delay and

unexplained delay of ten years in issuance of charge Memo,

but the instant case has no such long delay in it. The

Union Representative has stressed that the termination

of service after nine years of continuous officiation,

alleging breach of provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the

Constitution should not be, though post was not

advertised but the appointment was made and

subsequently approved by competent authorities; it is

well settled by judicial pronouncements that if an employee

continuous on a post for several years, as a demand of

equity, his services should not be terminated-termination

quashed as held by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of

Abhay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Bihar reported in

2000(2)PUR 626. But the instant case of the workman

relates to the charge of impersonation of real workman

Shobhan Modi, the alleged workman has admittedly

neither pleading nor any proof of his appointment nor the

time or period of his continuous service in the Colliery. So

the authority appears to be wide off the mark. Likewise the

plea of Mr.Surendra Kumar is that the Hon’ble High Court,

Jharkhand, in the case of A.N. Mishra Vs. Hindustan Steel

Works Construction Ltd,reportd in 2004 (2) JUR (SB)623

is of the view that the Enquiry Officer had not conducted

the enquiry properly and proceeded so hastily in three

sittings in one day which itself shows the Enquiry Officer

bent upon to conclude the enquiry even ex-parte without

following the procedure of law and without giving full

opportunity to the petitioner. Since the enquiry proceeding

and the enquiry report are vitiated in law, the

consequential order of punishment itself is liable to be

quashed; moreover the order of punishment is totally dis-

proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner

(Para 7 & 8), and that the order of dismissal passed by

Management declared illegal, so workman is entitled to

salary for period from date of dismissal till date of Award

as held in the case of Deshraj Gupta Vs. Industrial Tribunal

1990 LAB .I.C.1892.

7. Whereas Mr.Uttam Kr.Dutta, the Representative

for the Management has contended that consequent upon

the enquiry having been declared unfair, the Learned

Tribunal has to consider the materials of both the parties

on merits, i.e, the statements of alleged Sobhan Modi

(WW1) and his witnesses (WW2 & 3), out of whom none

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4577

of them could establish the identity of Hari Modi as the

brother of the real workman. The workman as Sovan Modi

as per Ext.M.2/4 (on merits) is not the real workman Sobhan

Modi, the Loader of Bhatdih Colliery who died in the very

year 1982 (Ext. M.3 on merit) but in his place, alleged

workman was impersonatingly accordingly working there

as evident from the documents with black-white photos

of real Sobhan Modi and his younger brother Hari Modi

of Village: Palara P.O.Tara,Distt.Hazaribagh, now Giridih

(Ext.M.2).Highly strange is that the unpleaded

development of a new story by the workman that as he did

not pay money to his younger brother (Hari Mahato),so

the latter complained against him before the Management

or any alleged amicable settlement between the workman

and his wife Bachani Devi, son Rohan Modi and brother

Hari Modi over the stamp paper as witnessed by Gorakh

Nath Harijan (WW2). As per Ext.W.12 - appears to be quite

a myth so inadmissible. So consequent upon the proof of

the charges levelled against the workman for misconduct

of fraud and dishonesty under clause 26.1.11. of the

Certified Standing Order of the BCCL, as he was not

Sobhan Modi as named in the Form- B Register of the

Colliery, so he was dismissed from service which is quite

proportionate to the grave nature of his misconduct. Any

of the aforesaid rulings of the Union Representative is not

applicable to the case. So the workman is not entitled to

any relief in the case of impersonation.

On the perusal and consideration of the afresh

materials available ori the case record, I find the facts as

under :

(i)

The real workman was Sobhan Modi, the Loader

at Bhatdih Colliery, belonged to village Palara,

PO.Tara, Distt : Hazaribagh now Distt : Giridih,

who died on 01.09.1982 at his village, leaving his

son Rohan Modi (MW2). Hari Modi, the own

brother of the said real workman, was also a loader

at the same Colliery, but he has died now and

(ii)

The complain of Hari Modi (Ext. M.1 on merit)

against the alleged instant workman of Azamgarh

(U.P.) working as Loader at the same Colliery

impersonating aforesaid real workman Sobhan

Modi initiated the enquiry into it. After due

departmental enquiry, the instant workman found

guilty of the charge of impersonating the real

workman Sobhan Modi. So in view of the grave

misconduct, the dismissal of the instant workman

by the same name appears to be quite legal and

justified. It is quite proportionate to the grave

nature of the misconduct as usually prevalent in

the Colliery in collusion of a few Ministerial staff

of the Management.

In result, it is awarded that the action of the

Management of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sh. Shobhan

Modi (Instant alleged workman) from the services is quite

justified.Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1735-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 304 dk 1999) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@344@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O.

1735.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 304/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. CCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/344/1999-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 304 OF 1999

PARTIES :

Sri Dinesh Ray,

Perez Bungalow, Urimari Project, P.O.Banji

(Ghatotand),

Dist: Hazaribagh

Vs.

The Agent/Project Officer, Urimari Project of M/s

CCL.PO: Sayal, Distt: Hazaribagh,

Order No. L-200 12/344/99 (C-I) dt. 24.11.99.

4578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/ : Mr. D. Mukherjee

Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the

: Mr. D. K. Verma

Management

Ld. Advocate

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

AWARD

Dated, Dhanbad, the 15th April, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No.L-20012/344/99(C-I) dt. 24.11.99.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Urimari

Project of M/s CCL in dismissing Sri Dinesh Ray

from the services of the Corn pany w.e.f. 28.1.1999 is

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

is entitled.”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/344/99(C-I)

dt. 24.11.99. of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 304 of 1999 was registered on 8th December,

1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to

issue notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

workman and the O.P./Management through their Lawyers

appeared in, and contested the case.

2. The case of workman Dinesh Ray as stated in his

written statement is that he had been continuously but

satisfactorily working as a permanent employee since his

appointment as per his appointment letter dt.13.10.1995.

But being biased with him for his active participation in

ventilating the grievance of the workman the Management

illegally and unauthorizedly issued him the false and

frivolous chargesheet dt. 3l.10.1997 on the allegation of

his securing alleged employment by furnishing wrong

information. The allegations as per the charge sheet did

not constitute any misconduct under the provisions of

the Certified Standing Order of the Company. The

appointments of persons just that of the workman are

effected after due verification of the relevant documents

to the satisfaction of the Management.The petitioner was

appointed on his merits, and had produced his dcoumnts,

but he never supplied any wrong information to the

Management. Though he has submitted his satisfactory

explanation, the departmental enquiry was biasedly set

up which was illegally conducted and contrary to the

principle of natural justice, and therein no charges as

levelled were proved against him. The findings of the

Enquiry Officer were perverse, being biased on the

evidence of the record. Even then, the workman was

dismissed by an unauthorized person. He had also

represented before the Management against the illegal

and arbitrary dismissal, but not any effect. At last at raising

the Industrial Dispute before the A.L.C. (C), Ranchi, but

its failure in conciliation resulted in the reference for

adjudication. The action of the Management in dismissing

the workman from service w.e.f. 28.l.1991 was illegal,

unjustified, anti-labour policy and disproportionate to

the alleged offence.

3. The workman in his rejoinder has specifically

denied all the allegations of the O.P./Management as false,

frivolous and motivated and stated that he was not given

full opportunity in the departmental enquiry, nor copies

of any proceeding of the documents the Management had

relied upon were supplied to him, despite his protest for

the change of the Enquiry Officer.

4. On the other hand, the contra pleaded case of

O.P./Management with categorical denials is that workman

Dinesh Ray S/o Sri Ramvish Ray fraudulently secured his

employment into the services of the Company as Trainee

in Category-I as per the letter dt.13.10.1995 under the Land

Looser Scheme of Piparwar Area, by declaring himself as

the grandson of Sahdeo Kurmi, the owner of the Lands

under the plot Nos. 394, 396, 419, 426, 433, 459, 479, 480,

481 and 485 of the Khata No.42 at village Karo,P.S.

Keredari,District : Hazaribagh,which was acquired by the

Company for mining. In course of the enquiry by the

Vigilance Department, it surfaced one person named Soharai

Kurmi, son of Sahdeo Kurmi, the owner of the aforesaid

lands, had already got his employment for the lands under

the Land Looser Scheme. The workman was not in any

way related to the owner of the land. So he was issued the

chargesheet dt. 31.10.1997 for his fraudulent employment,

calling for an explanation from him for the commission of

his said misconduct. He submitted his reply dt.3.4.1998,

denying the allegations levelled against him. The

Competent Authority as per the letter dt. 31.7.1998

appointed Sri A.S. Prasad, the Chief Engineer, as the

Enquiry Officer, and Sri V.K.Tripathi as the Presenting

Officer in respect of the departmental enquiry into the

charges against the workman. On the notices of the

enquiry, the workman as well as others appeared with his

co-worker and regularly fully participated in the enquiry,

availing full opportunity to cross examine the Management

witnesses, to give his own statement, and to produce his

own defence witness, if any. Seeking adjournment for the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4579

examination of his defence witness on the subsequently,

he took adjournment for it, but he neither appeared nor

produced any defence witness. Despite enough

opportunity in that regard, he deliberately evaded his

appearance, as he had neither documentary evidence nor

oral one in support of his case or declaration made by him

for getting his employment. Finally after giving him several

opportunity, the Enquiry Officer closed the Enquiry and

submitted his enquiry report dt. 5.1.1999, holding the

workman guilty for the misconduct as charged against

him.

On the overall consideration of all aspects of the

case, and following due proper procedure, the Disciplinary

Authority dismissed the workman from the services w.e.f.

29.01.1999 as per the order dt.28.1.1999.Thus, the action

of the Management in dismissing the workman from his

service was legal and justified, so he is not entitled to any

relief.

5. The O.P./Management in their rejoinder has

categorically denied the allegations of the workman, and

stated that joining his duty as per the terms and conditions

contained in is appointment letter and his continuance of

working as trainee on different jobs are the admissions of

the workman. Besides,the appointments are issued subject

to verification of all the particulars, and the verification

process takes long time in view of non-cooperation from

the police and other authorities concerned. In spite of all

the things, some people still managed to get employment

through malpractices until discovered by the vigilance

enquiry. The Management urged for decision at the

fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry as a

preliminary issue, and in case of finding it unfair, for an

opportunity to prove the charges by adducing afresh

evidence.

FINDING WITH REASONS

6. In the instant Reference case, after hearing both

the parties at the preliminary point, the Tribunal as per the

Order No. 34 dt. 21.9.2011 hold the domestic enquiry quite

fair, proper and conducive to the principle of natural justice.

Consequnetly, the case directly came up for hearing

the final argument at the point of merits. The argument

advanced by Mr. D.Mukherjee, Ld.Counsel for workman

is that in the instant case, the Management has failed to

produce any documents to show any representation of

the workman in writing claiming for his employment under

Land Loser Scheme on his declaration as grandson of

Sahadeo Kurmi or to show that there was an alleged Land

Looser Scheme to giving employment to nominee of the

Land Owner or the appointment of the concerned workman

was in the progress in the H.Qr. against acquisition of

Land; the enquiry was conducted without giving

opportunity to the workman for his defence as admitted

by the Enquiry Officer, so the dismissal of concerned

workman was illegal and void abinitio. It has been observed

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of

India and others Vs.D.C.Agarwal & Others reported in

SCLJ (3) at page 485 that while imposing major or minor

punishment, the Disciplinary Authority can not act on the

materials which was neither shown nor supplied to

delinquent. Another ruling AIR 1989 (SC) at page 49,

Scooter India Ltd,Lucknow Vs. Labour Court relied upon

by Mr. Mukherjee relates to the dismissal of Sri Dasrath

Gope from service on the same allegation. The CGIT (No.1),

Dhanbad in its reference has passed an award for favour

of the workman for reinstament with 50% back wages .In

order to justify the case of the workman, a Certified Copy

of the Award dt 3rd Nov., 2011 passed in Ref.No.279/2000

by the CGIT (No.1), Dhanbad in respect of aforesaid

Dasrath Gope has been filed for perusal.

In challenge to it the contention of Mr.D.K.Verma,

Ld.Advocate for O.P./Management is that on the proof of

the misconduct of the instant workman for fraudulently

getting employment under the Land Looser Scheme as

per the chargesheet, consequent upon his appointment

letter dt.13.10.1995 (Ext.M. 4/8) the workman was rightly

dismissed from the service, because of the fact that Shri

Sohrai Kurmi S/o Sahadev Kurmi .the owner of the same

plot of land under same Khata concerned was offered

employment under the Land Looser Scheme as per his

appointment letter (Ext.M. 4/10); under such circumstances,

the dismissal of workman for the misconduct or fraudulent

employment was quite proper and justified.

On meticulous study of the case record and having

considered all the materials available on the case record, I

find that the workman Dinesh Ray S/o Shri Ram Yash Rai

as per his appointment letter appears to have fraudulently

secured his employment as the grandson of the Land

Owner Sahadev Kurmi of the same land under Khata Nos

42, Plot Nos.394, 396, 419, 426, 433, 450, 479, 480, 481 and

450 at Village Karo P.S. & Circle Keredari, Distt; Hazaribagh

Soharai Kurmi S/o of the aforesaid Land Owner was offered

employment as P.R. by the Management under the Land

Looser Scheme. It prima facie appears to be out and out a

fraudulent employment of the workman in place of Soharai

Kurmi S/o Sahadev Kurmi, the Land Owner, who was not

in any way appears to be related to the workman .In the

instant case, as it stands before me, all the materials the

acquisition of Sahadev Kurmi’s said Lands under the said

Scheme and the alleged appointment of the workman as

his grandson as contrasted with that of Soharai Kurmi,

real son of the Land owner available on the case record

are proved facts. Under these circumstances, none of both

the rulings applies to it.Rather,it is the settled law as held

in the case of Prasad Film Laboratoies,Rep. by it Director

Vs. the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Madras

(2002) 100 FJR 728 that punishment of an employee guilty

of fraud etc will be proper. I am also of the view that the

dismissal punishment to the workman for fraudulently

4580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

securing employment is quite appropriate and

proportionate to the grave nature of his aforesaid

fraudulent employment the workman has got.

Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances, it

is be hereby responded in the terms of the reference, and

accordingly awarded that the action of the Management

of Urimari Project of the M/s. CCL in dismissing Sri Dinesh

Ray from the services of the Company w.e.f. 28.01.1999 is

quite justified & legal. Hence the workman is not entitled

to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1736-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

314@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@174@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O.

1736.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 314/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/174/1999-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 314 OF 1999

PARTIES :

The Area Secretary,

United Coal Workers Union, E.J.Area, Bhowra,

PO : Bhowra, Dhanbad,

Vs.

The Project Officer, Bararee Colliery of M/s. BCCL,

PO: Bhulan Bararee, Dhanbad.

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/174/99-IR(C-I) dt.

19.11.1999.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/ : Mr. S.C. Gaur

Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the

: Mr. D. K. Verma,

Management

Ld. Advocate

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

Dhanbad, Dated the 30th April, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.

10(1)(d) of the LD. Act., 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/174/99-IR(C-I) dt.19.11.1999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

BCCL, Bararee Colliery in denying employment to

the dependant son of Sh.Jagdish Bhuia who died

on 26.6.1996 on the grounds that he had been

dismissed w.e.f. 16.6.1995 after ex-parte enquiry

during the period of his illness and treatment in

Central Hospital is just, proper, and legal? If not, to

what relief the dependant son of the erst workman is

entitled.”

On receipt of the Order No L-20012/174/99-IR(C-I)

dt. l9.11.l999 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 314 of 1999 was registered on 8th Dec., 1999 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

Advocates appeared in, and contested the case.

2. The case of the sponsoring Union for the

dependent son of deceased workman Jagdish Bhuia is

that the workman was employed by the erstwhile owners

on 5.4.1965, recording his age/Date of birth as 10.4.1941.The

Mine was taken over by the Central Government, and was

subsequently nationalized on 1.5.1972.He was designated

as Miner Loader, and accordingly contributed to the

progress and prosperity of the Mine and Company. But

due to exposure of coal dust, he got allied disease

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4581

including Branco Asthma, for which he remained under

treatment of Branco Asthma in Jealgora Hospital of the

Company as an Indoor patient from April 26 to 30 ,May 11

to 17 and June 24 to July,5,1995,and then at Central

Hospital,Dhanbad,where he was lastly referred on

27.09.1995.After returning from the Central Hospital, he

was again under treatment at Jealgora Central Hospital of

the company as an Indoor Patient from 20.02.1996 to

23.3.1996,but again during his treatment at Central Hospital,

Dhanbad following his admission to the Central Hospital

Dhanbad on 17.6.1996 he expired on 26.6.1996 at 10.50

p,m.His dependent son Sanjay Bhuia applied with full

particulars and papers to the Management for his

employment on 4.12.1997 under the provisions 9.3.2. of

the NCWA-V, for which the claimant reminded the

Management from time to time, waiting for a long time, but

to no avail.Finally, he the petitioner raised the Industrial

Dispute

through

the

U.C.W.U.

before

the

A.L.C.(C),Dhanbad III on 24.03.1998,but the failure of it in

conciliation due to adamament attitude of the Management

resulted in the reference to the Tribunal for an adjudication.

For the first time, the claimant learnt of the alleged dismissal

of the workman after ex-parte enquiry as per the comment

dt.10.9.1998 of the Management filed before the A.L.C.The

Management failed to produce any paper of the alleged

ex-parte enquiry and order of the ex-workman’s dismissal

communicated to and received by him (the

workman).Whereas the illness of the workman was well

within the knowledge of the Management which had

shifted him from one hospital to another for better

treatment. The entire facts of the Management’s statement

about alleged chargesheet, enquiry proceeding and action

etc. are quite false with a motive to deny the employment

of the petitioner. The action of the Management denying

employment to the petitioner is illegal and unjustified.

3. The Union in its rejoinder for the petitioner

specifically denied all the allegations of the Management,

stating the maintainability of the reference in law and facts

as also in the terms of Sec.2K of the I.D.Act., as the legal

heir of the deceased workman following the latter’s death

has right to raise the dispute. The workman was dead at

the time of his alleged dismissal from service which was to

the knowledge of the Employers. The dismissal order was

manufactured, following the raising of the Industrial

dispute.

4. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the

reference, the contra case of the O.P./Management with

categorical denials is that no NCWA provides for an

employment to the dependant of a dismissed employee.

The concerned workman Jagdish Bhuia had started to

unauthorizedly absent from his duty w.e.f. 12.11.1992

without any prior permssion of the Management. The

above act of his absence was a misconduct of the workman,

so he was issued the charge sheet dt.5.10.1993 for it. The

workman did not submit any reply to it.Consequnt upon

the appointment of the Enquiry Officer by the Management

for domestic enquiry into the chrgesheet, the Enquiry

Officer issued notice of enquiry even by Registered post

to the workman, fixing the date of enquiry, but the workman

neither appeared in nor represented his any inability to

attend the enquiry as on repeated dates and notices to the

workman, even on the notice of enquiry having been

published in a daily News Paper. Finally the Enquiry Officer

fairly and legally conducted Ex-parte enquiry as per the

principle of natural justice, and submitted his report,

holding therein the workman guilty of the charges.

Thereafter the workman was dismissed by the

Management w.e.f. 16.6.1995 which is legal and justified.

The Management sought the permission for

substantiating the charges against the workman as a

preliminary issue, in case the enquiry found unfair and

improper. The Union’s claim for employment of the

dependent son, though unnamed by it is on ground of the

workman’s dismissal on 16.6.1995,but he died on

26.6.1996.The Union has no locus standi to raise the

Industrial Dispute on behalf of a dead person. The instant

dispute is not in the terms of Sec.2K of the I.D.Act, 1947.

The reference is vague.

5. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has

categorically denied the allegations of the Union/the

petitioner, and stated that the workman or his family

members never informed the Management of his illness.

FINDING WITH REASONS

6. In the instant reference, the proceeding as

evidently headed to the point of domestic enquiry as

preliminary issue about fairness in course of which MWI

Lalan Pandey for the O.P./Management was examined as

the Enquiry Officer, as he had held the enquiry ex-parte

against workman Jagdish Bhuia for his misconduct of

unauthorized absentism,now aforesaid Management

witness is reported as dead by Mr. D.K.Verma, Learned

Counsel for the Management on 18.10.2011 as noted in

the Order Sheet under Order No. 32. Thereafter WWI

Sanjay Bhuia,as the dependent son of the workman, was

examined on behalf of the Union concerned in the terms of

the reference about the denial of his employment by the

Management on the ground of his father having been

earlier dismissed

7. Mr.S.C.Gaur,Learned Counsel for the Union

concerned/the petitioner has to submit that the deceased

employee Jagdish Bhuia was a M/Loader at Bararee

Colliery, but he had been under long treatment since 1992

at Jealgora Central Hospital of M/s. BCCL as per his

Medical Treatment documents {Ext.W.2 series) and had

died in the year 1996 {Ext.W1}; after the death of his father,

the petitioner Sanjay Bhuiya {WWI} applied for his

employment in place of his father, but the Management as

4582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

per the original letter No.433 dt.11.2.1998 (Ext.W.3) denied

his employment on the ground that the workman was

dismissed by the Management from his service in the year

1995.Further argued by Mr. Gaur is that the dismissal matter

of his father based on ex-parte enquiry for the first time

came to the knowledge of the petitioner in course of the

conciliation proceeding before the A.L.C.(C), Dhanbad,

as such the action of the Management in denying

employment to the dependent son of the deceased

workman on that ground is unjustified and illegal. The

plea of Mr. Gaur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that

absence from duty without unauthorized absence, but it

does not always mean the wiflul, as there may be different

eventualities including compelling circumstances like

illness beyond his control due to which an employee may

abstain from duty so the Disciplinary Authority is required

to prove that absence is wilful.ln absence of such findings,

absence will not amount to misconduct as held in the case

of Pandav Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (2)

JLJR 129 (SB) But the instant reference does not relate to

any matter of an application/representation for extension

of leave, rather it relates to the absence of the deceased

workman without any application or permission from the

employer. It has also been pleaded by Mr.Gaur for the

petitioner that “termination of service without giving any

notice and holding enquiry and without reason assigned

for it, the order is a gross violative of principle of natural

justice, when there is an arbitrariness in termination of

service of an employee, there is always violation of right

of equity ‘non-supply of copy of Enquiry Report nor notice

before holding enquiry, so called Enquiry Report has got

no relevancy for termination of services; as such the

impugned order was held as violative of article 14 of the

Constitution so it was quashed in the case of Renu Kumari

Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2012 (i) JLJR 133.ln the

instant reference under adjudication, I find that the

admitted long illness and treatment of the deceased

workman as per his Medical treatment documents (Ext·.W2

series),on the perusal of which clearly prove his

intermittent treatment at BCCL Jealgora Central Hospital

during the periods of 1992,1994,1995 and 1996 during which

the workman despite having been discharged several times

from the Hospital could not justify his unauthorized

absence for the relevant period. These very acts of the

deceased workman clearly indicate his wilful absence from

his duty in the relevant years, for that reason the domestic

enquiry though ex-parte was held quite fairly by the MWI

Lalan Pandey,the Personnel Manager of the Colliery as

Enquiry Officer following the publication of the notice of

enquiry in the Daily (Awaaz) dt.17.4.1995 (Ext. M4) at last.

In the light of the aforesaid facts, Mr. D.K. Verma, the

Learned Advocate for the O.P./Management appears to

have rightly argued that the petitioner is not entitled to

employment in place of his father who was dismissed from

service w.e.f. 16.6.95 about one year prior to his death on

12.06.1996; as such none of the rulings appears to hold

good with the instant case.

Having gone though the materials available on the

case record, I am of the considered view that the claim of

the petitioner for his employment in place of his father is

not justified, for the reason that his father as the workman

for his wilful absence from his duty as usually in his past

career earlier dismissed and he had lost his lien on his

service. Hence it is hereby awarded that the action of the

Management of the M/s. BCCL, Bararee Colliery in denying

employment to the dependant son of workman Jagdish

Bhuia who died on 26.6.1996 on the ground of having

been dismissed earlier w.e.f. 6.6.1995 after ex-parte enquiry

during the periods of his illness and treatment at Central

Hospital, Dhanbad is just, proper and legal for the reasons

of his wilful long absence, resulting in lose of his lien on

his service. Hence the present dependant of the Ex-

workman is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1737-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 147@1994) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@399@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2014

S.O.

1737.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 147/

1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of M/s. CCL, and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 04/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/399/1993-IR (C-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4583

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

REFERENCE NO. 147/1994

In the matter of reference under Section 10(1)(d)(2A) of

the I.D.Act, 1947

Employer in relation to the managemet of Rajrappa

Washery M/s. CCL

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT :

Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma,

Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : COAL

Dated : 8th May, 2014

AWARD

By order No. l-20012/399/93 IR (C-I) dated 14.06.1994,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“Whether thc claim of Shri Lakshman Mahto and 60

others ( as per the list enclosed) for their

regularization by the management of Rajrappa

washery CCL is legal and justified ? If so to what

relief is thce workmen concerned entitled and from

what date ?” /

Sl.

Name

Father’s name

Village

P.O

P.S

District

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Sri D.Krishna Rao

Sri D. Narayan Rao

Gunualpuram

Pedda-

Milyaputi

Sirka Collar

Paddumpuram

Mathura Pd. Sharma

Bendho Sharma

Basaria

Chouparan

Hazaribagh

Sri Baidhath Ram

Sri Dani Ram

Karanj

Sisai

Gumla

Sri Birbal Das

Sri Sakhicharan Rabidas

Mael

Chitarpur

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

Sri Raj Kumar Singh

Sri Choto Singh

Chipri

Chatro Chatti

Gomia

Giridih

Sri Surash Sah

Sri Ram Parwesh Sah

Shripur

Aiar

Jagishpur

Bhojpur

Sri Sureash Mahto

Sri Santoki Mahto

Borobing

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

Sri Sibu Mahto

Aklu Mahto

Borobing

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

Sri Bishu Bedia

Sri Kaliya Bedia

Rampur

Fedabeda

Sili

Ranchi

10.

Sri Golak Sah

Sri Mahabir Sah

Nayadih

Sondimra

Gola

Hazaribagh

11.

Sri Rajendra Singh

Sri Janglu Singh

Marangmarcha

Chitarpur

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

12.

Sri Yasin Ahsari

Sri Md. Bashir

Khokha

Toyar

Gola

Hazaribagh

13.

Sri Dhanraj Sah

Sri Balam Sah

Sharipur

Ain

Jgdishpur

Bhojpur

14.

Sri C. N. Ravi

Sri Bigu Rabidas

Potmdaga

Siru

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

I5.

Sri Puran Ram

Sri Haridas Rabidas

Chetar

Rarngarh

Hazaribagh

16.

Sri Chatur Mahto

Sri Rusu Mahto

Chetar

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

17.

Sri Thakurdas Mahto

Sri Ram Briksh Mahto

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

Sri Harakhlal Mahto

Sri Dhanu Mahto

Dhutwa

Lari

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

19.

Sri Nakul Mahto

Sri Jaldhar Mahto

Borobing

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

20.

Sri Md. Saduliah

Sri Alimuddin

Chitarpur

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

4584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 14, 2014/JYAISTHA 24, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21.

Sri Md. Amanullah

Sri Md. Enayatullah

Chitarpur

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

22.

Sri Lakhan Paul

Sri Tirlochan Paul

Hamirpur

Patro Shayar

Bankura (W.B.)

23.

Sri Trithnath Mahto

Sri Laldhari Mahto

Chitarpur

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

24.

Sri Baidhnath Panda

Sri Ganesh Panda

Khokha

Toyar

Gola

Hazaribagh

25.

Sri Md. Hussain

Sri Md. Zear Ali

Bahda

Banda

Gola

Hazaribagh

26.

Sri Lakshman Mahto

Sri Jaldhar Mahto

Borobing

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

27.

Sri Sudhan Keot

Sri Mangra Deot

Bhuchungdih

Rajrappa Project Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

28.

Sri Minhaj

Sri Md. Hasan Mustafa

Chitarpur

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

29.

Sri Sahdeo Ram

Sri Lilu Mahto

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

30.

Sri Biharilal Mahto

Sri Gondey Mahto

Khokha

Toyar

Gola

Hazaribagh

31.

Sri Lakhan Ram Beddia

Sri Charku Bedia

Murpa

Gola

Hazaribagh

32.

Sri Ramesh Prasad

Sri Ghanshyam Pd.

Bcdpur

Islampur

lslampur

Nalanda

33.

Sri Bhuneshwar Dahgi

Sri Lilu Mahto

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

34.

Sri Tarkeshwar

Sri Ganesh Panda

Khokha

Toyar

Gola

Hazaribagh

35.

Sri Rajnath Mahto

Lari Chotki

36.

Sri Karma Dangi

Sri Shikhan Mahto

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

37.

Sri Mohar Lal Mahto

Sri Mahesh Mahto

Dhutuwa

Barki Lari

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

Dhutuwa

38.

Sri Nazir Ali Khan

Mansoorul Hassan Khan

Chitarpur

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

39.

Sri Jai Prakash Singh

Sri Raghunath Singh

Takipur

Maharajganj

Siwan

40.

Ram Agia Singh

Sri Lakshman Singh

Dumarson

Dumarson-

Masrk

Chapra

Bangra

(Saran)

41.

Sri Kanhaya Kumar

Sri Matlu Mahto

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

Mahto

42.

Sri Md. Hussain

Sri Md. Latif

Matwari

Hazaribagh

43.

Sri Md. Salim

Sri Niamat Mian Banda

Banda

Gola

Hazaribagh

44.

Sri Moleshwar Mahto

Sri Sahu Mahto

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

45.

Sri Lakshman Munda

Sri Baburarn Munda

Gola

Hazaribagh

46.

Sri Shafique Khan

Sri Md. Kasim Khan

Rohtas

47.

Sri Abdul Hussain

Sri Md. Abdur Rashid

Betul

Gola

Hazaribagh

48.

Sri Mansoor Ansari

Sri Md. Suleman Ansari

Devatu

Gola

Hazaribagh

49.

Sri Ganesh Roy

Sri Kalgshwar Roy .

Shubhankarpur

Tisiata-Mahthi Tisiatu

Vaishai

Mahthi

50.

Bateshwar Singh

Sri Balram Singh

Chatrar-Mandu

Chatar-Mandu Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

51.

Sri Md. Sayeed Khan

Sri Md. Tahir Khan

Gala

Gola

Hazaribagh

Sri Gurudayal Bedia

Sri Charku Bedia

Mpupa

Banda

Gola

Hazaribagh

53.

Sri Pandu Prajapati

Sri Prayan Prajapati

Marangmarcha

Chitarpur

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

54.

Sri Kaushal Mahto

Sri Sitaram Mahto

Dhutuwa

Lari

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 14] 2014@T;s"B 24] 1936

4585

55.

Sri Kamlesh Singh

Late Balram Singh

Chatra

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

56.

Sri Nageshwar Mahto

Sri Parmeshwar Mahto

Barki Pona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

Cantt.

57.

Gourishankar Mahto

Sri Mahabir Mahto

Gola

Hazaribagh

58.

Devchand Mahto

Sri Chhutau Mahto

Barki Pena

Gola

Hazaribagh

59.

Sri Gopla Mahto

Sri Rohit Mahto

Korambay

Murppa

Gola

Hazaribagh

60.

Sri Anil Prasad

Sri Govind Sam

Gola

Hazaribagh

61.

Sri Azahar Ahmad

Gafar Main

Bharthuma

Kako

Zahanaba

2. After receipt of the reference. both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently

proceed. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute

Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.