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- 25]

ubZ fnYyh, twu 15] 2014—twu 21] 2014] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 25—T;s"B 31] 1936

No. 25]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 15, 2014—JUNE 21, 2014, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 25—JYAISTHA 31, 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)

2360 GI/2014

(4587)

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

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

ubZ fnYYkh] 11 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1738-—dsanzh; 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, mÙkj izns'k jkT; ljdkj] x`g (iqfyl) vuqHkkx&12]

y[kuÅ dh lgefr ls fnukad 3 twu] 2014 dh vf/lwpuk

la- 606@6&12&14&9(4)Mh@14 ds rgr iqfyl LVs'ku mlgSr]

ftyk cnk;aw (mÙkj izns'k) ds v/hu xkao dVjk esa dqekjh ewfrZ vkSj

dqekjh iq"ik ds cykRdkj ,oa gR;k ds laca/ esa iqfyl LVs'ku

mlgSr] ftyk cnk;aw] mÙkj izns'k esa ntZ dsl vijk/ la- 295@2014

ds laca/ esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45)

dh /kjk 376&Mh@302@120&ch ,oa ySafxd vijk/ksa ls ckydksa dk

laj{k.k vf/fu;e] 2012 (2012 dk vf/fu;e la- 32) ds 3@4 ds

varxZr mDr naMuh; vijk/ksa ds laca/ esa vUos"k.k djus ds fy,

fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kfèkdkj

{ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ mÙkj izns'k jkT; ij djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 228@36@2014&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2014

S.O. 1738.—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 Uttar Pradesh, Grih (Police) Anubhag-12,

Lucknow vide Notification No. 606/6-PU-12-14-9(4)D/14

dated 3rd June, 2014 hereby extends the powers and

Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment within the whole State of Uttar Pradesh for

investigation of offences punishable under sections 376-

D/302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of

1860) and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012) relating to Case

Crime No. 295/2014 registered at Police Station Usahait,

District Badaun, Uttar Pradesh pertaining to the rape and

murder of Km. Moorti and Km. Pushpa at Village Katra

under Police Station Usahait, District Badaun (Uttar

Pradesh), in relation to or in connection with the above

mentioned offence.

[F. No. 228/36/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

4588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYYkh] 5 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1739-—cSaddkjh fofu;eu vf/fu;e] 1949 (1949

dk 10) dh /kjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjr

ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh fliQkfj'k ij] ,rn~}kjk] ?kks"k.kk

djrh gS fd mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi/kjk (1) ds

[k.M (x) ds mi[k.M (i) ds mica/ ;wfu;u cSad vkiQ bafM;k

ij ykxw ugha gksaxs] tgka rd mudk laca/ cSad ds vè;{k ,oa izca/

funs'kd Jh v:.k frokjh dks ;wfu;u dschlh vkfLr izca/u daiuh

izk- fy- ds cksMZ esa xSj&dk;Zdkjh vè;{k vkSj ukfefr funs'kd rFkk

,l;wMh thou chek daiuh fy- ds cksMZ esa xSj&dk;Zdkjh funs'kd

rFkk xSj&dk;Zdkjh vè;{k ds :i esa ukfer fd, tkus ls gSA

[iQk- la- 13@39@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2014

S. O. 1739.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949),

the Government of India on the recommendations of the

Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions

of sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section

10 of the said Act shall not apply to Union Bank of India in

so far as it relates to the nomination of Shri Arun Tiwari,

Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank of the Board

of Union KBC Asset Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. as Non-

executive Chairman as Nominee Director and on the Board

of SUD Life Insurance Company Ltd. as Non-executive

Director and Non-executive Chairman.

[F. No. 13/39/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYYkh] 6 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1740-—jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad

vf/fu;e] 1981 (1981 dk 61) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds

[k.M (?k) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

,rn~}kjk] Jherh Lusgyrk JhokLro] vij lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a

foHkkx] foÙk ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh dks rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys

vkns'kksa rd] Jh vjfoUn dqekj ds LFkku ij jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj

xzkeh.k fodkl cSad (ukckMZ) ds funs'kd e.My esa funs'kd ukfer

djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 7@2@2012&chvks&I]

fefgj dqekj] funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2014

S. O. 1740.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of the sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61

of 1981), the Central Government, hereby nominate Smt.

Snehlata Shrivastava, Additional Secretary, Department of

Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as a

Director on the Board of Directors of the National Bank for

Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) with

immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Arvind

Kumar.

[F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]

MIHIR KUMAR, Director

ubZ fnYYkh] 7 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1741-—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad (leuq"kaxh cSad) vf/fu;e]

1959 dh /kjk 25 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (M-) }kjk iznÙk

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

foHkkx] foÙk ea=kky; ds voj lfpo Jh ts- ,l- iQkSxkV dks rRdky

izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd] Jh ,e- ,e- nkSyk ds LFkku ij

LVsV cSad vkWiQ eSlwj ds funs'kd eaMy esa ljdkj }kjk ukfer

funs'kd ds :i esa ukfer djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&I]

euh"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2014

S. O. 1741.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of The State

Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, the Central

Government, hereby nominates, Shri J. S. Phaugat, Under

Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of

Finance, as Government Nominee Director on the Board of

Directors of State Bank of Mysore with immediate effect

and until further orders vice Shri M. M. Dawla.

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

MANISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYYkh] 7 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1742-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr

cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk 3 ds [kaM ([k) }kjk iznÙk

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

,e- nkSyk] voj lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks rRdky izHkko ls

vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd Jh ,l- lh- nkl ds LFkku ij iatkc ,aM

fla/ cSad ds funs'kd e.My esa ljdkj }kjk ukfer funs'kd ds :i

esa ukfer djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&I]

euh"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2014

S. O. 1742.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4589

1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominates Shri M. M. Dawla, Under Secretary,

Department of Financial Services, as Government Nominee

Director on the Board of Directors of Punjab & Sind Bank

iwth immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri S. C.

Das.

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

MANISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYYkh] 23 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1743-—foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk izfrHkwfrdj.k vkSj iquxZBu

rFkk izfrHkwfr fgr dk izorZu vf/fu;e] 2002 dh /kjk 21(1)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj us ;g fu.kZ;

fy;k gS fd Jh fefgj dqekj] funs'kd (fjdojh)] foÙkh; lsok,a

foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj vius dk;ZHkkj ds lkFk&lkFk izfrHkwfrdj.k ls

lacaf/r ysu&nsuksa ds iathdj.k] foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa ds iquxZBu rFkk

laifÙk;ksa ls l`ftr izfrHkwfr fgr ds mís'; ls dsUnzh; jftLVj] dsUnzh;

jftLVªh ds :i esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk fu;fer in/kjh dh fu;qfDr

gksus rd] dsUnzh; jftLVªkj vkSj izca/ funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd

vf/dkjh] dsUnzh; jftLVªh dk vfrfjDr izHkkj laHkkysaxsA

[iQk- la- 56@05@2007&(chvks&II) fjdojh]

jktho 'kekZ] voj lfpo (Mh-vkj-Vh- ,.M fjdojh)

New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014

S.O. 1743.—In exercise of the powers conferred under

Section 21(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002, the Central Government has decided that Sh. Mihir

Kumar, Director (Recovery), Department of Financial

Services, Government of India will hold additional charge

for the post of Central Registrar and Managing Director&

Chief Executive Officer, Central Registry for the purpose of

registration of transactions relating to securitisation,

reconstruction of financial assets and security interest

created over the properties till the time a regular incumbent

is appointed by the Central Government as Central

Registrar, Central Registry.

[F. No. 56/05/2007-(BO-II) Recovery]

RAJIV SHARMA, Under Secy. (DRT & Recovery)

ubZ fnYYkh] 9 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1744-—jk"Vªh; vkokl cSad vf/fu;e] 1987 (1987

dk 53) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (M^-) }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 (vkbZ,iQ)

Jh vkyksd V.Mu] vkbZ,,l dks rRdky izHkko ls rFkk vxys

vkns'kksa rd] Jh vjfoUn dqekj] vkbZ,,l] la;qDr lfpo ds LFkku

ij jk"Vªh; vkokl cSad (,u,pch) ds funs'kd eaMy esa funs'kd

ukfer djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 24@17@2010&vkbZ,iQ&II]

vrh'k ¯lg] funs'kd (vkbZ,iQ&II)

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2014

S. O. 1744.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (e) of sub section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central

Government hereby nominates Shri Alok Tandon, IAS Joint

Secretary (IF), Department of Financial Services, Ministry

of Finance, New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Directors

of National Housing Bank (NHB) with immediate effect

and until further orders vice Shri Arvind Kumar, IAS, Joint

Secretary.

[F. No. 24/17/2010-IF-II]

ATEESH SINGH, Director (IF-II)

ubZ fnYYkh] 10 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1745-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/) Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh

daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk 3 ds [kaM (x) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye (3) esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr;ksa dks mDr lkj.kh ds dkye (2) esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr;ksa

ds LFkku ij dkye (1) esa fofufnZ"V cSadksa esa ljdkj }kjk ukfer funs'kd ds :i esa rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] ukfer

djrh gS%&&

Øe la-

cSad dk uke

fo|eku funs'kdksa ds uke

izLrkfor O;fDr dk uke

cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk

Jh lqn'kZu lsu] eq[; egkizca/d]

Jherh lqjs[kk ejkaMh] eq[; egkizca/d ,oa eq[; lrdZrk

MhchvksMh

vf/dkjh] dsUnzh; lrdZrk d{k] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad]

dsUnzh; dk;kZy;] 16oha eafty] dsUnzh; dk;kZy; fcfYaMx]

'kghn Hkxr flag jksM] iQksVZ] eqEcbZ&400001

4590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vksfj;aVy cSad vkWiQ dkelZ

Jh ,l- x.ks'k] eq[; egkizca/d]

Jh ,l- x.ks'k dqekj] eq[; egkizca/d] Mhthch,] ljdkjh

O;; ,oa ctVh; fu;a=k.k foHkkx

rFkk cSad [kkrk foHkkx] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] pkSFkh eafty]

ckW;dqyk dk;kZy; fcfYaMx] eqEcbZ lsUVªy LVs'ku ds lkeus]

ckW;dqyk] eqEcbZ&400008

dkiksZjs'ku cSad

Jh ;w- ,l- ikyhoky]

Jh v:.k iljhpk] eq[; egkizca/d] lh,lMh] xzkgd lsok

dk;Zikyd funs'kd

foHkkx] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] dsUnzh; dk;kZy;] igyh eafty]

vej fcfYaMx] lj ih- ,e- jksM] eqEcbZ&400001

cSad vkWiQ egkjk"Vª

MkW- ,l- jktxksiky]

Jh th- Jhdqekj] eq[; egkizca/d] Mhthch,] ljdkjh rFkk

eq[; egkizca/d] ,iQ,l;w

cSad [kkrk foHkkx] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] pkSFkh eafty] ckW;dqyk

dk;kZy; fcfYaMx] eqEcbZ lsUVªy LVs'ku ds lkeus] ckW;dqyk]

eqEcbZ&400008

[iQk- la- 6@3@2011&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th June, 2014

S. O. 1745.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of the sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The Nationalized

Banks (Management & Miscellanceous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby nominates the

persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Directors of Nationalized Banks specified in column (1) thereof in place

of the persons specified in column (2) of said Table, with immediate effect and until further orders:—

S. No.

Name of the Bank

Name of the Existing Director

Name of the Persons proposed

Bank of Baroda

Shri Sudarshan Sen, CGM, DBOD

Smt. Surekha Marandi, CGM and Chief Vigilance

Officer, Central Vigilance Cell, Reserve Bank of

India, Central Officer, 16th Floor, CO Bldg. Shahid

Bhagat Singh Rd. Fort, Mumbai-400001.

Oriental Bank of Commerce Shri S. Ganesh, CGM,

Shri S. Ganesh Kumar CGM, DGBA, Department

Department of Expenditure &

of Govt. & Bank Accounts, Reserve Bank of

Budgetary Control

India, 4th Floor, Byculla Office Bldg. Opp. Mumbai

Central Stn. Byculla, Mumbai-400008.

Corporation Bank

Shri U. S. Paliwal,

Shri Arun Pasricha, CGM, CSD, Customer Service

Executive Director

Department, Reserve Bank of India, Central

Office, 1st Floor, Amar Bldg. Sir P. M. Rd.

Mumbai-400001.

Bank of Maharashtra

Dr. S. Rajagopal, CGM, FSU

Shri G. Sreekumar, CGM, DGBA, Department of

Govt. & Bank Accounts, Reserve Bank of India,

4th Floor, Byculla Office Bldg. Opp. Mumbai

Central Stn. Byculla, Mumbai-400008.

[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4591

ubZ fnYYkh] 12 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1746-—fu{ksi chek vkSj izR;; xkjaVh fuxe vf/

fu;e] 1961 (1961 dk 47) dh /kjk 6 dh mi/kjk 2 ds [kaM

(ii) ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 6 dh mi/kjk (1) ds [k.M (?k) }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Jh g"kZ dqekj Hkkuokyk] vè;{k]

ukckMZ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh

vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fu{ksi

chek vkSj izR;; xkjaVh fuxe (MhvkbZlhthlh) ds funs'kd eaMy

esa MkW- izdk'k cD'kh ds LFkku ij funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 6@13@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2014

S. O. 1746.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with clause

(ii) of sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Deposit Insurance

and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961),

the Central Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank

of India, hereby nominates Shri Harsh Kumar Bhanwala,

Chairman, NABARD as a Director on the Board of Directors

of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation

(DICGC) for a period of three years, from the date of

notification of his appointment or until further orders,

whichever is earlier vice Dr. Prakash Bakshi.

[F. No. 6/13/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYYkh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1747-—LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky; ds

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; dks] ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d vf/

dkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k dh 'kkldh; iz;kstu ds fy,

iz;ksx) fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds rgr

mls vf/lwfpr djrh gSA

1- ,p- ,l- lh- lh- (bafM;k) fyfeVsM] bZ&6(,) lsDVj&1]

uks,Mk-

[iQk- la- bZ-&11012@8@2014&jk-Hkk-]

MkW- jkds'k dqekj] la;qDr lfpo (vkjlh,p)

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S. O. 1747.—In pursuance of Sub rule 10 of the official

Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rule 1976,

the Central Government hereby notifies the following Office

of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, whose 80 per cent

staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

1. H.S.C.C. (India) Limited (a Government of India

Enterprise), Corporate Office, E-6(A), Sector-I,

Noida (U.P.).

[No. E-11012/8/2014-(O.L.]

D.R. RAKESH KUMAR, Jt. Secy. (RCH)

fo|qr ea=kky;

ubZ fnYYkh] 22 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1748-—lkoZtfud LFky (vukf/d`r vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh

csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh /kjk&3 }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsanz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk us'kuy FkeZy

ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM (,uVhihlh fyfeVsM)] ,d lkafof/d

izkf/dj.k ds vf/dkjh rFkk Hkkjr ljdkj ds jktif=kr vf/dkjh

ds jSad ds lerqY;] Jh vfHkeU;q th- culksMs] mi egkizca/d

(ekuo lalk/u) dks laink vf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gS rFkk bl

mís'; ds fy,] Hkkjr ljdkj] fo|qr ea=kky; ds fnukad 16 uoacj]

2000 ds dk-vk- 128 dh vf/lwpuk esa vkxs fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u

djrh gS] vFkkZr~%&

2- mDr vf/lwpuk esa] rkfydk esa ^^Øe la[;k 2 rFkk mlls

lacaf/r izfof"V;ksa dks fuEufyf[kr ds :i esa izfrLFkkfir fd;k

tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&

^^3 Jh vfHkeU;q th- culksMs]

us'kuy FkeZy ikoj dkjiksjs'ku

mi egkizca/d (ekuo

fyfeVsM (,uVhihlh fyfeVsM)

lalk/u)] ,uVhihlh

ls lacaf/r vFkok mlds }kjk iês ð

fyfeVsM] jkekxq.Me lqij

ij fy, x, vkSj mlds jkekxq.Me

FkeZy ikoj LVs'ku]

lqij FkeZy ikoj LVs'ku] Mkd?kj

,uVhihlh fyfeVsM]

T;ksfFkuxj] ftyk djheuxj] vkaèkz

T;ksfFkuxj] ftyk %

izns'k ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds

djhe uxj]

varxZr vkus okys lHkh LFky]

vkaèkz izns'k % 505215

DokVZj] laink] laifÙk ,oa vU;

vkoklA**

[iQk- la- 8@6@1992&FkeZy&I Hkkx&16]

th- lkbZ izlkn] la;qDr lfpo

fVIi.kh % eq[; vf/lwpuk fnukad 16 uoacj] 2000 ds dk-vk-

128 ds ekè;e ls Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ

Fkh rFkk fiNyk la'kks/u fnukad 15 tqykbZ] 2010 ds

dk-vk- 1863 ds }kjk fd;k x;k A

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014

S.O. 1748.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government

hereby appoints Shri Abhimanyu G. Bansode, Deputy

4592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

General Manager (Human Resources), Officer of the

National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC

Limited) a statutory authority and equivalent to the rank of

Gazetted Officer of the Government of India, to be the Estate

Officer and for that purpose makes the following further

amendments in the notification of the Government of India,

in the Ministry of Power number S.O. 128, dated 16th

November, 2000, namely:—

2. In the said notification, in the Table, for serial number

2 and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be

substituted, namely:—

"3. Shri Abhimanyu

All land, quarters, estate,

G. Bansode, Deputy

properties and other accom-

General Manager

modation belonging to or

(Human Resources),

taken on lease by National

NTPC Limited,

Thermal Power Corporation

Ramagundam Super

Limited (NTPC Limited) and

Thermal Power Station, under the administrative Con-

NTPC Ltd., Jyothinagar, trol of its Ramagundam :

Distt: Karimnagar,

Super Thermal Power Station,

Andhra Pradesh: 505215 P.O. Jyothinagar, District-

Karimnagar,

Andhra

Pradesh."

[F. No. 8/6/1992-TH.I PT-XVI]

G. SAI PRASAD, Jt. Secy.

Note :

The principal notification was published in the

Gazette of India vide number S.O. 128, dated the

16th November, 2000 and last amended vide

number S.O. 1863, dated the 15th July, 2010.

ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;

(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)

(jktHkk"kk ;wfuV)

ubZ fnYYkh] 16 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1749-—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] ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky; (Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa

lk{kjrk foHkkx) ds varxZr jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku]

uks,Mk ds fuEufyf[kr 19 {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa dks] ,sls dk;kZy;ksa ds

:i esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkjh&o`Un us fgUnh dk

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

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;]

bykgkckn] 19@17] dLrwjck xka/h ekxZ] dpgjh jksM]

bykgkckn&211001-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] csaxyq:]

funs'kd (O;kolkf;d f'k{kk) dk dk;kZy;] r`rh; ry]

ih;wbZ Hkou] 18oka Økl] lsfit jksM eYysóje] csaxyq:]

dukZVd&560012-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] Hkksiky]

ekul Hkou] ';keyk fgYl] Hkksiky] eè; izns'k A

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;]

Hkqous'oj bZ,yVhvkbZ ifjlj] eS=kh fogkj] panz'ks[kj iqj]

Hkqous'oj&751023] vksfM'kk A

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] paMhx<]

okbZ,elh, ifjlj] lsDVj 11 lh] paMhx<&160011-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] nsgjknwu]

69@106] fujatuiqj] vkbZVhvkbZ ds lkeus] nsgjknwu&248001-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;]

fnYyh&1] ,&31] baLVhV;w'kuy ,fj;k] jk"Vªh; jktekxZ 24]

lSDVj&62] uks,Mk] ftyk&xkSre cq¼ uxj] mÙkj izns'k A

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] xka/h

uxj] ,e- ,l- fcfYaMx] Mh Cykd] 7oha eafty] ifFkdkJe

ds ikl] lSDVj&11] xka/h uxj&382011] xqtjkr A

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] xqokgkVh]

vle izdk'ku cksMZ dk Hkou] izFke ry] ekè;fed f'k{kk

cksMZ ds ikl] ckequheSnku] xqokgkVh&781021] vle A

10-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] gSnjkckn]

x`g la&17&26] Jh uxj dkyksuh] jksM uacj&5] fnylq[k

uxj] gSnjkckn] vkaèkzizns'k A

11-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] t;iqj]

Mh&11] 12 :i fogkj dkyksuh] eksgu ekxZ] djkyh xkMZu

ds lkeus] U;w lkaxusj jksM] lksMkyk] t;iqj&302006

jktLFkku A

12-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] dksfPp]

34@2470 lh] nfofr; ry] ekeaxye] iyfjoVVe iksLV]

dksfPp&682025] dsjy A

13-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;]

dksydkrk] 10@1@,p] Mk;eaM gkcZj jksM] dksydkrk&700027

if'pe caxky A

14-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] iVuk]

yfyr Hkou] Hkwfery] csys jksM] iVuk&800001 fcgkj A

15-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] iq.ks]

ekiQZrHkkjrh; f'k{kk laLFkku] 128@2] ts- ih- uk;d jksM]

dksFk:n] iq.ks&411029] egkjk"Vª A

16-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] mi&{ks=kh; dk;kZy;]

fo'kk[kkiVVue] 5oka ry] ch Cykd] oqMk dkWEIysDl]

fljhiqje] fo'kk[kkiVVue&530003 vkaèkzizns'k A

17-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] jk;iqj]

chVhvkbZ] xzkmaM] MkbV dSEil] 'kadj uxj] jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<&492007-

18-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] jkaph]

gkWLVy ifjlj] vej 'kghn Bkdqj fo'oukFk lgnso ftyk

fo|ky;] izFke ry ch ,M dkWyst] jkaph] >kj[kaM A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4593

19-

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo|ky;h f'k{kk laLFkku] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] pSUuS]

jktdh; vkn'kZ mPp ekè;fed fo|ky;] ysMh osfyaxVu

dSEil] fVªiyhdsu] pSUuS] rfeyukMq A

[la- 11011&1@2014&jk-Hkk-,-]

vkj- ih- fllksfn;k] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2014

S. O. 1749.—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 19 Regional Offices of National Institute of

Open Schooling, NOIDA under the Ministry of Human

Resource Development, (Department of School Education

& Literacy) as offices, whose more than 80% members of

the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:

NIOS, Regional Office, Allahabad, 19/17, Kasturba

Gandhi Marg, Court Road, Allahabad-211002.

NIOS, Regional Office, Bengaluru, Office of the

Director (Vocational Education), 3rd Floor, PUE

Bhawan, 18th Cross, Sepiz Road, Malleshwaram,

Bengaluru, Karnataka-560012.

NIOS, Regional Office, Bhopal, Manas Bhawan,

Shyamala Hills, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

NIOS, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar, ELTI Complex,

Maitri Vihar, Chandrashekhar Pur, Bhubaneswar-

751023, Odisha.

NIOS, Regional Office, Chandigarh, YMCA Complex,

Sector 11C, Chandigarh-160011.

NIOS, Regional Office, Dehradun, 69/106,

Niranjanpur, Opposite ITI, Dehradun-248001.

NIOS, Regional Office, Delhi-1, A-31, Institutional

Area, NH-24, Sector-62, NOIDA, Distt. Gautam Budh

Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

NIOS, Regional Office, Gandhi Nagar, M. S. Building,

D Block, 7th Floor, Near Pathikaashram, Sector-11,

Gandhi Nagar-382011, Gujarat.

NIOS, Guwahati, Assam Publication Board Bhawan,

1st Floor, Near Assam Secondary Education Board,

Bamuni Maidan, Guwahati-781021 (Assam).

10.

NIOS, Regional Office, Hyderabad, House No. 17-

26, Shri Nagar Colony, Road No. 5, Dilsukh Nagar,

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

11.

NIOS, Regional Office, Jaipur, D-11, 12 Roop Vihar

Colony, Mohan Marg, Opposite Kairali Garden, New

Sangner Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302006.

12.

NIOS, Regional Office, Kochi, 34/2470 C, 2nd Floor,

Maumangalam, Palarivattam Post, Kochi-682025,

Kerala.

13.

NIOS, Regional Office, 10/1/H, Diamond Harbour

Road, Kolkata-700027 West Bengal.

14.

NIOS, Regional Office, Patna, Lalita Bhawan,

Basement, Bailey Road, Patna-800001 Bihar.

15.

NIOS, Regional Office, Pune, C/o Bhartiya Shiksha

Sansthan, 128/2, J. P. Nayak Road, Kothrud, Pune-

411029 Maharashtra.

16.

NIOS, Regional Office, Sub-regional Office,

Vishakhapattnam, 5th Floor, B Block, VUDA Complex,

Siripuram, Vishakhapattnam-530003, Andhra Pradesh.

17.

NIOS, Regional Office, Raipur, BTI Ground, DIET

Campus, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chattisgarh-492007

18.

NIOS, Regional Office, Ranchi, Hostel Complex, Amar

Shahid Thakur Vishwanath Sahdev Zilla Vidyalaya,

1st Floor, B. Ed. College, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

19.

NIOS, Regional Office, Chennai, Government Model

Senior Secondary Shcool, Lady Vellington Campus,

Triplikane, Chennai, Tamilnadu.

[No. 11011-3/2014-O.L.U.]

R. P. SISODIA, Jt. Secy.

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYYkh] 6 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1750-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

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

vuqlwph

Øe la[;k la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

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

LFkkfir frfFk

vkbZ,l 1476 (Part 1)% 2000

la'kks/u la[;k 2] tuojh 2014

06 twu] 2014

4594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkbZ,l 2911 (Hkkx 3)% 1980

la'kks/u la[;k 4] tuojh 2014

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ,l 3196 (Hkkx 3)% 2012

la'kks/u la[;k 1] fnlacj 2013

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ,l 4625% 1968

la'kks/u la[;k 2] tuojh 2014

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ,l 7730% 1975

la'kks/u la[;k 1] fnlacj 2013

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ,l 9038% 1979

la'kks/u la[;k 1] fnlacj 2013

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ,l 9743% 1990

la'kks/u la[;k 6] fnlacj 2013

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ,l 12650% 2003

la'kks/u la[;k 4] twu 2014

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ,l 15803% 2008

la'kks/u la[;k 2] fnlacj 2013

06 twu] 2014

10-

vkbZ,l 16102 (Hkkx 2)% 2012

la'kks/u la[;k 1] flracj 2013

06 twu] 2014

11-

vkbZ,l 16103 (Hkkx 3)% 2012

la'kks/u la[;k 1] twu 2014

06 twu] 2014

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

fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] pSUuS] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;e~crwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

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

baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gS

[lanHkZ ih;wch@th,u&1 % 4]

dyk ek/oh 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 6th June, 2014

S. O. 1750.—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 age given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:—

SCHEDULE

S. No. No. and year of the Indian Standards

No. and year of the amendment

Date from which the

amendment shall

have effect

IS 1476 (Part 1) : 2000 Performance of household

Amendment No. 2, January 2014

06 June 2014

refrigerating appliance-refrigerators with or without

low temperature compartment part 1 energy consump-

tion and performance

IS 2911 (Part 3) : 1980 Code of practice for design and

Amendment No. 4, January 2014

06 June 2014

construction of pile foundations : Part 3 Under-reamed

piles (First Revision)

IS 3196 (Part 3) : 2012 Welded low carbon steel gas

Amendment No. 1, December 2013

06 June 2014

cylinder exceeding 5 liter water capacity for low

pressure liquefiable gases Part 3 Methods of test

(fifth Revision)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4595

IS 4625 : 1968 'Specification for dehydrated carrots

Amendment No. 2, January 2014

06 June 2014

IS 7730 : 1975 Guide for storage of pears

Amendment No. 1, December 2013

06 June 2014

IS 9038 : 1979 Specification for reconstitutable

Amendment No. 1, December 2013

06 June 2014

protein beverage food

IS 9743 : 1990 Thermal insulation finishing cement-

Amendment No. 1, December 2013

06 June 2014

Specification (First Revision)

IS 12650 : 2003 Textiles-Jute bags for packing 50 kg

Amendment No. 4, June 2014

06 June 2014

foodgrains-Specification (Second Revision)

IS 15803 : 2008 Respiratory protective devices-self

Amendment No. 2, December 2013

06 June 2014

contained closed circuit breathing apparatus

chemical oxygen (KO2) type, self generating, self

rescuers-Specification

10.

IS 16102 (Part 2) : 2012 Self-Ballasted Led Lamps

Amendment No. 1, September 2013

06 June 2014

for General Lighting Services Part 2 Performance

Requirements

11.

IS 16103 (Part 2) : 2012 Led Modules for General

Amendment No. 1, June 2014

06 June 2014

Lighting Part 2 Performance Requirements

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, Kolkata 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-1:4]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director

(Foreign Language and Publications)

lw{e] y?kq vkSj eè;e m|e ea=kky;

ubZ fnYYkh] 13 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1751-—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 lw{e] y?kq vkSj eè;e m|e ea=kky; ds

fu;a=k.kk/hu jk"Vªh; y?kq m|ksx fuxe fyfeVsM (eq[;ky;)] ubZ

fnYyh ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d

deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS%

'kk[kk dk;kZy;] jk"Vªh; y?kq m|ksx fuxe fyfeVsM] 4@7]

lsUVªy ikdZ] MkWDVlZ dkyksuh] flVh lsUVj] nqxkZiqj&713216

(if'pe caxky)A

fMiQkYV eSustesaV fjdojh czkUp] jk"Vªh; y?kq m|ksx fuxe

fyfeVsM] ih&104 [kSjkus] ,evkbZMhlh] VhVhlh bUMfLVª;y

,fj;k] dksij [kSjkus] u;h eqEcbZ&400709 (egkjk"Vª)

[la- bZ&12016@01@2005&fganh]

,l- ,u- f=kikBh] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND

MEDIUM ENTERPRISES

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2014

S. O. 1751.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official languages (Use for official pursposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby noti-

fies the following offices of National Small Industries Cor-

poration Ltd. (Headquarters), New Delhi under the control

of the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises,

whose more than 80% staff has acquired working know-

ledge in Hindi :

Branch Office, National Small Industries Corpora-

tion Ltd., 4/7 Central Park, Doctor's Colony, City Cen-

tre, Durgapur-713216 (West Bengal).

Default Management Recovery Branch, National

Small Industries Corporation Ltd, P-104, Khairane,

MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Kopar Khairane, Navi

Mumbai-400709 (Maharashtra).

[No. E-12016/01/2005-Hindi]

S. N. TRIPATHI, Jt. Secy.

4596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dks;yk ea=kky;

vkns'k

ubZ fnYYkh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1752-—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl)

vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu

tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad

dk-vk- 2748 (v)] rkjh[k 9 flrEcj,] 2013 tks Hkkjr ds

jkti=k] vlk/kj.k] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM (ii) rkjh[k 11

flrEcj] 2013 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] ds izdk'ku ij] mDr

vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe (ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS) vkSj mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds

vf/dkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds

v/hu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh;

ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gS%

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS] fd lsaVªy

dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] jkWaph (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh

dEiuh dgk x;k gS)] ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dk ftUgsa dsUnzh;

ljdkj bls fufeÙk vf/jksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus

ds fy, jtkean gS%

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 11 dh

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

nsrh gS] fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa vkSj ml ij ds lHkh

vf/dkj dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,]

rkjh[k 11 flrEcj] 2013 ls fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± ds

v/hu jgrs gq, ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,saxs] vFkkZr~%&

1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/ksa ds v/hu ;Fkk

vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh

ckcr fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ

djsxhA

2- vf/dj.k dk xBu 'krZ (1) ds v/hu] mDr ljdkjh daiuh

}kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds

iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 14 ds v/hu fd;k

tk,xk rFkk ,sls vf/dj.k vkSj ,sls vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk

djus ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/ esa mixr lHkh O;;]

mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj blh izdkj]

bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds fy,

;k muds laca/ esa lHkh fof/d dk;Zokfg;ksa vihy vkfn dh

tSls ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu

fd, tk,axsA

3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa dh] ,sls

fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/ esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh tks bl izdkj

fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds iwoksZDr vf/dkjksa ds ckjs esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fojQ¼ fdUgha

dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/ esa vko';d gksA

4- ljdkjh daiuh ds ikl dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksgu ds

fcuk] mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ;k mu ij ds iwoksZDr vf/dkjksa dks

fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh_ vkSj

5- ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu djsxh tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds

fof'k"V {ks=kksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/jksfir fd, tk,aA

[iQk- la- 43015@17@2010&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O. 1752.—Whereas, on the publication of the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, number S.O. 2748 (E), dated the 9th September 2013,

published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,

Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 11th September, 2013,

issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal

Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957

(20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the

land and the rights in and over the said land described in

the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter

referred to as the said land) are vested absolutely in the

Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-

section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied

that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi (hereinafter

referred to as the Government Company) is willing to

comply with such terms and conditions as the Central

Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that all rights in and over the

said land so vested, shall, with effect from 11th September

2013, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central

Government shall vest in the Government company, subject

to the following terms and conditions, namely :

the Government Company shall reimburse to the

Central Government all payments made in respect of

compensation, interest, damages, and the like, as

determined under the provisions of the said Act.

Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of

the said Act, for the purpose of determining the

amounts payable to the Central Government by the

said Government Company under condition (1) and

all expenditure incurred in connection with such

Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the

Tribunal shall be borne by the said Government

Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in

respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for

or in connection with the rights, in and over the said

land, so vested, shall also be borne by the

Government Company.

the Government Company shall indemnify the

Central Government its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection

with any proceedings by or against the Central

Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid

rights in and over the said land so vested.

The Central Government shall have no power to

transfer the aforesaid rights in and over the said

lands so vested, to any other person without the

prior approval of the Central Government; and

the Government company shall abide by such

directions and Conditions as may be given or

imposed by the Central Government for particular

areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/17/2010- PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4597

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 9 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1753-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds in gsrq fyad vfèkdkjh

ds :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&U;k;ky;

ua- 2] fnYyh ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh Jh gjcal dqekj lDlSuk dks

fnukad 08-06-2014 ls N% ekg dh vof/ rd vFkok fu;fer

inèkkj.k dh fu;qfDr gksus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls

tks Hkh igys gks rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj lkSairs gSaA

¹la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II (Hkkx)º

,l- ds- ¯lg] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2014

S.O. 1753.—The President is pleased to entrust the

additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the

CGIT-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi to Sh. Harbansh

Kumar Saxena, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Delhi for a period of six months with effect from

08.06.2014 or till the post is filled on regular basis or until

further orders whichever is earlier.

[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II (pt.)]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1754-—jk"Vªifr] Jh izeksn dqekj feJk] dks

05-06-2014 (iwokZÉ) ls dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kèkhdj.k&

lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy] ds ihBklhu vfèkdkjh ds :i esa

21-11-2018 rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

fu;qDr djrs gSaA

¹la- ,&11016@03@2013&lh,y,l&IIº

,l- ds- ¯lg] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th June, 2014

S.O. 1754.—The President is pleased to appoint

Shri Promod Kumar Mishra as Presiding Officer of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol w.e.f. 05.06.2014 (F.N.) for a period upto

21.11.2018 or until further orders, which is earlier.

[No. A-11016/03/2013-CLS-II]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1755-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

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

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] /uckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 297@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gSa] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@53@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 297/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Uranium Corporation of India Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-29011/53/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

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. 297 OF 2001.

PARTIES

The President,

Chemical Workers Union,

Jamshedpur-12

Vs.

Chairman-cum-Managing Director

M/s Uranium Corportion of India Ltd.,

Jaduguda, Singhbhum (W)

Ministry’s Order No. L-.29011/53/2001-IR(M)

dt. 07.01.2001.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: Mr. M. M. Khan, Ld. Advocate

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. P. R. Rakshit, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : Mines

4598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dhanbad, Dated the 12th March, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No . L-.29011/

53/2001-IR(M) dt.07.01.2001.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of UCIL

for not regularizing the services of 16 canteen

workmen is justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled ?’’

On receipt of the Order No. L-29011/53/2001-IR(M)

dt.07.11.2001 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, the Reference Case No. 297 of

2001 was registered on 31.08. 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 Representative workman and the O.P./Management

appeared himself and their Lawyer contested in the case.

The present Industrial Dispute has been raised by

sponsoring Chemical workers Union for the workers

against the M/s Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. The

case of the Union for the sixteen canteen workers as per

the list later on enclosed with the Ministry’s Letter

dt.2.11.2004 is that the workmen are the workmen of a

contractor, but they have direct relationship of Master

and servant with the Management of Uranium Corporation

of India Ltd. So, the Union has validly sponsored the

cause of the workmen concerned. The canteen being

financed by the Management Corporation is a statutory

one situated at Narwa Mines. The Management has been

making payment to the workmen directly through their

own officials; hence the proprietor M/s Nayak Hotal is no

body in the case. The contract system has been devised

by the Management in order to deprive the workmen of

the statutory benefits and of their permanent regularization

in the services of the Corporation.

The Narwapahar Mines is one of the Mines owned

by the UCIL which is wholly owned by the Government of

India. The Corporation under its the obligation to set up a

statutory canteen for the 2000 workmen regularly employed

in the Mines at Narwapahar.The Management Corporation

has been paying the instant workmen through one

contractor who runs the canteen under the name and style

of M/s Nayak Hotel, though the canteen and the entire

matter are under their control. The workmen have been

regularly working right from 1992 to 93 continuously as

per the demand letters of the Union duly signed by them.

Having done continuous services for more than 240 days

in a calendar year, the workmen have got their statutory

rights for their regularization in the services of the

Corporation with consequential benefits at par with the

employed workmen of the Corpoation.The workmen are

also entitled to protection of Sec. 25 B of the I.D. Act,

1947, and any departure form the legal rights amounts to

an unfair labour practice on the part of the Management

as described in the 5th Schedule to the said Act. The

Industrial Dispute was raised by the Union before the

ALC ©, Chaibasa.

The Union has categorically inter alia denied all the

allegation of the Management Corporation including the

fact the workmen have been engaged by M/s Nayak Hotel

owned by P.P.Nayak as imaginary.

Whereas in challenge to it, the case of the OP/

Management of the Corporations is that the reference is

unmaintainable in law and facts; The Uranium Corporation

is a entirely owned Government Company. It owned a rare

precious material Uranium from its Jaduguda Mines and

Narwapahar Mines, the latter recently set up Uranium is

exclusively required for the defence of the country. The

materials is unsalable for price or gain.The Corporation

does not carry on any trader or business as envisaged

under Sec.2 (J) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947.The

Corporation at Narwapahar Mines has its own supervision

and control over its workmen. But Shri P.Nayak, an owner

and contractor, at the request of the workmen occasionally

in the services of Corporation, has opened his M/s Nayak

Hotel under his name and style as per the license agreement

/the work Order No. 01/96 dt.29.4.1996 in order to cater the

needs of other persons in and around the locality as well.

There are six own/blood relations of the owner of the

Hostel who are practically running it. Unlike the listed

recognized Unions sponsoring the causes of the Mine

workers, the Union is not recognized nor connected with

the mine nor has any legal role to raise any grievances of

so alleged persons employed by the proprietor of the Hotel

under the provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1926, and

amended upto date. Like a few politicians, self styled

President of a Union to exploit the unorganized workers,

the President of the instant Union situated at Jamshedpur

without any concern with the Mines raised the dispute

before the A.L.C. (C), Chaibasa, for regularization of 16

canteen contractors’ workers of the Hotel. They have not

any grievance against the M/s Nayak Hotel much less

with the Management of the Corporation

Further the Management of the Corporation has

alleged to have submitted their specific comments as per

the letter dt.9.2.2001, that the Chemical Workers’ Union

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4599

being inoperative in the Corporation, does not have a

representative capacity for the Mines workmen nor for

any Hotel. So it has no legal status to raise any dispute, as

the Union was established at the instance of the Mines’

Workers at Narwapahar.But all the four operating Unions:

Jaduguda Labour Union, Uranium Kamgar Union,Uranium

Mazdoor Sangh, and Singhbhum Uranium Mazdoor formed

their joint Consultative Committee with the help of which

the Hotel was determined to be set up. The Hotel is only a

licensee as per the agreement with Shri P.Nayak, the owner

of it, who is only answerable to their persons so engaged

by him in all respects Mr. P. Nayak’s own relatives are the

co-parterners in the Hotel who are running it. As per the

licensee, M/s Nayak Hotel is a supplier and Contractor for

all practical purposes. There is no vinculum jure (legal

bond) between the Corporation and the instant contractors’

workers, nor even any remote link with the Corporation as

per the terms and conditions of the Hotel Owner.

FINDING WITH REASONS

In the instant case,WWI Vinupado Tudu,one under

Sl.No.1 out of total 16 workmen as per the list enclosed for

the Union concerned, and MWI Sidheswara Panda and,

the Asstt. Manager, on behalf of the O.P./Management,

have been respectively examined.

In the instant reference, the two main questions

evolve from the pleadings and evidences of both the

parties which need consideration for proper adjudication.

Firstly, whether there is any employer and employee

relationship between the alleged workmen and the

Management of Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., and

Secondly, whether any sixteen alleged workmen has

been in continuous service for one year, i.e., 240 days

during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

of the reference.

At the first point, Mr. Atimula Khan, the Union

Representative for the workmen, has argued as WWI

Visnupad Tudu, one of the workmen by evidence, has

proved that all the workmen have been working since 1992-

93 in the Narwapahar Canteen which is operated, controlled

and financed by the UCIL(Uranium Corporation of India

Ltd) which provides canteen facilities to the workers,

though no letter of appointment nor any interview letter

was given to them by the Management; they work on “no

work no pay basis”; they had got the documents ( the

photocopies of two Labour Allocations dt. .30.1.2004,

30.08.2004, Notice dt. 24.1.2004 (Extt.W.1,2 & 3) under the

signatures of Asstt.Manager (Pers.), S. Panda respectively.

The photocopies of the Bill dt. 01.12.2004 of Dealer

Kapur Chand Vachharaj for supply of goods to UCIL, NWP,

the

Union’s

letter

dt.9.5.2000

the

A.L.C.(C),Chaibsaa,W.Singhbhum,whose two letters

dt.24.5.2000 to the Union and the CMD, M/s UCIL

respectively, the ALC©’s letter dt.25.4.2001 of ‘Failure of

Conciliation to the Sec.,Government of India, and one

perforated page of 40 coupons: UCIL NWP Canteen 13491

No. Tea/Snacks, marked as Extt.W.4 to 9 respectively

brought on the case record as per the Orders dt.23.8.2005

and 07.09.2005 respectively. Thus Union Representative

emphatically contended that the workmen are entitled to

their regularization in the service of the Company, as there

is neither any Hotel named Nayak nor any contractor for

the canteen which appears to be apparently very

contradictory to the pleading of the union Representative

at the point of Contractor.

In response to it, the contention of Mr.P.R.Rakshit,

Ld.Advocate for the O.P./Management as the pleaded

evidence of MWI Sidheswara Panda, Asstt.Manager of

N.W.P.Project, stands is that the UCIL is the Government

of India Enterprises which has its specific Rules and

Regulations about appointments, promotion, dismissal of

its workmen under it; Mr.Patil Pawan Nayak (known as

P.P.Nayak) was issued the Letter of Intent dt.22.8.1998 by

Mr.A.K.Singh, the Manager (Pers.)(Ext.M.2) on the

application dt.7.3.88 of Mr.P.P.Nayak (Ext.M.1) for allotment

of a premises for running a hotel; thereafter the

Management entered into an agreement with aforesaid

P.P.Nayak for running a hotel at Narwapahar Project as per

the agreement dt.(Ext.M.3),and accordingly aforesaid

P.P.Nayak was being issued the licenses (Ext.. M 3/1 series)

on time to time fresh agreements (Extt.M.4 series) for

running his Nayak Hotel; and all other documents (Ext.

M-5 series, photocopies of Cash receipts dt. 24.3.93,

10.02.94, 30.02.1994, the Bills dt. 20.5.95, 4.3.95, 4.2.95,

26.11.1996) related to payment of water,eletctiricy and

rent charges to the Management by the Licensee M/s

Patil Pawan Nayak - clearly prove the existence of aforesaid

P. P. Nayak as a contractor of the UCIL,Narwapahar Mines

for running the canteen under the name and style of Nayak

Hotel for specified period time to time as per the terms and

conditions of the said agreement including the overall

maintenance of his own employees at his own cost.

Mr. Rakshit, Lerarned Counsel for the O.P./

Management has argued, citing the ruling 2002

LAB.I.C.131,Hari Shankar Sarma Vs. M/s Artificial Limbs

Manufacturing Corporation, wherein as held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, that in reference to Sec. 96 of the

Factories Act( 63 of 1948) merely because the Canteen

had been set up pursuant to a statutory obligation under

Sec. 46 of the Factory Act, it can not be said that employees

in the canteen were the employees of Government of India

Undertaking, where it is left to the discretion of the

concerned establishment to discharge its obligation of

setting up a canteen either by way of direct recruitment or

by employment of a contractor, it can not be postulated

that in the latter event, the persons working in the canteen

would be employees of the establishment (Para 5). Similar

view was also taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Haldia Refinery Canteen employees Union & Ors

4600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd or Ors, 2005 SCC (L & S)593

by holding that workmen of statutory canteen managed

by contractor having their relationship with the

establishment maintaining such canteen are workmen of

said establishment for purpose of Factories Act only, but

not ipso facto workmen of Establishment for other

purposes entitling them to absorption into the service of

the principal employer (Para 17). Mr. Rakshit appears to

have rightly argued that it can not be said that by virtue of

engagement of contract labour by he contractor in any

work of or in connection with the work of an establishment,

the relationship of master and servant is created between

the principal employer and the contractor labour as held

by the Hon’ble Apex Court (the Constitutional Bench) in

the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. N.U. Water

Front workers reported in 2001 LAB. I.C.3656 (i) in reference

to Sec.2 (i)2© of the CL (R & A) Act 1970 and Sec.2(S) of

the I.D.Act,1947. Apart from it the perusal of the materials

reveals also the engagement of these 16 workers by the

Hotel Proprietor including his own relatives as workers

named under Sl. Nos. 4, 6, 8, 10 & 12 of the List as evident

from the application of Mr. P.P.Nayak,the proprietor

(Ext.M.6).

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no employer-

employee relationship even impliedly exists between the

present 16 canteen workers and the Management.

As to the second point related to the working period

of these canteen workers, there is not a single piece of

proof on behalf of either the Union Representative or the

canteen workers about their alleged continuous working

for one year preceding 7th Nov., 2001, the date of the

reference.

Keeping an overall view of the instant case, Mr. R. P.

Rakshit, the Learned Counsel for the O.P./Management

has lastly argued that in case of public employment,

appointment de hors due process of selection envisaged

by constitutional scheme confers no right on any appointee

for regularization nor Right of Court/Executive would

extend to directing regularization to be treated as

permanent on service on the fact that employee has

continued for long as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs.Uma Devi,

AIR 2006 SC 1806(CB). I find the argument of Mr. Rakshit,

Learned Counsel for the O.P./Management appears to be

reasonable and persuasive in the instant case.

Considering all the aforesaid discussed facts of both

the parties based on the materials available on the case

record, it is, in the terms of therefore, hereby.

ORDERED

That the Award be and the same is passed that the

action of the Management of U.C.I.L. for not regularizing

the services of 16 canteen workmen (as per list enclosed)

is quite justified and legal. These workmen are not entitled

to any relief.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

Particulars of Canteen Workers, Uranium Corporation of India Ltd.,Narwapahar Project,PO: Narwapahar, Singhbhum East

Sl. Name of worker

Father’s Name and address

Designation

Date of

No.

appointment

1 2

1 Sri Bishnu Pado Tudu

Sri Kanhai Lall TuduVillage –Roldih

Unskilled (Helper/Supplier)

12.02.1992

(Birbad)PO:Bango, Singhbhum(East)

2 Sri Dhuma Besra

Late Gopal BesraVillage :Dhobani,

Unskilled (Helper/Supplier

04.08.1994

PO:Rajdona Dist:Singhbhum (East)

3 Sri Banmali Das

Sri Laxikant DasVillage-Kadma,

Unskilled (Helper/Supplier

16.08.1993

P.O Narwapahar, Dist:Singhbhum (East)

4 Sri Ranbir Nayak

Sri Nagendra Nath Nayak

Unskilled (Helper/Supplier)

20.02.1992

Village-Surmuchi, P.O.Ramchandrapur,

Singhbhum East

5. Sri Ram Krishna Gope

Late Tarni GopeVillage : Bango,

Unskilled (Helper/Supplier

03.06.1991

P.S.Potka, Dist:Singhbhum (East)

6 Shri Dharnidhar Nayak Late Ram Chandra Nayak

Skilled (Cookman)

22.09.1989

Village :Dhangam,PO:Kendadangri,

Distt:Singhbhum East

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4601

7 Shri Ranjit Sheet

Sri Kedarnath Sheet Village Barasol,

Unskilled (Helper/Supplier

02.02.1994

PO: Ramchandrapur,

Dist;Singhubhum (East)

8 Sri Ranjit Nayak

Sri Rajendra Nayak Village –Surmuhi,

Skilled (Cookman)

19.02.1992

PO:Ramchandrapur, Distt: Singhbhum East

9 Sri Ananta Das

Late Hari Krishbna Das

Skilled (Cookman)

05.04.1993

Village- Murgaghutu, PO; Narwpahar,

Distt; Singhubhum East

10 Sri Arun Nayak

Sri Ram Chandra Nayak

Unskilled Helper/Supplier

10.04.1994

Vill- Dhangam, PO: Kendadungri,

Distt: Singhbhum East

11 Sri Lal Mohan Bhagat

Late Kokil Bhakat

Skilled (Cookman)

06.07.1995

Vill- Pichhli,PO;Sankarda,

Dist:Singhubhum (West)

12 Sri Dilip Dewari

Sri Harihar DewriVillage –Murgaghutu.

Unskilled Helper/Supplier

Incomplete

PO:Narwapahar, Dist:Singhbhum (West)

13 Shri Shankar Nayak

Sri Amar NayakVill- Surmahi,

Unskilled (Helper/Supplier)

Incomplete

PO:Ramchandrapur,

Distt:Singhuhum (East)

14. Sri Sushanta Sahu

Late Golak SahuVillage –Brahamangara,

Unskilled (Helper/Supplier)

Incomplete

PO:Sarjamdah Distt:Singhbhum East

15 Sri Gourango Das

Late Khudi Ram Das

Skilled (Cookman)

Incomplete

Village: Kadma (Jayuadih),

PO:Narwapahar Distt:Singhbhum East

16 Sri Goutum Sahu

Late Bhabani Sahu

Unskilled (Helper/Supplier)

Incomplete

Village- Surda (Annanagar) PO: Surda,

Distt:Singhbhum (East)

1 2

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1756-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ,l ,e

lh fyfeVsM] jktegy ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] /uckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 7@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&29011@9@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1756.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s SMC Limited, Rajmahal and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-29011/9/2010-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

4602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

Reference: No. 7/ 2011

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.

1947.

Employer in relation to the management of Standard

Mercantile Co. Rajmahal

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT: Sri R.K.Saran,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

: Sri S. P. Rakshit, Advocate

For the workman

: None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Mining

Dated 9/4/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-29011/9/2010-IR (M) dated 22/02/

2011 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S SMC

Ltd. Rajmahal in terminating the service of

Shri Chunku Murmu & 185 casual Labourers (list

enclosed) working since 1987 at Rajmahal w.e.f

19.10.2007 is appropriate & Justified ? What relief

the 186 workmen are entitled to ?”

ANNEXURE

Chunku Murmu

Radha Mohan Mahato

Wakil Mahato

Niranjan Mahato

Balram Mahato

Sitaram Mahato

Bijay Mandal

Bhim Mahato

Shankar Mahato

Ram Bilash Mahato

Mandal Bhagrati

Bijay Ghosh

13.

Basudeo Mahato

Baiju Mahato

15.

Samprasad Ghosh

Parkheet Mahto

Kanhai Marndi

Sahdev Mahto

Dilip Mahto

Bhawesh Saha

Smt. Shanti Devi

Anil Saha

Dileep Ghosh

Krishna Saha

Mangal Mahto

Bateshar Thakur

Suknee Beva

Manjo Devi

Vimal Mandal

Keshri Devi

Chand Munee Uranv

Surjiee Urany

Aanti Devi

Jayanti Devi

Kamla Beba

Aruna Devi

Reeta Devi

Ram Kishor Mahto

Kartik Mahto

Fuduku Mahto

Khedan Mahto

Nimay Mahto

Anj Nasaha

Sl.No. 45 to 64 is not received by the Ministry

Vidya Sagar Saha

Gopal Orain

Jungli Mahato

Chhakku Mahato

Anand Girdha

Benjamin Band

Santosh Pramanik

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4603

Mahendar Mahato

Kevra Orain

Ranjeet Saha

75.

Bishnu Saha

Shankar Mandal

Sanjeev Kr. Mondal

Parimal Mandal

Rajan Mondal

Nayan Saha

Mahendra Mahato

Shokit Saha

Raj Kumar Saha

Sunita Devi

Baso Devi

Lalita Devi

Sl.87 to Sl.No.97 is not Mentioned in the list along

with order of reference

Sushila Devi

Nirmala Devi

100

Panchhi Devi

101

Binod Mandal

102

Bimla Devi

103

Aloo Devi

104

Bashni Beba

105

Meena Devi

106

Koshila Devi

107

Jobni Oran

108

Gahano Oraon

109

Lakhi Muni Mondal

110

Durgee Oraon

111

Sabitri Oraon

112

Munni Devi

113

————

114

Veena Beba

115

Bishokha Mondal

116

Ranjeet Sarkar

117

Ashok Mandal

118

Fulmuni Oraon

119

Suneeta Oraon

120

Fulo Mondal

121

Dukhani Mondal

122

Ratani Oraon

123

Binda Mahato

124

Sanjhli Hanshada

125

Bhola Mondal

126

Dulo Marandi

127

Sl. No. 127 to 157 is not mentioned in the list of

workmen, Issued by the Ministry with Order of ref.

159

Sharavan Saha

160

Sumati Devi

161

Chdu Hanshada

162

Hopna judu

163

Marabhamra Hembaram

164

Jugunu Marandi

165

Kuwar Tudu

166

Manjhi Marandi

167

Chandan Mahato

168

Trkeshwar Rar

169

Shanti Devi Mondal

170

Sharavan Mondal

171

Barun Mahato

172

Bajarangi Yadav

173

Shyam Mahato

174

Shindhu Mahato

175

Hopna Marandi

176

Shovesh Mandal

177

Ashok Poddar

178

Prabhash

179

Ranjeet Mahato

180

Fulwati Mandal

181

Binod Mandal

182

RamPrashad Mandal

183

Gita Beba

184

Devendra Mahato

185

Pradeep Ravidas

186

RamPrashad Ghosh

187

Satyanarayan Mahato

Note :- Name of the workmen in Sl. No 45 to 64 , Sl. No.87

to 98, and Sl.No.127 to 157 in the list of workmen is not

received by the Ministry along with order of reference.

4604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

appeared and files claims statement and document. But

appearing for certain dates none appears on behalf of the

Sponsoring Union . Subsequently Case remain pending .

It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been

resolved in the meantime. Hence, No Dispute Award is

passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1757-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

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

vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] /uckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 2@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@03@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Steel Authority of India Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-43012/03/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an application under Sub –Section

(2) of the Sec. 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and

the Industrial Disputes (amendment) Act. 2010(24 of 2010)

I. D.CASE NO. 2 OF 2013

PARTIES :

Ram Charitra Pandit,

Ex-Employee of SAIL/BSL

849/III-A, Bokaro Steel City,

Bokaro

...Applicant

Vs.

Chief executive Officer,

Steel Authority of India Ltd.,

“ISPAT BHAWAN’,

Bokaro Steel city

...O.P. Party

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. Anand Kumar,

workman/Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the

None

Management .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Steel

Dhanbad, dated, the 21st April, 2014

2. Mr. Anand Kumar,Ld. Advocate is present for

applicant/workman Ram Charitra Pandit and by filing a

petition (in duplicate) on his behalf, submits for withdrawal

of the present application of the Industrial Dispute raised

under Sec.2(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 on the

ground that the same I.D,. has been referred by the Ministry

to the CGIT-LC No.1, Dhanbad (Vide Ministry Order

No.L-43012/03/2013-IR(M) dt.19.02.2014.) for adjudication.

But none appeared on behalf of the O.P./Employer. Under

these circumstances, the Industrial Dispute filed by the

applicant in this Tribunal is closed as withdrawn. Let a

letter is forwarded to the Ministry of Labour &

Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for its

acknowledgment, as the Industrial dispute is related to

the dismissal of the applicant.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1758-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

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

vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 15@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@01@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1758.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/

2012) 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 Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-11012/01/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4605

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 21^st May, 2014

PRESENT :

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 15/2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),

between the Management of Airport Authority of India

and their workman)

BETWEEN

Five Committee of Workmen

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Representing the Fire Pump

Operators Working in Airport

Authority of India

3B/F1, Vignesh Flats,

Periyar Salai Kovilambakkam,

Chennai-600117

AND

1. The Airport Director

: 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

The Airport Authority of

India Chennai Airport,

Meenambakkam

Chennai-600027

2. Sri R. Devendran

: 2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Prop M/s RD Elect. & Engg.

Works, 20, Nehru Street,

Ullagaram Nanganallur,

Chennai-600061

3. M/s Lakshmi Electrical

: 2^nd Party/3^rd Respondent

No. 1-C, CLC Works Road

New Colony, Chrompet

Chennai-600044

APPEARANCE:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioners

: M/s. Balan Haridas,

R. Kamatchi

Sundaresan,

Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Management : M/s. R. Parthiban,

C. Vigneswaran,

Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd Management :

Set Ex-parte

For the 2^nd Party/3^rd Management :

Set Ex-parte

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/1/2011-IR(M) dated

14.03.2012 referred the Industrial Dispute between the

above referred parties for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the demands of the 18 contract labourers

(as per list enclosed), all Pump Operators working

through the contractors for Airport Authority of

India, Chennai seeking regularization on the roll of

the Airport Authority of India, Chennai are legal and

justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2. On receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 15/2012 and sent notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed their claim and counter

statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by

the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a five man committee of employees

representing 18 Fire Pump Operators working with the First

Respondent. By a resolution, these 18 Fire Pump Operators

have authorized the five man committee to raise the

Industrial Dispute for regularization of their service as

Fire Pump Operators in the first Respondent organization.

The employees who are concerned in the dispute were

working as Fire Pump Operators in the First Respondent,

the Airport Authority of India for period ranging from 2 to

5 years through the so-called Contractor. Initially they

were termed to be contract employees of the Second

Respondent. After the Second Respondent left, the

employees are termed to be working through Lakshmi

Electrical Enterprises, the Third Respondent. The 18 Fire

Pump Operators whose names are given in the annexure

are working in three shifts in the First Respondent

organization. The function of the Fire Pump Operators is

to maintain the pressure of water in the Fire Pump Houses

which are situated at Kamaraj Domestic Terminal, Anna

International Terminal, New International Department

Terminal, Import Cargo, Export Cargo and Administration

Block. The work discharged by them is permanent in nature.

Work is allotted to them by the Assistant Engineers of the

First Respondent. Their work is continuously supervised

and monitored by the engineers of the First Respondent.

The Senior Superintendents of the First Respondent will

oversee the activities of the Fire Pump Operators on day

to day basis. If the operators are taking leave they will

have to inform the concerned Assistant Engineer of the

First Respondent. It is the first Respondent who is deciding

at which shift the Fire Pump Operators are to work. The

4606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Contractor had been only a name lender to distribute the

salary received from the First Respondent. The Contract

between the First Respondent and the Contractor is sham

and nominal. The control and supervision of work done

by the Fire Pump Operators concerned in the dispute is

exercised by the First Respondent. Even though the

Contractors change from time to time, the employees

concerned in the dispute remained the same. All the

workers concerned in this dispute are working

continuously for more than 480 days within a period of 24

calendar months. They are entitled to permanency as per

Section-3 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment

(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act. There

are about 80 sanctioned posts of Fire Pump Operators.

Upto the year 2003 only permanent employees were

working in the post of Fire Pump Operators. However, the

First Respondent has started to term the workers as

contract employees to defeat their rights. The Fire

Pump Operators in question are to be treated as permanent

employees of the First Respondent. An award may be

passed holding that the 18 Fire Pump Operators named in

the annexure to the Claim Statement are permanent

employees. The First Respondent may be directed to

regularize the service of these 18 Fire Pump Operators.

4. The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The averments made in the Claim Statement are

denied. The workmen in question are working as contract

workers for operation and maintenance of Fire Pumps

located at various places at Chennai International Airport

to protect the terminal in the event of fire. For the first time

a tender was floated for the job of maintenance and

operation of water supply system under the First

Respondent in 2004. The fiRst tender was awarded to a

Contractor for the period from 01.08.2004 to 31.07.2005.

For the year 2005-2006 another agreement was entered

into with another Contractor on the basis of tenders

received. For the year 2008-2009 contract was given to

Lakshmi Electrical Enterprises. Though initially there were

21 workmen under this contract, subsequently, the

manpower was reduced to 18 on closure of one pump

room. Tenders for subsequent years could not be finalized

since the workman had filed Writ Petition before the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras and obtained order for

status-quo. For the period 2009-2010, tender was issued

to the Second Respondent. However, it could not be

finalized and Lakshmi Electrical Enterprises continued to

be the Contractor till their services came to be terminated

on 04.04.2012. However, Lakshmi Electrical Enterprises is

not made a party to the dispute. The Second Respondent

is not a necessary party. The workman whose cause is

being espoused by the petitioner committee were employed

by Lakshmi Electrical Enterprises and they were working

under the direct supervision and control of the said

Contractor. At no point of time the First Respondent

controlled and supervised the concerned workers. As a

result of modernization in the airport the situation has

now changed also. The fire hydrant pumps have been

demolished or their lines have been altered. The fire pumps

are now connected to the remote controlled panel installed

in the nearest control room and fire operators are posted

round to clock in the event of any fire incident. In view of

these changes, the service of Pump Operators deployed

by the Contractors are not required. They were allowed to

continue only because of the interim order granted by the

High Court. On 04.04.2012 notice has been issued to

Lakshmi Electrical Enterprises, the Contractor terminating

the contract. There has been no post of Fire Pump Operator

in Airport Authority of India. The contract entered into

between the First Respondent and the Contractor is

genuine and not sham or camouflage as alleged by the

petitioner. The averment in the Claim Statement that the

concerned workers were working under the First

Respondent for a period of 2 to 5 years is not correct. The

First Respondent never paid salary to the workers. They

were paid wages by the Contractor. It is for the concerned

workers to prove that they have worked for 480 days within

a period of 24 calendar months. There is no merit in the

dispute raised. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. In view of the contention raised in the Counter

Statement that Lakshmi Electrical Enterprises was the

Contractor, this concern has been subsequently impleaded

as Third Respondent in the dispute. Both Respondents 2

and 3 remained absent and were set ex-parte.

6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Exts.W10 and Ext.M1 to Exts.M15.

7. The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the demands of the contract

labourers who are working as Pump Operators

for the First Respondent through Contractors

are entitled to regularization on the roll of the

First Respondent?

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the concerned

workers are entitled?

The Points

8. The dispute is raised by a committee consisting

of 5 persons who were authorized by the 18 Fire Pump

Operators said to have been working for the First

Respondent for a period ranging from 2 to 5 years. The

name of the Pump Operators (one out of them is said to

have left) is annexed to the Claim Statement and is given

alongwith the reference order also. According to these

workers, though they were working through the so-called

Contractor, they were directly reporting to the First

Respondent and were being supervised and controlled by

the First Respondent. It is alleged by them that the contract

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4607

through which they were made to work is only sham and

nominal and the Contractor is only a name lender. It is

claimed by these workmen that they are entitled to be

regularized in the service of the First Respondent. It is

admitted by the First Respondent that the concerned

workers have been working for it as contract labourers.

According to the Respondent, maintenance and operation

of water supply system at the Chennai International Airport

through contract labourers was started in 2004 itself and

immediately before the dispute was raised the work was

being carried out through the Third Respondent. It is not

seen disputed by the First Respondent that the workmen

in question were doing the work as alleged. However, the

stand of the First Respondent is that there is not even the

post of Fire Pump Operators for it and that the work was

always carried out on contract basis. The workers were

never under the supervision or control of the First

Respondent. They were not paid wages by the First

Respondent also. It is also contended by the First

Respondent that in view of the modernization of the airport,

the service of the Pump Operators provided by the

Contractor are no longer required also.

9. The only question that arises for consideration

is whether the case put forth by the petitioner that the

contract entered into between the First Respondent and

the respective contractors for providing service of

workmen to the First Respondent to do the work including

that of Fire Pump Operators under it is a sham and nominal

one. It is to be seen whether the evidence oral and

documentary available in the case would show that it is a

case where the contracts are only a camouflage to avoid

making the workers in question permanent under the First

Respondent establishment. One of the five men committee

of workmen representing the Fire Pump Operators involved

in the case has given evidence as WW1. In the affidavit

by him, he has reiterated the case in the Claim Statement.

During his cross-examination he has admitted that he has

worked with the First Respondent through Contractor. He

admitted that other workers also had worked through

Contractor. He admitted that he had worked with the First

Respondent through the Third Respondent for the period

from 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2009. During the period he was

working with the First Respondent he has not received

any memo or any notice from the officials of the First

Respondent. He does not know if any memo was served

to other workers by the First Respondent.

10.The counsel for the petitioner has attempted to

make out that the documents available in the case would

show that the contract in question was sham and nominal

and actually the workers in question were working directly

under the First Respondent. Before going through these

documents, it is better to consider the legal position on

the case put forth by the petitioner. Through various

decisions rendered on the point, the Apex Court has stated

under what circumstances a contract becomes sham and

nominal. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the

decision in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS

VS. NATIONAL UNION WATER PLANT WORKERS

AND OTHERS reported in 2001 7 SCC 1. The Apex Court

has held in this that the appropriate authority to go into

the question whether the Contract is sham and nominal

will be the industrial tribunal. As a preliminary to the case

advanced by him, the counsel has referred to the decision

in HUSSAINBHAI VS. THE ALATH FACTORY

THOZHILALI UNION AND OTHERS reported in 1978 4

SCC 257. In this decision the Apex Court speaking through

Justice Krishna Iyer has stated that where a worker or

group of workers labours to produce goods or services

and these goods or services are for the business of another

that other is in fact the employer. The presence of

intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have

immediate or direct relationship is of no consequence,

when on lifting the veil discern the naked truth that the

real employer is the Management and not the immediate

Contractor, it was held. The counsel has referred to the

decision in BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VS.

STATE OF UP AND OTHERS reported in 2003 6 SCC 528

where also it was held that where workman labour is

engaged to produce goods or services and these goods

or services are for the business of another, the other is the

employer. The counsel has also referred to the decision in

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. IOB STAFF CANTEEN

WORKERS UNION AND ANOTHER reported in 2004 4

SCC 245 where it was held that the standards and nature

of tests to be applied for finding out the existence of master

and servant relationship cannot be confined or concretized

into fixed formulae for universal application. In order to

safeguard the welfare of the workmen the veil may have to

be pierced to get at the realities, it has been held. The

counsel has also referred to the decision in GENERAL

MANAGER, ONGC, SILCHAR VS. ONGC

CONTRACTUAL WORKERS UNION reported in 2008 12

SCC 275. In the above case the Tribunal has come to the

conclusion that there existed master and servant

relationship between ONGC and the Workers. This

conclusion was arrived at based on the fact that there was

no Contractor appointed by ONGC and the ONGC used to

supervise and allot work to individual workers, took

disciplinary action and called explanation from the workers.

The workers were paid wages though they did not attend

their duties during a bandh and during flood time and

wages were paid directly to the workers by ONGC and

the acquittance roll was prepared by ONGC itself to

make payment to the workmen. The Apex Court has found

that the workmen are actually the employees of ONGC

and would be entitled to all benefits available in that

capacity.

11.The counsel for the Respondent also has referred

to certain decisions laying down under what circumstances

a worker could be said to be working directly under the

4608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

concerned employer irrespective of a contract in existence,

one being HALDIA REFINERY CANTEEN EMPLOYEES

UNION VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION OF INDIA

reported in (2005) 5 SCC 51. The dispute which resulted in

the above decision was raised by the workers of the

Canteen of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The workers were

engaged by Contractor. The argument was that in spite of

this, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was having effective

control over the Canteen. The Apex Court has observed

that even though the Respondent Management does

exercise effective control over the Contractor, on certain

matter in regard to the running of the Canteen such control

is being exercised to ensure that the Canteen is run in an

efficient manner and to provide wholesome healthy food

to the workmen in the establishment. This however does

not mean that the employees working in the Canteen have

become the employees of the Management, it was held.

The counsel has also referred to the decision in

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS.

INTERNATIONAL AIR CARGO WORKERS UNION AND

ANOTHER reported in 2009 13 SCC 374. Here it was held

that if Contract is for supply of labor, necessarily, labour

supplied by Contractor will work under directions,

supervision and control of principal employer but that

would not make worker a direct employee of principal

employer, if salary is paid by a Contractor, if right to regulate

employment is with the Contractor and ultimate supervision

and control lies with the Contractor. Reference was also

made to the decision in GENERAL MANAGER, BENGAL

NAGPUR COTTON MILLS VS. HARIT LAL AND

ANOTHER reported in 2011 1 SCC 635 where it was

observed that two of the well recognized tests to find out

whether the contract labourers are the direct employees

of the principal employer are (i) whether the principal

employer pays the salary instead of the Contractor and (ii)

whether the principal employer controls and supervises

the work of the employee. The counsel has also referred

to the decision of the Madras High Court in DIRECTOR,

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS.

ELANGOVAN AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal 574/11 dated

27.03.2014. In the above decision of the Supreme Court in

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

referred to earlier was relied upon. The High Court has

found that the workers in question failed to plead and

prove that they were paid wages by the Appellant. In fact

it was a case involving the present first respondent herein

and the lift operators of the airport. The High Court has

found that the contract under consideration is a genuine

one and not a camouflage and found that the workers are

working under the Contractor and they are the workers of

the Contractor even though they were working for the

Airport.

12. In the light of judicial pronouncements put forth,

it is to be seen whether the petitioners are workers of the

Respondent itself and whether the contract in question is

only a camouflage. The contract itself is marked as

Ext.M5(a). It has been pointed out by the Counsel for the

Respondent that the same contract has been put to test

before this Tribunal in another dispute raised by another

section of workers and that the case that the Contract is

only a camouflage was rejected by this Tribunal.

13. The attempt for the counsel for the petitioner

has been to establish that actual control of the workers is

by the Respondent itself even though an intermediary by

way of contract is placed in between the petitioners and

the First Respondent. In this respect the counsel has

referred to the extracts of the Report Register, the Log

Book, etc. produced before this Court. Ex.W6 is the extract

of the Report Register. The margin of the first page of this

document contains certain instructions purportedly made

by the employee of the First Respondent. The next two

pages also contain some such instructions and report

regarding the condition of the machines. One such report

is to remove the Sprinkler Main Motor. Ext.W8 is the remark

made by the Engineer of the First Respondent. This states

that without reliever the person on duty left the installation

and that the morning duty operator was not found at site.

There is also a statement that not following the duty

instructions and duty timing will be viewed seriously. The

next page of this document also states that the person on

duty left the installation without reliever and the morning

duty operator was not found at site. There is also an

instruction not to sign the records without intimation to

the concerned. Ext.W9, the extract of the Report Register

is said to be checked by the employees of the First

Respondent. The margin of this document contains

signature showing that someone has done the checking.

The counsel has also referred to Ext.W10 the Attendance

Respondent. The counsel has also referred to Ext.M5(a),

Page-106 referring to the Safety Code and Labour

Regulation. Clause-8(i) of this states that the agency who

is entering into the contract shall submit the credentials of

the staff proposed for engagement at work for verification

of the concerned Police Officer. Clause-8(iii) states that

duty roster shall be got approved from the Engineer-in-

Charge and that the roster may be changed by Engineer-

in-Charge as and when required.

14. On the basis of the facts pointed out above, it

has been argued by the Counsel for the Petitioners that

this would show that the First Respondent is having

effective control over the petitioners. The counsel for the

First Respondent has referred to Ext.W10, the Attendance

is shown in the Attendance Register as name of the

employer (Page 141 onwards of the typed set of the

petitioner). The counsel has also pointed out that for each

work shift there will be a different Engineer and each of

them will be making a note of what happened in each shift.

It has been pointed out that no explanation is asked from

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4609

the workers regarding any fault committed by the workers

in their work or any misconduct on their part. The counsel

has referred to the evidence of WW1 asserting that no

memo or notice has been served on him by the officials of

the First Respondent. He himself has admitted that the

officials only used to record what is going on in each

shift. He also stated that in Ext.W7 also what had happened

in the shifts have been recorded. Thus it could be seen

that no disciplinary control was ever exercised by the First

Respondent over the workers. On the other hand, such

control used to be exercised by the concerned Contractor.

15. There is no case for the petitioners also that

their salary was paid to them by the First Respondent.

According to WW1, he was given salary by a Supervisor

by name Appandairajan i.e. the Second Petitioner. He stated

that he was not aware who was paying salary for

Appandairajan. He also stated that he was working for the

First Respondent through the Contractor only. The Second

Petitioner who was acting as Supervisor was paying salary

to WW1, the Third Petitioner. It is clear that salary was

being paid by the Contractor itself.

16. The counsel for the First Respondent has referred

to Clause-18 of Ext. M5(a) which states that the Contractor

shall obtain valid license under the CLRA Act and Rules

before the commencement of the work and continue to

have a valid license until completion of the work. Reference

was also made to Clause-19(A), Sub-Clause (a) which

states that the Contractor shall pay to labour employed

by him either directly or through Sub-Contractors wages

not less than fair wages. Reference was also made to Sub-

Clause (e) which states that the Contractor shall comply

with the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, etc. Reference

was also made to Clause-19H which provide that the

Engineer-in-Charge may require the Contractor to dismiss

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

in the Contractor’s employment upon the work who may

be incompetent or misconduct himself and the Contractor

shall comply with such requirements. Under the heading

Particulars Specification in Ext. M5 (a) (Page 102) it is stated

that the staffs shall have proper contact with fire safety

wing of AAI for fire safety for Airport. The Log Books and

other Registers regarding labour regulations including

Daily Attendance Register, Duty Roster, etc are also to be

maintained by the Contractor.

17. What the evidence and documents reveal is that

there was express contract between the First Respondent

and the concerned agency regarding the work to be done

and it was the agency acting as Contractors who were

employing the petitioners. At no point of time they

were directly employed by the First Respondent. They

were never under the direct control of the First Respondent.

No disciplinary authority was ever exercised by the First

Respondent upon the petitioners. If some check was made

by the Officers of the First Respondent regarding the work

done by the petitioners and others it was to see that the

work was done properly. It was in the interest of the First

Respondent to see that the workers employed by the

Contractor are working satisfactorily. The Apex Court has

held in the International Airports Authority of India case

referred to earlier that if contract is for supply of labour,

labour supplied by the Contractor will necessarily be under

directions, supervision and control of principal employer

but that would not make the worker a direct employee of

principal employer.

18. In Hussainbhai’s case referred to earlier the Apex

Court has laid down that where a worker or group of

workers/labours to produce goods or services and these

goods or services are for the business of another that

another is in fact the employer. In the subsequent decisions,

the criteria for finding out whether the work is on contract

or otherwise was laid down. When the present case is

considered based on this criteria it could be seen that the

petitioners and others were never employed by the First

Respondent. They were always working for the Contractor.

They were doing so consciously. It was for the Contractor

to decide which workers are to work in a particular

establishment and in what manner. They were always

controlled by the Contractor. So the argument that is

advanced on behalf of the petitioners. That if the veil is

lifted it could be seen that they are employed by the First

Respondent itself could not be accepted. The criteria laid

down by the Apex Court does not support such a

conclusion. So the claim of the petitioners and others

alongwith them that they are to be treated to be permanent

employees of the First Respondent could not be accepted.

The petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered against the petitioners.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 21^st May, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri Arul

Mozhi Varman

For the 2^nd Party/1^stManagement :

MW1, Sri E.

Namadevan

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd&

None

3^rd Management

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

10.12.2009

Resolution passed by the

employees

4610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W2

30.09.2011

Order in WP No. 27517 of 2009

Ex.W3

04.09.2012

Order in WP No. 22067 of 2012

Ex.W4

19.11.2012

Order in MP No. 1 and 1 of 2012

in WA Nos. 18 and 2016 of 2012

Ex.W5

Gate passes issued to the

employees

Ex.W6

Extract from report register

Ex.W7

Extract from Log Book

Ex.W8

Remark made by the engineer

of the 1^st Respondent

Ex.W8(a)

Work spot checked by A.M.

(Elect) during different hours

Ex.W9

Extract from report register

Ex.W10

Attendance register from

March 2011 to August 2011

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

12.05.2004

Contract entered between AAI

and ARB Safety Designers and

Consultants (P) Ltd. for the

period from 01.08.2004 to

31.07.2005

Ex.M2

28.07.2005

Contract entered between AAI

and ARB Safety Designers and

Consultants (P) Ltd. for the

period from 01.08.2005 to

31.07.2006

Ex.M3

08.06.2006

Contract entered between AAI

and Reliance Fire Protection

Systems for the period from

01.08.2006 to 31.07.2007

Ex.M4

23.07.2007

Contract entered between AAI

and ARB Safety Designers and

Contractors (P) Ltd. for the

period from 01.08.2007 to

31.07.2008

Ex.M5

30.07.2008

Contract entered between AAI

and Lakshmi Electrical

Engineers for the period from

01.08.2008 to 31.07.2009

Ex.M5(a)

29.08.2008

Xerox copy of the agreement

enclosed separately

Ex.M6

30.12.2009

Order passed in MP No. 2/09

in WP 27517/09

Ex.M7

13.06.2011

Cancellation of tender of M/s

RD Electrical Engineering

Works by AAI

Éx.M8

30.09.2011

Order passed in WP 27517/09

Ex.M9

14.03.2012

Order of reference issued by

Central Govt. for adjudication

of the disputes

Ex.M10

04.04.2012

Termination of the contract

with effect from 04.04.2012

Ex.M11

09.04.2012

Legal notice issued by the

Counsel for Petitioners

Ex.M12

17.04.2012

Corrigendum issued by AAI Sr.

Manager to Lakshmi Electrical

Enterprises

Ex.M13

18.04.2012

Reply issued by AAI for the

notice given by Workmen’s

dated 09.04.2012

Ex.M14

20.04.2012

Letter from the Contractor

Lakshmi Electrical Enterprises

to the AAI surrendering the

Log Books and Original

passes given to the workmen

Ex.M15

23.04.2012

Letter from the Contractor to

AAI affirming that the contract

was terminated on 04.04.2012

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1759-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

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

bafM;k bU'kqjaUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@12@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1759.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/

2012) 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 Met Life India Insurance Company

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-17012/12/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4611

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 19^th May, 2014

Present :—K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 39/2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. and

their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri K. Durai

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chief Executive Officer

: 2^nd Party/Respondent

M/s Met Life India Insurance

Company Ltd. Brigade

Seshanmahal No. 5, Vani Vilas

Road Basavangudi

Bangalore-560004

APPEARANCE :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: Sri R. Parthiban,

C.Vigneswaran,

Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Management : Sri V. T. Narendran,

R. P. Prathap Singh,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-17012/12/2012-IR(M)

dated 28.06.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd. in

terminating the services of Sri K. Durai, Financial

Planning Consultant w.e.f. 28.05.2009 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 39/2012 and issued notices to

both sides. Both sides have entered appearance

through their counsel and have filed Claim and

Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by

the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner was appointed as Financial

Planning Consultant in the respondent Company and was

posted to work from Villupuram branch of the Axis Bank

with a salary of Rs. 1,44,000/- annually. The petitioner had

been performing reasonably well during his employment.

On 06.05.2009 Abraham Nixon, a Sr. Sales Manager of the

Company visited Villupuram branch of Metlife and

compelled the petitioner to sign plain papers so as to make

him resign his post. The petitioner refused to do so. As

directed by Abraham Nixon, the petitioner had visited the

Territorial Manager of the Respondent on 08.05.2009. There

also the petitioner was threatened and forced to sign plain

papers. The petitioner had not obliged. On 11.05.2009, the

petitioner had been to the Villupuram Branch to attend to

his work but the Manager of Axis Bank, Villupuram told

him to leave the office at once. The petitioner sent a

telegram and e-mail to the HR Department of Metlife

narrating the events of 11.05.2009. On 15.06.2009 the

petitioner received three covers, one of which contained

an order terminating him from service of Metlife. There

were two other backdated letters seeking explanation for

the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner had sent

representation to the Respondent Company requesting to

revoke the order of termination and to allow the petitioner

to continue in service. Though the petitioner had received

e-mail informing that his complaint had been forwarded to

employee complaint framework, he had not received any

reply to the same. The petitioner had raised a dispute before

the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C), Chennai. On failure

of conciliation and consequent failure report to the Govt.,

the Govt. has referred the matter for adjudication by the

Tribunal. An order may be passed directing the

Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back

wages.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The Respondent is a multi-national company

engaged in the business of life insurance and is licensed

by the Insurance Regulatory Authority of India. The

petitioner’s designation in the Respondent Company is

synonymous to that of a Sales Manager. He was stationed

at the branch office of the Axis Bank who was the corporate

agent of the Respondent. He was required to report at the

Branch Office punctually and was also required to follow

the timelines of the Axis Bank for discharging his duties.

The petitioner cannot be termed either by his designation

or by nature of his job as a workman as defined in the

Industrial Disputes Act. In his job the petitioner was

expected to achieve allocated business targets, generate

more business through sales promotions, etc. His salary

was fixed as Rs. 1,44,000/- per annum. He was working

independently without day to day scrutiny, supervision

or direction. His job required ability to use his intellectual

capability. It was not clerical in nature. So the claim of the

petitioner is not tenable. In the year 2008 there was some

4612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

allegations against the petitioner by the policy holders.

His performance has gone down below the expectations.

The senior official of the petitioner was unhappy with the

attitude and performance of the petitioner. The petitioner

was unauthorizedly absent from duty from 12.05.2009 after

sending a telegram leveling some false allegations against

the official of the Respondent. The Respondent has sent

notice to the petitioner on 15.05.2009 asking him to report

to duty. This notice was returned undelivered. On

20.05.2009 another letter was sent asking him to report to

duty but this also was returned undelivered. In this

circumstance, the Respondent had terminated the service

of the petitioner from 28.05.2009, in accordance with law.

The petitioner had abandoned his job. He had failed to

report for work without instructions and permission from

the Respondent. It is incorrect to state that the officials of

the Respondent had compelled the petitioner to sign blank

papers. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief of

reinstatement or any other reliefs claimed by him.

5. The petitioner has subsequently amended the

claim statement claiming incentives also alongwith back

wages on reinstatement.

6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of the petitioner examined as WW1 and documents marked

as Ext.W1 to Ext.W16 and Ext.M1.

7. The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in

terminating the service of the petitioner is legal

and justified?

(ii)

What is the relief, if any to which the petitioner

is entitled?

The Points

8. The petitioner was admittedly working as

Financial Planning Consultant of the Respondent

Company from 16.03.2007 for an annual salary of Rs.

1,44,000/-. The petitioner had worked with the Respondent

till 11.05.2009. According to the petitioner there was some

coercion on the part of certain higher officials of the

Respondent to make him sign papers to put an end to his

job with the Respondent to which he has not obliged.

However, according to him when he went for his work at

Axis Bank, Villupuram Branch where he was posted, he

was turned out by the Manager of the Axis Bank. On the

other hand, the contention of the Respondent is that the

petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty after

11.05.2009 and had failed to turn up for work thereafter.

Even though letter were sent to him seeking explanation

to this absence, these were returned undelivered. So the

Respondent had terminated the service of the petitioner, it

is stated. According to the Respondent it was a case of

abandonment of service by the petitioner and it was only

as a consequence that his service was terminated.

9. Apart from the above contentions on merits, there

is also a case for the Respondent that the petitioner is not

a “workman” coming under the definition of ID Act and

therefore, he is not competent to raise the dispute. The

stand of the Respondent is that the petitioner is working

independently, that the nature of his work requires

intellectual capacity and his work is not clerical in nature

that he is not subjected to day to day scrutiny or

supervision or direction and is acting in an independent

manner. The nature of the work of the petitioner are narrated

in the counter statement. These include achieving

allocated business targets, generating new business,

participating in sales planning, ensuring high level of

customer service and such connected activities. These

are narrated by the respondent to show that the job of the

petitioner is not clerical in nature.

10. Ex.W12 is the appointment order of the petitioner.

The designation of his job is given as Financial Planning

Consultant. His annual emoluments including salary are

given in the appointment order. There is no mention of the

nature of the job given in the Counter Statement in Ext.W12.

11. In the Counter Statement what is stated is that

the petitioner’s designation is equivalent/synonymous to

that of a Sales Manager. It is further stated that for all

purpose the petitioner is enjoying the status, privileges

and benefits of that of a Sales Manager of a multinational

company. It is pointed out by the Counsel for the Petitioner

even as claimed by the Respondent, the job of the

petitioner is equivalent to that of a Sales Manager and not

similar to or the same as Sales Manager.

12. What exactly is the nature of the job of the

petitioner? Though the petitioner is the employee of the

Respondent, Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. he was

posted at Villupuram Branch of Axis Bank and is operating

from this branch. His actual job seems to have been to

canvass policies with the help of Axis Bank who was acting

as Corporate Agent of the Respondent. A designation

which is probably misleading that is Financial Planning

Consultant has been given to the job of the petitioner. Is

such nomenclature given to the job enough to decide what

actually is the nature of the job? The counsel for the

petitioner has referred to decision in MOHAN MEAKIN

LTD VS. PRESIDENT, MOHAN MEAKIN STAFF UNION

AND OTHERS reported in 2012 5 LLN 694 in this respect.

Here it was held that to decide whether a person is workman

or not undue importance should not be given to the

designation of name assigned to the class to which he

belongs. What is needed is to find out what kind of duty

such person was performing, what was his source of

employment, what are the terms and conditions of

employment, what is the quantum of wages, etc. and decide

whether the person is workman within the meaning of

Section-2(s) of the ID Act, it was further held.

13. What actually was the work done by the

petitioner? During his cross examination, he has stated

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4613

that as a Financial Consultant he has annual targets. The

nature of his job is to give policy to prospective customers.

The Respondent Company used to send communications

to him. There is no case for the Respondent that the

petitioner was having any subordinates under him. So

necessarily he was not working in supervisory capacity.

He was the sole person posted at Villupuram branch of

Axis Bank. Though the petitioner was not signing the

Attendance Register it is clear from Ext.W2 the letter

written by the Respondent that records of attendance were

being maintained by the Respondent. What is written in

this letter is that based on the attendance records of the

petitioner it has been observed that he has not been

reporting for duty. The counsel for the petitioner has

referred to the decision of the Apex Court in ANAND

REGIONAL COOPERATIVE OILSEED GROWERS UNION

LTD. VS. SHAILESH KUMAR HARSHADBHAI SHAH

reported in 2006 6 SCC 548 in support of his argument.

Here it was held that in determining the nature of work of

the person it is to be seen what are the primary duties he is

performing and it is necessary to prove that there were

some persons working under him whose work is required

to be supervised. If a person is carrying on supervisory

work and if he has power of control or supervision in

regard to recruitment, promotion, etc. the work involves

exercise of tact and is independent in nature, it was held.

In the present case, the petitioner has not been working in

any supervisory capacity, he had no power of control or

supervision in regard to recruitment, promotion, etc. Apart

from this is the fact the salary that was payable to him was

meager in the present circumstances. He was paid below

Rs. 12,000/- a month only as salary. Taking all this into

account the petitioner will certainly come under the

definition of workman as given in Industrial Disputes Act.

14. Ext.W4 is the order of the Respondent by which

the petitioner was terminated from service. This refers to

letters dated 14.05.2009 and 20.05.2009 and states that those

were letters calling upon the petitioner to report for duty

immediately and provide clarification for his unauthorizedly

absence since 12.05.2009. It is stated that the petitioner

has not resumed duty, nor provided any clarification and

his absence is treated as voluntary abandonment of service

and his employment is terminated with effect from

12.05.2009. Admittedly, the Respondent has not conducted

any enquiry before terminating the petitioner from service.

15. Was it a case of abandonment of service by the

petitioner? In the Claim Statement as well as the Proof

Affidavit filed by him the petitioner has stated that he has

not received any prior communication seeking explanation.

Both in the Claim Statement as well as in the Affidavit he

has stated under what circumstances he was not able to

continue in his job after 11.05.2009. He has stated that

there was compulsion to make him sign blank papers

which he refused and that subsequently when he had

gone to his place of job attached to Villupuram Branch of

Axis Bank he was turned out by the Manager. It is clear

from the document produced by petitioner that there was

some issue between him and his superior Officers. On

11.05.2009, the date on which he had to stop attending his

job itself he has sent a telegram to the Respondent as

seen from Ext.W1. The contents of the telegram is also

available alongwith Ext.W1, the telegram receipt. This itself

will show that it was not a case of the petitioner abandoning

the job.

16. Exts.W2 to Ext.W4 also reveals that the case of

abandonment by the petitioner was one created by the

Respondent. The petitioner has stated in the Claim

Statement that he has received two letters seeking

explanation for unauthorized absence also alongwith the

order of termination from service. Ext.W2 dated 14.05.2009

and Ext.W3 dated 20.05.2009 were received by the

petitioner alongwith Ext.W4, the termination order on

15.06.2009 as seen from Ext.W5 the courier receipt. The

case of the Respondent itself is that the letters seeking

explanation were returned undelivered. But as seen from

Ext.W2 and Ext.W3 these were received by the petitioner

though alongwith Ext.W4. So it could not have been a

case of abandonment of the job by the petitioner. He must

have been forced to discontinue from service for some

other reason. According to him he was turned out by the

Manager of the Axis Bank branch, Villupuram when he

reached his place of work on 11.05.2009. This case of the

petitioner is not denied by the Respondent by giving

evidence either documentary or oral. So the case of the

petitioner in this respect is to be accepted.

17. In any case it could be seen that the Respondent

was in a hurry to stamp the petitioner as a person who was

unauthorizedly absent from duty. Even according to the

Respondent, the petitioner had been absent from 12.05.2009

only. The Respondent had prepared a letter on 14.05.2009

itself alleging that the petitioner is unauthorizedly absent.

This was followed by another letter dated 20.05.2009. Even

though according to the Respondent these letters were

not served, the Respondent did not make any attempt to

reach the petitioner by some other means. There is no

case that he was either contacted by telephone or by his

e-mail address. Within a few days of the second letter

seeking explanation the Respondent sent the letter

terminating the service of the petitioner. Thus it is very

much clear that the Respondent was bent upon putting an

end to the service of the petitioner under one or the other

pretext. In the Counter Statement what the Respondent

has stated is that there were allegations against the

petitioner by policy holders. This is too vague in nature

without specifying even the nature of allegations. The

next sentence in the Counter Statement probably reveals

what actually was the reason for throwing the petitioner

out from service. What is stated is that the performance of

the petitioner has come down below the expectations. But

here also the Respondent has not stated what was the

4614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

expectations or how much it has come down. It was a case

of the Respondent turning out the petitioner from service

unceremoniously without any valid reason, without any

enquiry, without even the pretext of an enquiry. The

petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.

18. At the late stage of the trial the Respondent has

wanted to call the statement of bank account of the

petitioner. The petitioner had produced extract of the

account at the instance of the Respondent and this has

been marked as Ext.M1. Of course the case of the petitioner

during his examination is that he was not employed after

he was terminated from service of the Respondent.

However, it is seen from the statement of the account that

he was regularly drawing salary from some other

establishment from November 2011. So the petitioner is

not entitled to any back wages after November 2011. The

petitioner seems to have been not working prior to

November 2011. So he is entitled to back wages for the

period. The back wages payable to him is fixed as 50% of

the wages with incentives that have been payable to him.

19. The counsel for the Respondent has been

arguing that the petitioner is even now working in another

establishment and is drawing salary which is higher than

that he was drawing while he was with the Respondent.

As seen from the extract of the account, he is getting

salary much better than what he was getting from the

Respondent. However, the case of the petitioner during

his examination on recalling is that the establishment in

which he was working has been sold and he is now without

job again. The petitioner having been turned out from

service without any reason by the Respondent he is

certainly entitled to reinstatement in service. In the alternate

the Respondent can pay him Rs. 2.00 lakhs as

compensation. Accordingly an award is passed as follows:

The Respondent is directed to reinstate the

petitioner in service or pay him compensation of Rs. 2.00

lakhs in the alternative. The Respondent shall also pay

50% of back wages to the petitioner with incentives

payable, from the date of termination till November, 2011.

The amounts payable will carry interest @ 9% per annum

if not paid within a month.

The reference is answered accordingly.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 19^th May, 2014)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri K. Durai

For the 2^nd Party/Management :

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

11.05.2009

Telegram sent by the petitioner

to the Respondent alongwith

receipt given by BSNL

Ex.W2

14.05.2009

Letter sent by the Respondent

to the Petitioner alongwith

cover

Ex.W3

20.05.2009

Letter sent by the Respondent

to the Petitioner alongwith

cover

Ex.W4

28.05.2009

Letter by the Respondent to

the Petitioner alongwith cover

Ex.W5

Courier receipt by ST couriers

(Xerox)

Ex.W6

16.06.2009

Letter by the petitioner to the

Respondent with acknowled-

gement card

Ex.W7

17.06.2009

E-mail from the Respondent to

the petitioner

Ex.W8

29.06.2009

Letter by the petitioner to the

Respondent with acknowled-

gement card

Ex.W9

22.07.2009

Letter by the petitioner to the

Respondent with acknowled-

gement card

Ex.W10

16.06.2009

Letter by the petitioner to the

Respondent with acknowled-

gement card

Ex.W11

29.06.2009

E-mail from the Respondent to

the petitioner

Ex.W12

15.03.2007

Appointment letter issued to

the

petitioner

the

Respondent Management

Ex.W13

Payment slip for the month of

August, 2007

Ex.W14

Payment slip for the month of

September, 2007

Ex.W15

Payment slip for the month of

October, 2007

Ex.W16

Payment slip for the month of

April 2009

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

_______________Nil___________________________

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4615

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1760-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbiQ bU'kqjsUl

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 172@90) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@16@84&Mh-&IV&,º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1760.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 172/

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 Life Insurance Corporation of India

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-17012/16/84-D.-IV-A]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/172/90

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B.PATLE

General Secretary, Indore Division

Insurance Employees Association,

59, Bima Nagar, Indore. . . . Workman/Union

Versus

Divisional Manager, Life Insurance

Corporation of India, 19, MG Road,

Indore`

. . . Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 13^th day of May 2014)

1. As per letter dated 31-7-90 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-17012/

16/84-D.IV-A. The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India (Divisional Office),

Indore in not allowing the workman Shri R.B.Verma,

Asstt. to cross efficiency Bar in pay scale of

Rs.175-10-215-15-290-20-410-EB-25-585 w.e.f.

1-1-1979 & 1-1-1980 is justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Statement of claim is filed by Employees

Association on behalf of workman at Page 13/1 to 13/7.

Case of Ist party Association is workman R.B.Verma was

working as Assistant in Indore Divisional Office of IInd

party. He was appointed in December 1960. Workman after

reaching the basic pay of Rs. 410 on 1-1-1978 in the pay

scale of Rs.175-10-215-15-290-20-410-EB-25-585 was

entitled to receive annual increments due on 1-1-79 &

1-1-80 after crossing Efficiency Bar. IInd party did not

allow him to cross the Efficiency Bar and increments were

not released by the IInd party. As per Regulation 56(3) of

the Staff Regulations, the decision to allow him to cross

the Efficiency Bar would be taken only by Divisional

Manager being the Competent Authority. The said

provision was that the decision not allowing workman to

cross efficiency bar was taken by someone else and not

by the competent authority. The decision is void-ab-initio.

Workman had submitted repeated representations dated

12-1-81, 16-1-81. That workman had given more output of

work but his claim was mechanically rejected.

3. That IInd party not supplied copy of Appellate

Authority acted contrary to the Staff Regulation No.49.

Workman submitted memorandum to LIC, Chairman dated

3-7-81 with comparative data of disposal by him and his

assistants. The memorandum dated 3-7-81 was neither

rejected nor allowed despite of lapse of more than 9 years.

4. The efficiency bar of workman was removed in

1983 by IInd party as per letter dated 16-4-83. Workman

had requested to reconsider his efficiency bar w.e.f.

1-1-1979. His request was still pending. The workman

received letter dated 7-2-85 from Ministry of Labour

informing that he was not allowed to cross efficiency bar

from 1-1-1979 as disciplinary proceeding was pending

against him. Workman has stated that disciplinary

proceeding was pending against him related to availing

LTC of Rs. 60.20. IInd party had imposed penalty of with-

holding his 2 increments as per order dated 30-12-88. It is

reiterated that workman was denied efficiency bar without

considering his performance in duty, merely as disciplinary

enquiry was pending and workman has suffered loss of

increments from 1979 onwards estimating Rs. 40,000.

Workman is claiming that he may be granted Efficiency

Bar w.e.f. 1-1-1979 and further increments.

5. Union has submitted rejoinder at Page 14/1 to 14/

6, 18/2 to 18/6. Ist party also submitted rejoinder at Page

21/1 to 21/6 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

That the workman was denied Efficiency Bar in violation

of the rules without appreciating his performance.

6. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to

6/6. IInd party submits that matter of increment and

4616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

crossing Efficiency Bar is covered by rule 56(3) of LIC

Staff Regulation 1960. The increment in an incremental

scale where there is an efficiency bar cannot be claimed

by an employee as a matter of right. Withholding of an

increment at the efficiency bar doesnot amount to

punishment. It is not necessary to communicate the ground

for not allowing employee to cross efficiency bar. Drawing

of increments by an employee if there is an efficiency bar

depends upon the issue of a certificate of fitness issued

by the Competent Authority. For issuing fitness certificate,

guidelines are laid down by Central office LIC. As per

instructions, issue of certificate of fitness at efficiency

bar, the Appointing Authority takes into consideration

the work record for last 3 years. That the employee

obtaining less than 24 marks out of 40 as per Confidential

Report is not considered fit to cross efficiency bar. The

rule was followed in the matter of workman. He had received

less than 24 marks. He is not found fit to cross efficiency

bar. By amendment, IInd party pleaded that workman

received less than 24 marks. His annual report for the year

1976 to 1978 were found average, below average. It was

not necessary to obtain explanation of workman in the

matter of certificate of fitness. Denial of efficiency bar to

workman is not vitiated on any ground. The

representations are submitted by workman are considered

by the Competent authorities. IInd party prays for rejection

of claim.

7. Ist party also carried consequential amendment in

statement of claim. It is submitted that enquiry conducted

against workman is vitiated vide order dated 30-12-88 in

Case No. R/5/87 by this Tribunal. Workman was issued

chargesheet only with the motive to give him less mark in

the matter of crossing efficiency bar. Only on the ground

of pendency of Enquiry proceeding, workman could not

be denied efficiency bar. Other employees were not denied

efficiency bar who were facing Departmental Enquiries.

8. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management

Life

Insurance Corporation of

India (Divisional Office),

Indore in not allowing the

workman Shri R.B.Verma,

Asstt. to cross Efficiency

Bar in pay scale of Rs.175-

10-215-15-290-20-410-EB-

25-585 w.e.f. 1-1-1979 &

1-1-1980 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?”

workman is rejected.

REASONS

9. Ist party Association raised the present dispute

relating to denial of efficiency bar to workman

Shri R.B.Verma, Assistant. The exhaustive affidavit of

evidence of Shri R.B.Verma is filed. That he joined service

as LIC Assistant in 1960. He was getting annual increment

every year as per the pay scale Rs.175-10-215-15-290-20-

410-EB-25-585. That his annual increment due on 1-1-1979

was withheld by Asstt. Divisional Manager vide letter

dated 30-1-79. IInd party with held 2 annual increments on

1-1-1979 , 1-1-1980 permanently as efficiency bar was not

removed. His further affidavit is devoted about his

representations to the authorities were not considered.

Union given notice and proceedings before conciliation

officer. That workman Shri R.B.Verma Assistant was served

with a chargesheet was allowed to cross efficiency bar. He

also referred to award passed by CGIT, Bombay. He has

further stated about arrear of work he had cleared without

availing leave. That he was not habitual late comer. He

was punctual in attendance during 1976 to 1978. The

penalty imposed against him by Competent Authority

debiting leave was not proper. The annual reports were

not served on him to given him opportunity of increment.

Withholding two annual increments permanently caused

financial loss to him. Workman has not been cross-

examined. Counter affidavit filed by Hakimuddin Saifee

for management supporting the contentions of

management of IInd party. The witness was also not cross-

examined. Management’s witness Shri Shreepad Dattatrya

Apte filed affidavit of evidence supporting contentions

of management. Management’s witness has stated that

the confidential reports of workman Shri R.B.Verma during

relevant years were average on almost all items except in

the matter of punctuality in attendance. He was found

below average during 1976 & 1978. The copies of

confidential reports and letters are produced. In his cross-

examination, management’s witness says the average

remarks of workman remains in Form No. 222. In 1977,

there was no adverse remark. In confidential report of 1977

of workman in warning column, adverse remark is found.

The positive or adverse reports are given considering work

performance. He denies that if there is no warning average

remark cannot be given. The adverse remark in 1977 in CR

of workman was not returning form 222. The punctuality

in attendance relates to the devotion to the time. The

confidential reports of employees must be objective. The

entire cross-examination of management’s witness is

devoted about how confidential reports should be written

and its gradings and other details. The entire cross-

examination doesnot indicate that the confidential reports

of workman during 1976 to 79 were adverse. The

chargesheet was also issued to the workman in 1976 for

fraudulent claim of LTC of workman. Considering the

evidence on record, when confidential report of workman

were adverse, chargesheet issued to him in the matter of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4617

fraudulent claim of LTC, the enquiry was pending,

withholding Efficiency Bar of workman at the relevant time

1-1-1979 cannot be said illegal. As the workman was not

allowed to cross efficiency bar, the denial of increment as

on 1-1-1980 was inevitable. It cannot be said illegal. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Pont No.1 in

Affirmative.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India (Divisional

Office), Indore in not allowing the workman

Shri R.B.Verma, Asstt. to cross efficiency Bar

in pay scale of Rs.175-10-215-15-290-20-410-

EB-25-585 w.e.f. 1-1-1979 & 1-1-1980 is proper.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1761-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbiQ bU'kqjUl

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k 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 ,o Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 58@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@16@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1761.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-17012/16/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 58 of 2013

PARTIES:— Employers in relation to the management of

Life Insurance Corporation of India

AN D

Their workman.

Present:— JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY

….Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of the

: Mr. D. K. Pal, Ld. Counsel.

Management

On behalf of the

: None

Workmen

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Life Insurance.

Dated: 20^th May, 2014.

AWARD

By Order No. L-17012/16/2013-IR(M) dated

28.10.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

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

the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the

services of Shri Arpan Chatterjee, working as

Development Officer on probation, is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. When the case is taken up for hearing today,

none appears on behalf of the workman through the

management is represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears

from the record that the workman is absent since 03.02.2014,

i.e., for three consecutive dates.

3. The conduct of the workman goes to show that

he is not at all interested to proceed with this reference

case further. Perhaps he has got no grievance against the

management at present.

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 20^th May, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1762-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

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

lh] fyfeVsM ds 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 ,o Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 180@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@52@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

4618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1762.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 180/

2006) 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 O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

6/6/2014.

[No. L-30011/52/2006-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

PRESENT: SHRI BINAY KUMAR SINHA,

Presiding Officer,

Ahmedabad,

Dated: 16^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No-180/06

Reference adjudication order no. L-30011/52/2006-IR(M)

The Asset Manager, ONGC Ltd,

Ankleshwar Asset, Ankleshwar

(Gujarat)

The Executive Director (RM),

ONGC, WRBC, Makarpura Road,

Head Reg off. Baroda

(Gujarat)-390009

…….First Party

And

Their Workman

Sh. Arvindkumar Natwarlal

Barot Through the Secretary,

Kamdar Hit Rakshak Sangh,

64, Rabari Colony, Odhav,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 382415

……Second Party

For the First Party:-

Shri Kishor V. Gadhia,

Advocate Shri Mahindra

K. Patel, Advocate

For the Second Party:-

Shri Ashwin J. Bhatt, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 30011/52/2006-IR (M)) dated

15.09.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset, Ankleshwar in terminating

the services of Sh. Arvind kumar Natwarlal Barot

w.e.f. 11.11.1998 is legal, proper and just? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman Sh. Arvindkumar

Nawarlal Barot is entitled to?”

2. The case of the 2^nd party (workman) as per

statement of claim (Ext.8) is that he from 07.01.1987 to

06.10.1988 was working as apprentice in the 1^st party

organisation under National Apprentice scheme of A.C.

(Mechanical) trade. After tenure of apprenticeship he was

engaged in electrical workshop as workman till 1990 and

he continuously an uninterruptedly did work. Thereafter

he was transferred to accounts department and worked as

clerk continuously till 10.11.1998. He completed 240 days

works in each calendar year. He was working under

supervision and control of the officers of ONGC Ltd.,

Ankleshwar. His attendance was made on muster roll and

he was paid monthly wages through voucher. There was

no complaint to employer (ONGC Ltd.) regarding his work

and his service record was clean. He was doing works

alike regular staff of the 1^st party organisation but was

paid less wages and was not given benefits as that of

regular employee. He for regularisation of his service filed

S.C.A . No. 9012/88 against the ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar

Asset before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and knowing

about filing of case before High Court, the 1^st party without

assigning any reason verbally terminated him from the

service on 11.11.1998 and the action of the 1^st party

organisation is illegal, unjust and improper and the 1^st party

has violated the provision of section 25F, 25G and 25H of

the I.D. Act. Prayer is made to declare the action of the 1^st

party illegal and unjust in terminating him w.e.f. 11.11.1998

and for his reinstatement with back wages and all benefits

alike regular employees with cost and any other relief to

which he is found entitled.

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

(ONGC Ltd) interlia as per written statement (Ext.12) is

that the reference is not maintainable and is barred by

delay and latches. They have denied para 1 to 7 of the

statement of claim. The 2^nd party was not working with the

1^st party and the 2^nd party has to prove that he joined the

ONGC on 07.01.1987 under the National Apprentice

Scheme as an AC (Mechanical) Trade and there after he

was appointed in Electrical Workshop as a workman and

worked up to 1990 continuously and thereafter he was

appointed as a clerk in Accounts Department and there he

worked continuously up to 10.11.1998 and he completed

240 days in each year and that he used to work under the

supervision, instruction and control of officers of the 1^st

party. It has also been denied that attendance of 2^nd party

was taken in the muster roll and was paid remuneration

through vouchers. It has been denied that the 2^nd party

used to perform the work similar to permanent workman of

the ONGC (Ankleshwar Asset) but was not paid salary

and allowances alike of permanent employee. It has been

denied that due to filing of S.C.A. No. 9012/98 by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4619

2^nd party he was terminated by the 1^st party on 11.11.1998

with prejudice and without reason without giving or

notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation etc.

The case of the 1^st party is that they have not violated the

provision of Section 25F, G & H of the I.D. Act. The

1^st party never employed the 2^nd party and it is not admitted

that the 2^nd party remained unemployed after termination

as alleged. There is no relation of master and servant

between the 1^st party and the 2^nd party and the 2^nd party is

not a workman as defined u/s. 2(S) of the I.D. Act. The

Tribunal cannot direct the corporation to absorb/reinstate

the 2^nd party in ONGC without following the reservation

policy and if the Tribunal decide the matter in favour of

the 2^nd party then Tribunal must see that there would no

breach of the contract and state circular. On these scores,

prayer is to dismiss the reference with costs.

4. In view of the rival contention in the pleadings

the following issues are taken for determination.

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the 2^nd party 2^nd party Arvind Natwarlal Barot

valid cause of action in this case?

(iii)

Is the reference bad for delay and latches?

(iv)

Whether the 2^nd party Arvind Kumar is a

‘workman’ u/s. 2(S) of the I.D. Act? Whether

relation of master and servant exists between the

1^st party (ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset) and the

2^nd party?

(v)

Whether the 2^nd party Arvind Kumar

continuously and uninterruptedly worked in the

organisation of the 1^st party from 07.01.1998 to

10.11.1998 as apprentice AC (Mechanical) trade,

then in Electrical workshop as workman and then

as clerk in Accounts Department of corporation?

Whether the 2^nd party completed 240 days work

in each calendar year prior to his verbal

termination on 11.11.1998?

(vi)

Whether the 1^st party corporation has

contravened the provisions of Section 25F, G &

H of the Industrial Dispute s Act, 1947?

(vii)

Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd, Ankleshwar in terminating the services of

Shri Arvind Kumar Natwarlal Barot w.e.f.

11.11.1998 is legal, proper and justified?

(viii)

Whether the 2^nd party is entitled to the relief as

claimed for reinstatement with back wages? Or

what relief if any the 2^nd party is entitled to?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO. (iv):- The 2^nd party submitted seven

documents with list (Ext.13). Ext.13/1 is list of T.A. bill

received by the 2^nd party Arvind Kumar while working as

clerk in Accounts Department dated 27.10.1998. Ext.13/2 is

temporary Entry pass of Arvind Kumar given by ONGC

from 17.07.1998 to 16.10.1998. Ext.13/3 is zerox of voucher

of payment made to the 2^nd party dated 08.08.1997.

Ext.13/4 is statement showing month wise salary paid to

the 2^nd party Arvind Kumar. Ext.13/5 is experience

certificate given by the officers of ONGC (Ankleshwar

Asset) to the 2^nd party Arvind Kumar on 25.06.1993.

Ext.13/6 is another experience certificate issued by the

officer of ONGC dated 19.08.1998. Ext.13/7 is also certificate

given by Shri M.B. Mansuri, Dy. Manager (F&A) to the

2^nd party Arvind kumar N. Barot dated 03.07.1997. From

Ext.13/4 it is proved that the 2^nd party received salary while

working in workshop from 01.05.1991 to 31.03.1992, from

01.04.1992 to 31.10.1998 while working as clerk in Accounts

Department of the 1^st party and last payment as per

statement from 01.10.1998 to 31.10.1998 is Rs. 1858-

222=1634. This statement is computer generated having

no seal and sign of officer of Accounts Dept., but the 1^st

party witness in his oral evidence (Ext.16) namely Mohd.

Yasin (Dy. Manager Finance, ONGC, Ankleshwar) has

categorically admitted that Ext.13/1 to 13/7 produced by

the 2^nd party are documents of ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar.

That means statement showing month wise payment of

salary to Arvind Kumar is also paper of the 1^st party ONGC

(computer generated requires no seal and signature). He

(1^st party) witness also stated vide para-2 Arvind kumar

was working from before in ONGC before his joining and

he proved Ext.13/6 and 13/7 experience certificate granted

by him to Arvind Kumar (2^nd party) and the contents of

certificates are true. Besides the 2^nd party Arvind Kumar in

his oral evidence (affidavit) Ext.14 also supported that he

was doing duty as workman of O.N.G.C. Ltd., Ankleshwar

and there is relation of master and servant. Nothing could

have been gained in his cross examination by the 1^st party’s

lawyer to discredit him. Vide para -7 he states that since he

filed S.C.A. against ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset before

the Gujarat High Court so he was terminated. This fact has

also been admitted by the 1^st party witness in his oral

evidence (Ext.14) vide para-3 it is true that since Arvind

filed case in High Court of Gujarat against ONGC Ltd, so

he was thereafter terminated.

6. So, it is held that the 2^nd party Shri Arvind kumar is

a workman defined under Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act and

there exist relation of master and servant between the 1^st

party and the 2^nd party. This issue is answered in

affirmative.

7. ISSUE NO. (v) :- The claim of the 2^nd party

workman that since after his engagement by the 1^st party

No.1 as an apprentice in the trade of A.C. (Mechanical)

from 07.01.1987 to 06.10.1988 and on completion of training

as an apprentice he was employed by the 1^st party No.1 in

electrical workshop and he worked continuously up to

1990 as an employee of the 1^st party and thereafter

transferred to account department as a clerk and served

4620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

till 10.11.1998 continuously is supported in oral evidence

of the 2^nd party Arvind Kumar and also corroborated by

the documentary evidence Ext.13/1 to 13/7 which are

admitted documents of the 1^st party and further find

support in evidence of the 1^st party witness (Ext.16) go to

prove that the 2^nd party was not engaged as contractor

workman rather he was directly engaged by the

management of the 1^st party (Ankleshwar Asset) and the

2^nd party has continuously and uninterruptedly worked as

workman of the 1^st party right from 07.01.1987 to 10.11.1998

and the officers of O.N.G.C. Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset used

to exercise supervision and control over the works

performed by the 2^nd party. The certificates Ext.13/5, 13/6

and 13/7 have been granted to the 2^nd party on the printed

letter head of ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar project. The

evidences – oral and documentary both prove that the 2^nd

party has completed more than 240 days work in every

calendar year up to 10.11.1998 i.e. before termination w.e.f.

11.11.1998 without any reason and that go to show unfair

Labour practice by the 1^st party and for showing colourable

exercise of power. So, this issue is also answered in

affirmative.

8. ISSUE NO. (vi) & (vii):- The 1^st party has failed to

disprove the claim of the 2^nd party workman that he never

worked continuously and uninterruptedly never

completed 240 days work in any calendar year as per its

pleadings in W.s (Ext.12). Rather the 1^st party witness has

also proved the claim of the 2^nd party and no justifying the

action on part of the management of the 1^st party in

terminating him (2^nd party). The 1^st party witness has

categorically admitted at para 3 that it is true filing of case

(S.C.A. 9012/98) against the management of the 1^st party

was sole reason for termination of the 2^nd party workman

Thus the 1^st party have clearly contravened the provision

of Section 25F of the I.D. Act in not giving one month

notice to workman Arvind Kumat N. Barot or notice pay

and retrenchment compensation to him and out rightly

terminated him illegaly. So the action of the 1^st party is

clearly malafide and of discriminating attitude due to such

whim that the fellow (small workman ) has dared to file

case before the Hon’ble High Court against the

management. So, I find and hold that the action of the

management of ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset, Ankleshwar

in terminating the services of Shri Arvind Kumar Natwarlal

Barot w.e.f. 11.11.1998 is illegal, improper and unjustified.

Thus issune No. (vi) is answered in affirmative and issue

No. (vii) is answered in negative and both issues decided

against the 1^st party.

9. ISSUE NO.(iii):- It has been proved that the 2^nd

party after his termination remained agitating the matter

before the High court in S.C.A. disposed of in the year

2005. So there is no delay and latches on part of the 2^nd

party. This issue is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii) :- In view of the findings to

Issues No. (iii), (iv), (v) (vi) and (vii) in the foregoings, I

further find and hold that the reference is maintainable

and the 2^nd party (workman) has valid cause of action to

raise dispute.

11. ISSUE NO. (viii):- Previously due to violation of

the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act

by the employer usually the casual workman who

completed 240 days work in calendar years were being

granted relief for reinstatement to work with back wages

to any percentage according to the merit of each case. But

in the recent years there have been change in the view of

the Hon’ble Apex Court that since casual workers even

completing 240 days work in some years, do not hold a

post as that of regular employee. So as a matter of right

casual workers cannot claim reinstatement, rather

reasonable compensation should be awarded to them. In

the case of the senior Superintendent Telegraph (traffic)

Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal & others, reported in 2010

III CLR 17= 2010 (6) SCC 773, it has been held by their

Lordship of the Hon’ble supreme Court (D.B) = “grant of

reasonable compensation to the workman instead of

reinstatement and back wages in case of termination of

service is found illegal will sub serve the ends of justice.”

But it the instant case the 2^nd party workman Shri Arvind

Kumar Natwarlal Barot was working from the year January,

1987 continuously and uninterruptedly as contingent staff

completed more than 240 days work every year before his

termination w.e.f. 11.11.1998 which has been held to be

illegal and unjustified action on part of the 1^st party

employer. So, his claim for reinstatement as contingent

workman in the 1^st party organisation (ONGC Ltd,

Ankleshwar Asset) is also found to be justified due to

continuous and uninterrupted service in the corporation,

though he did not appear to hold a post as that of regular

employee. In the alternative option, the 2^nd party workman

is also entitled for reasonable compensation from the

1^st party.

12. Considering the long tenure of service in

continuity from 07.01.1987 to 10.11.1998 of about 12 years

the workman Arvind Kumar Natwarlal Barot is directed to

be reinstated as contingent workman in the corporation

ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset with continuity of service

with 40% back wages. If the 2^nd party workman choose to

exercise the alternative option of getting compensation

from the 1^st party, then a lump sum compensation of Rupees

Five Lakh only (Rs. 5,00,000) is directed to be paid to him

by the 1^st party. This issue is decided accordingly.

The reference is allowed. However, no order of cost.

1^st party is directed to reinstate the 2^nd party workman

Shri Arvind Kumar Natwarlal Barot within one month of

receipt of copy of award, failing which the back wages will

carry interest @ 9% P.A. And if the 2^nd party workman

chose to exercise alternative option of getting

compensation, then the 1^st party will pay the compensation

of Rupees Five Lakh Only to him within one month of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4621

receipt of copy of award, failing which the amount of

compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under Section 17 (1) of the

I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1763-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

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

lh-] fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 172@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@51@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1763.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 172/

2006) 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 O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

6/6/2014.

[No. L-30011/51/2006-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Shri Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer,

Ahmedabad,

Dated: 16^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 172/06

Reference adjudication order No. L-30011/51/2006-

IR(M)

The Asset Manager,

ONGC Ltd,

Ankleshwar Asset,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat)

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Sh. Hitesh Kumar B. Jadav

Through the secretary,

Kamdar Hit Rakshak Sangh,

64, Rabari Colony, Odhav,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 382415 ...Second Party

For the First Party:-

Shri Kishor V. Gadhia, Advocate

Shri Mahindra K. Patel, Advocate

For the Second Party:- Shri Ashwin J. Bhatt, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-30011/51/2006-IR( M)) dated

11.09.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., Ankleshwar Asset, Ankleshwar in terminating

the services of Sh. Hitesh Kumar B. Jadav w.e.f.

11.11.1998 is legal and just? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman Sh. Hitesh kumar B. Jadav is

entitled to?”

2. The case of the 2^nd party (workman) as per

statement of claim(Ext.6) is that he from July, 1987 was

engaged as typist cum clerk by the 1^st party in drilling

business group as contingent staff and he was getting

salary per month on acceptance of bill. Further case is that

the 1^st party management in order to prevent any future

right used to change his surname whereas he continuously

and uninteruptly worked as typist cum clerk till 10.11.1998

and has completed more than 240 days work in every year

continuously. He was under supervision and control of

the O.N.G.C. Ltd. (1^st party). His attendance was made on

muster roll and he was paid monthly wages through

vouchers. There was no complaint to employer (O.N.G.C.

Ltd) regarding his work and his service record was clean.

He was doing work alike regular employee of the 1^st party

organization but was paid less wages and was not given

benefits as that of regular employee. He for regularisation

of his service filed special civil Application 12185/98 before

the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat against the O.N.G.C.

Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset and knowing about filing of case

before the Hon’ble court, the 1^st party without assigning

any reason verbally terminated him form the services on

11.11.1998 and the action of the 1^st party organisation is

illegal, unjust and improper and the 1^st party has violated

the provisions of Section 25F, G and H of the I.D. Act.

Prayer is made to declare the action of the 1^st party illegal

and unjust in terminating him w.e.f. 11.11.1998 and for his

reinstatement with back wages and all benefits alike regular

employees with cost and any other relief to which he is

found entitled.

4622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

(ONGC Ltd) Ankleshwar Asset as per written statement

(Ext.12) is that the reference is not maintainable and is

barred by delay and latches. They have denied para 1 to 7

of the statement of claim. The 2^nd party was not working

with the 1^st party and the 2^nd party has to prove that he

joined the ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Asset in July, 1987 and

was working continuously as typist-cum-clerk and that

he used to work under the supervision, instruction and

control of officers of the 1^st party. It has also been denied

that the attendance of the 2^nd party was taken in the muster

roll and was paid remuneration through vouchers. It has

been denied that the 2^nd party used to perform the work

similar to permanent workmen of the ONGC Ltd.

(Ankleshwar Asset) but was not paid salary and allowances

alike of permanent employee. It has been denied that due

to filing of S.C.A. No. 12185/1988 by the 2^nd party. He was

terminated by the 1^st party on 11.11.1998 with prejudice

and without reason and without giving notice, notice pay

and retrenchment compensation etc. The case of the 1^st

party is that they have not violated the provision of section

25F, G, and H of the I.D. Act. The 1^st party never employed

the 2^nd party and it is not admitted that the 2^nd party

remained unemployed after termination as alleged. There

is no relation of master and servant between the 1^st party

and the 2^nd party and the 2^nd party is not a workman as

defined under Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act. The tribunal

cannot direct the corporation to absorb/reinstate the 2^nd

party in the ONGC without following the reservation policy

and if the tribunal decide the matter in favour of the 2^nd

party then Tribunal must see that there would be no breach

of contract and state circular. On these scores, prayer is to

dismiss the reference with cost.

4. In view of the rival contention in the pleadings

the following issues are taken for determination:-

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the 2^nd party Hitesh Kumar B. Jadav valid

cause of action in this case?

(iii)

Is the reference bad for delay and latches?

(iv)

Whether the 2^nd party Hitesh kumar B. Jadav

is a workman under section 2(S) of the I.D.

Act? Whether relation of master and servant

exist between the 1^st party (ONGC Ltd)

Ankleshwar Asset and the 2^nd party?

(v)

Whether he 2^nd party Hiteshbhai B. Jadav

continuously and uninterruptedly worked in

the organisation of the 1^st party from July, 1987

to 10.11.1998 as typist-cum-clerk of

corporation? Whether the 2^nd party completed

240 days work in each calendar year prior to

his verbal termination on 11.11.1998?

(vi)

Whether the 1^st party (corporation) has

contravened the provisions of section 25F, G

& H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(vii)

Whether the action of the management of the

1^st party (ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Assets,

Ankleshwar) in terminating the services of

Shri Hiteshbhai B. Jadav w.e.f. 11.11.1998 is

legal, proper and justified?

(viii)

Whether the 2^nd party is entitled to the relief

as claimed for reinstatement with back wages?

Or what relief if any, the 2^nd party is entitled

to?”

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO. (iv):- The 2^nd party submitted 8

documents with list (Ext.13). Ext.13/1 is zerox copy of police

verification report of the 2^nd party at the instance of the 1^st

party (ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar Security Dept.). Ext.13/2 to

13/5 are zerox copies of temporary entry pass in the name

of the 2^nd party for different period and years. Though the

2^nd party claims that he worked althrough as typist cum

clerk but his designation in the declaration form has been

given casual labourer and it was sent for verification to

Sonemahal Police Station, Bharuch. The Home district of

the 2^nd party more show his police verification was done

as contract employee. But the 1^st party has failed to produce

any relevant documents that actually the 2^nd party was a

contractor’s employee and not directly engaged by the

corporation with police verification report certificate of

backward class (B.C) is also attached. The temporary entry

pass was issued to the 2^nd party Hitesh kumar B. Jadav by

Sr. Security officer, ONGC, Ankleshwar and none of the

entry pass indicate that he is contractor worker. Rather go

to show employee of ONGC, Ankleshwar Asset. Ext.13/6

is payment made to 7 labourers by contingent bill including

the 2^nd party by the officer of ONGC for the month of

August, 1996 having no any contractor’s name. Ext13/7 is

contingent bills dated 01.10.1996 for payment for the month

of September to 7 labour including the 2^nd part by Sr. P&A

officer ONC. The zerox copy of muster roll of ONGC, D.B.G.,

Ankleshwar for the month of September,1996 for all 30

days working of the 2^nd party and likewise zerox copy of

muster roll for the month of November, 1996 for 30 days

presence. This relate to contingent bill for the month of

December, 1996 (Ext.13/8). The 1^st party witness Shri Naresh

Kumar Guliani (Chief Engineer, ONGC, Ankleshwar Asset)

during cross examination Ext.16 vide para 5 admitted that

concerned workman Shri Hitesh Jadav was working in

ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar, D.R.B. (Drilling Business Group).

He did not deny that he worked from 1987 to Nov., 1998,

only stated he has no knowledge. He also admits that

Ext.13/1 to 13/8 are papers given by the ONGC, Ankleshwar

Asset. Vide para 7 he stated that though ONGC, has not

given appointment letter to 2^nd part but he was terminated

from service in 1998. Vide para 8 he admits that the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4623

2^nd party had filed S.C.A. before Gujarat High Court. He

admits that at the time of termination the workman (2^nd

party) was not given notice or notice pay and retrenchment

compensation. He stated he cannot say how many

contingent staff were made regular employee in ONGCL,

Ankleshwar. It was suggested to him that he has

deliberately concealed the true facts. Besides the 2^nd party

Shri Hiteshkumar B. Yadav in his evidence (affidavit) Ext.14

also supported that he was doing duty as workman of

ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar and there is relation of master and

servant. Nothing could have been gained in his cross

examination by the 1^st party’s lawyer to discredit him. Vide

para 2 he stated that since he filed S.C.A. against O.N.G.C.

Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset before the Gujarat High Court, so

he was terminated. This fact has also been admitted by

the 1^st party witness in his oral evidence (Ext.16) vide

para-7.

6. So, it is held that the 2^nd party Shri Hiteshkmar B.

Jadav is a workman defined under section 2(S) of the I.D.

Act and there exist relation of master and servant between

the 1^st party and the 2^nd party. This issue is answered in

affirmative.

7. ISSUE NO. (v) :- The claim of the 2^nd party

workman that since after his engagement by the 1^st party

in D.B.G (Drilling Business Group) he actually worked as

typist cum clerk from July 1987 to 10.11.1998 and served

continuously is supported in oral evidence of the 2^nd party

Hiteshkumar B. Jadav and also corroborated by the

documentary evidence Ext.13/1 to13/8 which are admitted

documents of the 1^st party and further find support in the

evidence of the 1^st party witness (Ext.16) go to disprove

the contention of the 1^st party that 2^nd party was engaged

as contract labourer (workman) whereas go to prove that

the 2^nd party was directly engaged by the management of

the 1^st party after due Police Verification and the 2^nd party

has continuously and uninterruptedly worked as workman

of the ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset (1^st party) right from

July 1987 to 10.11.1998 and the officers of the ONGC Ltd.,

Ankleshwar Asset used to exercise supervision and control

over the work performed by the 2^nd party. The evidence

oral and documentary both prove that the 2^nd party who is

‘workman’ of the 1^st party has completed more than 240

days work in every calendar year up to 10.11.1998 i.e. before

his verbal termination w.e.f. 11.11.1998 without any reason

and that go to show unfair labour practice by the 1^st party

and for showing colourable exercise of power. So, this

issue is also answered in affirmative.

8. ISSUE NO. (vi) & (vii):- The 1^st party has failed to

disprove the claim of the 2^nd party workman that he never

worked continuously and uninterruptedly and never

completed 240 days work in any calendar year as per its

pleadings in W.s (Ext.12). Rather the 1^st party witness has

also proved the claim of the 2^nd party and not justifying

the action on part of the management of the 1^st party in

terminating him (2^nd party). The 1^st party witness has

admitted vide para-7 that it is true that 2^nd party was

terminated in the year 1998. Thus the 1^st party was

terminated in the year 1998. Thus, the 1^st party has clearly

contravened the provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act

in not giving one month notice to workman Hiteshkumar

B. Jadav or notice pay and retrenchment compensation to

him and out rightly terminated him illegally. So the action

of the 1^st party is clearly malafide and of discriminating

attitude due to such whim that the fellow (small workman)

has dared to file case before the Hon’ble High Court

against the management. So, I find and hold that the action

of the management of ONGC Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset,

Ankleshwar in terminating the services of Shri Hiteshkumar

B. Jadav w.e.f. 11.11.1998 is illegal, improper and unjustified.

Thus issue no. (vi) is answered in affirmative and issue

No. (vii) is answered in negative and both issues decided

against the 1^st party.

9. ISSUE NO.(iii):- It has been proved that the 2^nd

party after his termination remained agitating the matter

before the High Court in S.C.A. disposed of in the year

2005. So there is no delay and latches on part of the 2^nd

party. This issue is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii) :- In view of the findings to

Issue No. (iii), (iv), (v) (vi) and (vii) in the foregoings, I

further find and hold that the reference is maintainable

and the 2^nd party (workman) has valid cause of action to

raise dispute.

11. ISSUE NO. (viii):- Previously due to violation of

the mandatory provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act by

the employer usually the casual workman who completed

240 days work in calendar years were being granted relief

for reinstatement to work with back wages to any

percentage according to the merit of each case. But in the

recent years there have been change in the view of the

Hon’ble Apex Court that sine casual workers even

completing 240 days work in some years, do not hold a

post as that of regular employee. So as a matter of right

casual workers cannot claim reinstatement, rather

reasonable compensation should be awarded to them. In

the case of the Senior Superintendent Telegraph (traffic)

Bhopal vs. Santoshkumar Seal & others, reported in 2010

III CLR 17= 2010 (6) SCC 773, it has been held by their

Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (D.B) = “grant of

reasonable compensation to the workman instead of

reinstatement and back wages in case of termination of

service is found illegal will sub serve the ends of justice.”

But in the instant case the 2^nd party workman Shri

Hiteshkumar B. Jadav was working from the year July 1987

continuously and uninterruptedly as cogent workman and

thus has completed more than 240 days work every year

before his termination w.e.f. 11.11.1998 which has been

held to be illegal an unjustified action on part of the 1^st

party employer. So, his claim for reinstatement as

4624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contingent workman in the 1^st party organisation (ONGC

Ltd, Ankleshwar Asset) is also found to be justified due to

continuous and uninterrupted service in the corporation,

though he did not appear to hold a post as that of regular

employee. In the alternative option, the 2^nd party workman

is also entitled for reasonable compensation from the 1^st

party.

12. Considering the long tenure of service in

continuity from July 1987 to 10.11.1998 of about 12 years

the workman Hitteshkumar B. Jadav is directed to be

reinstated as contingent workman in the corporation ONGC

Ltd. Ankleshwar Asset with continuity of service with 40%

back wages. If the 2^nd party workman choose to exercise

the alternative option of getting compensation from the 1^st

party, then a lump sum compensation of Rs. Five Lakh

Only (Rs. 5,00,000/-) is directed to be paid to him by the 1^st

party. This issue is decided accordingly.

The reference is allowed. However, no order of cost.

1^st party is directed to reinstate the 2^nd party workman

Shri Hiteshkumar B. Jadav within one month of receipt of

copy of award, failing which the back wages will carry

interest @ 9% P.A. And if the 2^nd party workman chose to

exercise alternative option of getting compensation, then

the 1^st party will pay the compensation of Rupees Five

Lakh Only to him within one month of receipt of copy of

award, failing which the amount of compensation will carry

interest @ 9% per annum.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 (1) of the

I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1764-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1375@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@48@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1375/

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 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 06/06/2014.

[No. L-30012/48/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

BINAY KUMAR SINHA,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 7^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 1375/2004

Reference (I.T.C) No.31 of 2001 (old)

Reference Adjudication order No. L-30012/48/2001-

IR(M), dated 07.11.2001

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Ichhapore, Hazira Road, Surat

Surat(Gujarat)-394510

...(1^st party)

And

Their workman

Sh. Jitendra Natvarlal Patel,

Sahara Darwaja,Umarwada Tekra,

Opp. Bharat Petroleum,

Surat (GUJARAT)-395003

..(2^nd party)

For the First Party:

Shri Yogesh Pathak, Advocate

For the Second Party:

Shri Jayesh M. Patel, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour New

Delhi, vide its order No. L- 30012/48/2001-IR(M) dated

07.11.2001, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Surat(Gujarat) with respect to the matter

specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether Sh. Jitendra Natwarlal Patel has put in

‘‘Continuous Service’’ in the Bharat Petroleum

Corpn. Ltd as per provisions of Section-25B of the

I D Act? If so, whether the action of the management

of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd, Hazira, Surat

through its officers in discontinuing/terminating the

services of Sh. Jitendra Natvarlal Patel w.e.f.

11.10.2000 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and

from which date and what other directions are

necessary in the matter’’?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4625

2. The Case of the 2^nd party workman Shri Jitendra

Natvarlal Patel as per statement of claim (Ext-5) is that he

joined the Service of the 1^st party on 20-01-2000 at Sahara

Darwaja, Surat City depot as Casual worker at daily wage

rate. He was working continuously and uninterruptedly

for about two years. Only one weekly off was granted and

for the rest of days he was working and has worked for

more than 240days in calendar year, but he was not made

permanent. He and other casual workers complained

against unfair labour practice by the 1^st party before A.C.L.

(Central) & Dy C.L(Central) Baroda. Due to the reason he

was terminated from the service by the management of 1^st

party. Notice was not given regarding Shifting of Sahara

Darwaja depot to Hazira Industrial Area. He has not

abandoned the Service rather the 1^st party terminated him.

Praying for reinstatement with back wages and cost.

3. As against this the Case of the 1^st party inter alia

as per written statement (Ext-13) and amended W.S.(Ext-

19) is that the concerned workman was engaged on casual

basis as per requirement and exigency of work of loading

and unloading wagons at the working place and that he

was working when other regular employees were absent

and that he has not worked continuously and

uninterruptedly. Sahara Darwaja depot was shifted to

Hazira Industrial area on advance notice and he was

directed to report for duty at Hazira depot from 1.07.2000,

but he himself did not report for duty and abandoned the

works of own volition. The 1^st party has not violated the

provisions of Section 25F of I.D. Act and there was no

breach of Section 25G,H of I.D. Act and no retrenchment

and termination under Section 2(rr) of I.D. Act arises. On

these grounds prayer is to dismiss the reference since the

concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In view of the pleadings of the parties the

following issues are taken for discussions and

determination:-

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the 2^nd party (workman) got any valid

cause of action?

(iii)

Whether the concerned workman Shri Jitendra

Natvarlal Patel completed 240days works in

calendar year from his engagement and

whether he completed 240 days in the calendar

year preceding his discontinuation/

termination?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corpn.Ltd.,Hazira, Surat

through its officers in discontinuing/

terminating the services of workman

Sh. Jitendra Natvarlal Patel w.e.f. 11.10.2000 is

legal, proper and justified?

(v)

Whether the concerned workman Shri Jitendra

Natvarlal Patel is entitled to reinstatement with

back wages? If not, whether he is entitled

alternatively for compensation? what

directions are necessary in the matter?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO. (iii):- On behalf of the 2^nd party

(workman) some document with list Ext. 9 was submitted

on 07.04.2003.Ext.9/1 is copy of petition of S.C.A. No. 5107

of 2000 filed by nine petitioners including concerned

workman Jitendra Natvarlal Patel. Ext.9/2 is copy of order

dated 07.03.2001 of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court by

which the S.C.A. was disposed of as withdrawn since the

appropriates Government referred the disputes for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Ext.9/3 is copy of

complainant/applicants nine in number including Jitendra

Natvarlal Patel to A C L (Central) Baroda in connection

with unfair Labour practice adopted by the management

of the 1^st party(B.P.CL.) in which 2^nd party Jitendra Natvarlal

is also one of Signatury.Ext.9/4 is ES.I card showing date

of engagement on 20.01.2000. Ext.10 is an application dated

19.08.03 of the 2^nd party demanding production of

(1)Muster Roll from January 1986 to December 2000.

6. The 1^st party after long interval produced some

Muster Roll books, wage certificate etc. with a list marked

Ext.28 to 28/4 as consolidated document for all the group

matter reference Case-1370,1372,1373,1374,1375,1376,1377

and 1396/04 and order was passed below Ext.27 that the

evidence will cover all the eight reference cases. Another

application was filed on 01.12.2011 on behalf of the 1^st

party praying therein to direct the 2^nd party to complete

their stage of leading evidence first. But the 2^nd party

workman Jitendra Natvarlal is not attending the case.

There after the 1^st party’s witness Shri Vinod R. Panchal

was examined and cross examined vide Ext.26. He

produced original attendance register, wage register.

According to him Second party workman Jitendra

Natvarlal Patel was a casual worker and was working

intermittently in Sahara Darwaja depot and he never

completed 240 days works. He was cross examined by

Shri Jayesh M. Patel, Advocate, but nothing could have

been gained in favour of concerned workman Jitendra

Natvarlal Patel. More so Jitendra Natvarlal Patel left to

contest this case and failed to adduce oral evidence to

support Statement of Claim. On behalf of the 1^st party with

list Ext.12 the attendance Summary of Concerned workman

Jitendra Natvarlal Patel has been produced for the period

1999-2000 to 2000-2001 that go to prove that Jitendra

worked for 90 days in 2000 from September to December

and from April to September 2001 he worked for 75.5 days

and total days of work is only 165.5. Thus 2^nd party workman

never completed 240 days’ work in calendar year. The

evidence of the 1^st party are in abundance to discard the

pleadings of the second party that he continuously and

4626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

uninterruptedly worked at Sahara Darwaja depot and

completed 240 days works in calendar year. On the other

hand there is complete lack of cogent evidence on behalf

of the second party in support of claim.

7. Upon consideration of the evidence and

materials on the record, I find and hold that the concerned

workman Jitendra Natvarlal Patel had not worked

continuously and uninterruptedly and had not completed

240 days works in any calendar year preceding his

termination/discontinuation on 11.10.2000. So this issue

is answered in negative.

8. ISSUE NO.(iv)As per findings to issue No.(iii) in

the foregoings, I further find and holed that Jitendra

Natvarlal Patel had not put in continuous service as casual

worker in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd as per provision of

section 25-B of I.D. Act and so the management of the 1^st

party(B.P.C.L.) had no legal liability to observe the

provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act for issuing notice

or giving notice pay and giving retrenchment

compensation to him. So, the action of the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Hazira, Surat through its

officers in discontinuing/terminating the services of

Jitendra Natvarlal Patel w.e.f. 11.10.2000 is legal, proper

and justified. This issue is answered in affirmative in favour

of the 1^st party.

9. ISSUE NO.(i) & (ii):-As per findings to issue

No.(iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I further find and hold that

the reference is not maintainable and the 2^nd party has no

valid course of action in this case.

10.ISSUE NO.(v):-The 2^nd party workman Shri

Jitendra Natvarlal Patel is not entitled to any relief in this

case.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed No order of

cost.

This is my Award.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1765-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku] fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks 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 1373@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@47@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1765.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1373/

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 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-30012/47/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

PRESENT: SHRI BINAY KUMAR SINHA,

Presiding Officer,

Ahmedabad,

Dated: 7^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No-1373/04

Reference (ITC) No-29/2001(old)

Reference adjudication order No. L-30012/47/2001-

IR(M), New Delhi, dated 10.10.2001

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Ichhapore, Hazira road,

Surat(Gujarat) 394510

. . . .First Party

And

Their Workman

Sh.Rasul Sindha,

Sahara Darwaja, Umarwada Tekra,

Surat (Gujarat)395003

…Second Party

For the First Party:-

Shri Yogesh Pathak, Advocate

For the Second Party:- Shri Jayesh M. Patel, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour vide

its Order No. L-30012/47/2001-IR (M) New Delhi, dated

10.10.2001, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Surat(Gujarat) with respect to the

matters specified in the schedule.

SCHEDULE

‘’Whether Sh. Rasul Sindha has put in continuous

service in the Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd as per

provisions of section 25-B of the I.D.Act. If so,

whether the action of the management of Bharat

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4627

Petroleum Corp. Ltd, Hazira, Surat through its

officers in discontinuing/terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Rasul Sindha W.e.f. 16.11.2000

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

the concerned workman is entitled to and from which

date and what other directions are necessary in the

matter?’’

2. The case of the 2^nd party workman Shri Rasul

Sindha as per statement of claim (Ext. 5) is that he joined

the service of the 1^st party on 01.04.1991 in the industrial

establishment of the 1^st party as a casual labourer at daily

wage rate. He was working at Ring Road, Sahara Darwaja,

Surat Depot continuously and uninterruptedly for about

9 years. Only one weekly off was granted and for the rest

of days he was working and had worked for more than 240

days in calendar years but he was not made permanent, he

and other casual worker complained against unfair labour

practice by the 1^st party. Due to the reason he was

terminated from the service by the management of 1^st party.

Notice was not given for shifting of Sahara Darwaja Depot

to Hazira Industrial Area. He has not abandoned the service

rather the 1^st party terminated him praying for reinstatement

with back wages and cost.

3. As against this the case of the 1^st party inter alia

as per written statement and amended written statement

(Ext.13 and Ext.20) is that the concerned workman was

engaged on casual basis as per requirement and exigency

of work of loading and unloading wagons at the working

place and that he was working when other regular

employee were absent and that he has not worked for 240

days in any year and has not worked continuously and

uninterruptedly. Sahara Darwaja Depot was shifted to

Hazira industrial area on advance notice and he was

directed to report for duty at Hazira Depot from 01.07.2000,

but he himself did not report for duty and abondoned the

works of own violation. The 1^st party has not violated the

provisions of Section 25F of I.D.Act and there was no

breach of Section 25G, H. of I.D. Act and no retrenchment

and termination u/s. 2(rr) of I.D. Act arises. On these

grounds prayer is to dismiss the reference since the

concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In view of the pleadings of the parties the

following issues are taken for discussions and

determination.

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the 2^nd party (workman) got any valid

course of action?

(iii)

Whether the concerned workman Shri Rasul

Sindha completed 240 days works in each

calendar year from his engagement and

whether he completed 240 days in the calendar

year preceding his discontinuation/

termination?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Hazira, Surat

through officers in discontinuing/terminating

the services of workman Sh. Rasul Sindha

w.e.f. 16.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified?

(v)

Whether the concerned workman Shri Rasul

Sindha is entitled to reinstatement with back

wages? If not whether he is entitled

alternatively for compensation? What

directions are necessary in the matter ?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO (iii):- on behalf of the 2^nd party

workman some documents with list ext. 9 was submitted

on 07.04.2003. Ext 9/1 is copy of petition of S.C.A. No.

5107 of 2000 filed by nine petitioner including concerned

workman Rasul Sindha. Ext.9/2 is copy of order dated

07.03.2001 of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat by which

the S.C.A was disposed of as withdrawn since the

appropriate Government referred the disputes for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Ext-9/3 is copy of

complainant/applicants nine is member including Rasul

Sindha to A. CL(Central) and Dy CL(Central) Baroda in

connection with unfair labour practice adopted by the

management of the 1^st party(B.P.C.L) in which 2^nd party

Rasul Sindha is also one of signatory Ext-9/4 is E S I card

of Rasul Sindha showing date of engagement on

01.04.1991. Ext-10 is an application dated 19.08.2003 of the

2^nd party demanding production of-(1)Muster Roll 1986 to

2000 (2) Vouchers from 01.04.1991 to 31.12.2000.

6. The 1^st party though after long interval produced

some muster roll, books, wage certificate, etc. with a list

marked Ext. 28 to 28/4. The 1^st party files an application on

01.12.2011(Ext.27) that the 1^st party be permitted to lead

documentary and oral evidence in all the eight groups

matter reference case 1370,1372,1373,1374,1375,1376,1377

and 1396/2004 and order was passed below Ext.27 that the

evidence will cover all the eight reference case. Another

application on 01.12.2011 was filed on behalf of the 1st

party praying there in to direct the 2^nd party to complete

their stage of leading evidence first. But the 2^nd party’s

lawyer informed that the 2^nd party workman Rasul Sindha

is not attending the case. Thereafter the 1^st party’s witness

Shri Vinod R. Panchal was examined and cross-examined

vide Ext. 26. He produced original attendance register, wage

Sindha was a casual worker and was working intermittently

in Sahara Darwaja Depot and he never completed 240 days

works. He was cross-examined by Shri Jayesh Patel,

Advocate but nothing could have been gained in favour

of concerned workman Rasul Sindha. More so, Rasul

Sindha left to contest this case and failed to support

statement of claim. On behalf of the 1^st party with list

Ext.16 the attendance summary of concerned workman

Rasul Sindha has been produce for the period April 1992

4628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to March 2001 that go to show that Rasul Sindha never

completed 240 days’ work in any calendar year. The

evidences of 1^st party are in abundance to award the

pleading of the 2^nd party that he continuously and

uninterruptedly worked at Sahara Darwaja Depot and

employed 240 days’ work in calendar year on the other

hand there is complete each of cogent evidence on behalf

of the 2^nd party in support of claim.

7. Upon consideration of the evidence and materials

on the record, I find and hold that the concerned workman

Rasul Sindha had not worked continuously and

uninterruptedly and had not completed 240 days works in

the calendar year preceding has alleged termination on

16-11-2000. So, this issue is answered in negative.

8. ISSUE NO. (iv) : - As per findings to issue no. iii

in the foregoings, I further find and hold that Rasul Sindha

had not put in continuous on service as casual worker in

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd., as per Provision of Section

25-B of I.D. Act and so the management of the 1^st party

(B.P.C.L.) had no legal liability to observe the provisions

of Section 25F of the I.D. Act for issuing notice or giving

notice pay and giving any retrenchment compensation, to

him. So, the action of the management of Bharat Petroleum

Corp. Ltd., Hazira, Surat through its officers in

discontinuing/terminating the service of Rasul Sindha

w.e.f. 16.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified. This issue is

answered in affirmative in favour of the 1^st party.

9. ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii):- As per Findings to issue

No.(iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I find and hold further

that the reference is not maintainable and the 2^nd party has

no valid cause of action in this case.

10. ISSUE NO. (v):- The 2^nd Party workman Shri Rasul

Sindha is not entitled to any relief in this case.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1766-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1370@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 6@6@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@45@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1766.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1370/

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 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-30012/45/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present:

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad, Dated 7^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 1370/2004

Reference (I.T.C) No.26 of 2001 (old)

Reference Adjudication order No. L-30012/45/2001-IR(M),

dated 10.10.2001

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Ichhapore, Hazira Road,

Surat (Gujarat)-394510

... (1^st party)

AND

Their workman

Sh. Rakesh Kantilal Patel

(since dead) (mother Taraben

Kantibhai Patel, substituted)

Sahara Darwaja, Umarwada Tekra,

Opp. Bharat Petroleum,

Surat (GUJARAT)-395003

...(2^nd party)

For the First Party:

Shri Yogesh Pathak, Advocate

For the Second Party:

Shri Jayesh M. Patel, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi, vide its order No. L-30012/45/2001-IR(M) dated

10.10.2001, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) with respect to the

matter specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether Sh. Rakesh Kantilal Patel has put in

‘‘Continuous Service’’ in the Bharat Petroleum

Corpn. Ltd as per provisions of Section-25B of the

I D Act? If so, whether the action of the management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4629

of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd, Hazira, Surat

through its officers in discontinuing/terminating the

services of the Workman Sh. Rakesh Kantilal Patel

w.e.f. 08.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to

and from which date and what other directions are

necessary in the matter’’?

2. The Case of the 2^nd party workman Shri Rakesh

Kantilal Patel as per statement of claim (Ext.5) filed by him

during life time (but now dead) is that he joined the Service

of the 1^st party on 01.09.1998 in the Industrial Establishment

of the 1^st party as a casual labour at daily wage rate. He

was working at Ring Road, Sahara Darwaja, Surat Depot

continuously and uninterruptedly for about 2-3 years.

Only one weekly off was granted and for the rest of days

he was working. He had worked for more than 240 days in

calendar years, but he was not made permanent. He and

other casual workers complained against unfair labour

practice by the 1^st party. Due to the reason he was

terminated from the service by the management of 1^st party.

Notice was not given for Shifting of Sahara Darwaja depot

to Hazira Industrial Area. He has not abandoned the

Service rather the 1^st party terminated him.

3. As against this the Case of the 1^st party inter alia

as per written statement (Ext-9) and amended W.S.(Ext-15)

is that the concerned workman was engaged on casual

basis as per requirement and exigency of work of loading

and unloading wagons at the working place and that he

was working when other regular employees were absent

and that he has not worked for 240 days in any year and

has not worked continuously and uninterruptedly. The

Sahara Darwaja Depot was shifted to Hazira Industrial area

on advance notice and he was directed to report for duty

at Hazira Depot from 1.07.2000, but he himself did not report

for duty and abandoned the works of own violation. The

1^st party has not violated the provisions of Section 25F of

I.D. Act and there was no breach of Section 25G, H of I.D.

Act and no retrenchment and illegal termination u/s. 2(rr)

of I.D. Act arises. On these grounds prayer is to dismiss

the reference since the concerned workman is not entitled

to any relief.

4. The Original 2^nd Party workman Rakesh Kantilal

Patel during pendency of case died on 29.11.2002 as per

death certificate granted by Surat Municipal Corporation

which was filed in the Court on 04.08.2010 after more than

7 years of death. Rakesh Kantilal Patel during his life time

had filed S/c on 29.01.2002. An application for condoning

delay was filed by Taraben Kantilal Patel, the mother of

deceased Rakesh Kantilal Patel vide Ext-20 on 15.09.2010.

She was Substituted to make contest in the case for her

deceased son Rakesh.

5. In view of the pleadings of the parties the

following issues are taken for discussions and

determination:-

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the Substituted 2^nd party (the mother of

deceased workman) got valid cause of action?

(iii)

Whether deceased workman Rakesh Kantilal

Patel completed 240 days works in each

calendar year from his engagement and

whether he (deceased) completed 240 days in

each calendar year preceding his

discontinuation/termination?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corpn.Ltd., Hazira, Surat

through its officers in discontinuing/

terminating the services of deceased workman

Rakesh Kantilal Patel w.e.f. 08.11.2000 is legal,

proper and justified?

(v)

Whether the present second party (mother of

deceased Rakesh) is entitled to any relief in

this case? what directions are necessary in

the matter?

FINDINGS

6. ISSUE NO. (iii):- The present second party

(mother of deceased Rakesh Kantilal Patel has not adduced

any documentary evidence to show that her son was

continuously and uninterruptedly working in the Industrial

Establishment at Sahara Darwaja depot right from his

engagement on 01.09.1998 till his alleged termination on

08.11.2000. The Identity Card or ESI Card of deceased

workman has not been produced. Only there is oral

evidence of Taraben Kantilal Patel, the mother of deceased

workman at Ext. 23. During examination she could not

support that her deceased son Rakesh had completed 240

days works in the establishment (Shahara Darwaja Depot)

of the 1^st party. It has come that her husband Kantilal was

regular driver in the establishment of the 1^st party who

died and after that his son Rakesh was engaged as Casual

worker. But there is no cogent evidence to support that he

was working continuously and uninterruptedly. On behalf

of the 2^nd party through a list Ext. 24 letter of B P.C L dated

01.12.2003 has been filed which is addressed to Smt.

Taraben Kantilal Patel regarding grant of lump sum

payment of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh only) to her by

the company instead of compassionate appointment to

her or any children of deceased Kantibhai who died in

accident. This Ext. 24/1 does not support that deceased

Rakesh continuously worked as casual labour to complete

240 days works in calendar year.

7. On the other hand the evidence of the 1^st party

witness Mr. Naresh Juneja has clearly stated that casual

workers were being employed at Surat depot purely on

need based and intermittently and the unskilled workers

were mainly engaged at the time of unloading the railway

4630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

wagons of MS(petrol) HSD(Diesel) & Kerosene. This

witness was not cross-examined on behalf of the 2^nd party

and so his evidence remained unchallenged.

8. Upon Consideration of the evidence and materials

on the record, I find and hold that the deceased workman

Rakesh Kantilal Patel had not worked for 240 days in any

calendar year during his engagement as casual labour and

he did not complete 240 days in the calendar year preceding

his termination. So, this issue is answered in negative.

9. ISSUE NO. (iv) :-As per findings to issue No.(iii)

in the foregoings, it is held that deceased Rakesh Kantilal

Patel had not put in continuous service as casual helper in

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd as per provision of section

25-B of I.D. Act and so the management of the 1^st

party(B.P.C.L.) had no legal liability to observe the

provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act for issuing notice

or giving notice pay and giving any retrenchment

compensation to the deceased workman Rakesh. So, the

action of the management of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.

Hazira, Surat through its officers in discontinuing/

terminating the services of deceased workman Rakesh

Kantilal Patel w.e.f. 08.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified.

This issue is answered in affirmative in favour of the 1^st

party.

10. ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii):-As per findings above to

issue No. (iii) & (iv) I find and hold further that the

reference is not maintainable and the 2^nd party has no

valid course of action in this case.

11. ISSUE NO. (v):-The present 2^nd party (Smt.

Taraben Kantilal Patel) the mother of deceased workman

Rakesh Kantilal Patel is not entitled to any relief in this

case.

Accordingly, the reference is dismissed No order of

cost.

This is my Award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1767-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vk;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV

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

dks 6@6@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@8@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1767.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-30011/8/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI,

ASSAM

Present: Shri L.C.DEY, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No.11 of 2012.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between

The Management of M/S IOC Ltd., Bongaigaon Refinery.

Vrs

Their Workmen represented by the General Secretary,

Bongaigaon Refinery Employees Union.

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

: Mr. J.K.Kar, Advocate

Mr. R. Barpujari, Advocate

Mr. D.K.Mahanto,, Advocate

For the Management.: Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. H.Sarma, Advocate, Mr. R. Deka,

Advocate.

Date of Award: 16.05.2014.

AWARD

1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute between the Management of M/S IOC, Ltd.,

Bongaigaon Refinery and their workmen represented by

the General Secretary, Bongaigaon Refinery Employees

Union on account of discontinuance of the payment of

frozen amount/personal pay of Rs.950 of the said workmen

by the Management, which was referred by the Ministry

of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for adjudication

vide their order No. L-30011/8/2011-IR(M) dated 16.02.2012.

The Schedule of this Reference is as under.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

IOCL, Bongaigaon Refinery in discontinuance of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4631

the payment of frozen amount/personal pay of

Rs.950/- per month in terms of Tripartite settlement

dated 29/7/2010 (clause 2.4) is justified? If not to

what relief the Grade-VIII (earlier SSG) employees

are entitled to?”

2. The case of the Bangaigaon Refinery Union

( herein after called BREU), in nutshell, is that the erstwhile

Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro-Chemical Ltd. ( herein

after called BRPL) has been merged with its holding

Company M/S Indian Oil Ltd. on 25.3.2009. In order to

ease out the resentment amongst the workmen due to lack

of convenience for promotion to executive cadre, the

management of BRPL, on the basis of the Tripartite

Settlement for Promotion Policy signed on 13.2.1991 a new

concept of promotion from non-executive to executive

cadre was mooted. Accordingly the employees in Special

Selection Grade ( in short SSG) were made entitled to enjoy

the reimbursement/advances, equivalent to lower

executive cadre as compensation namely:

a) Re-imbursement of Medical Travel Expenses;

b) Uniform re-imbursement;

c) Children Allowance.

In the result a Bipartite Settlement was held on

24.7.1995 known as “Channel on promotion from non

executive to executive cadre” effective from 1.4.1994 was

arrived at between the parties and frozen amount i.e. Rs.950

only was extended, which is basically known as local travel

expenses and was paid as allowances. Subsequently,

during the Tripartite Settlement for Promotion Policy dated

25.7.2004 it was renamed as personal pay not to be counted

for any other allowance like D.A., C.C.A, SDA,O.T, Bonus,

Incentive, etc. as its character was of a Local Travel

Expenses; and same Promotion Policy when modified

again by the Tripartite Settlement signed on 6.12.2004

(Vide clause-2.1) extended it further for retrial benefits.

The Union mentioned that even after merger Tripartite

Settlement signed on 16.9.2010 regarding Promotion Policy

also did not touch the same, rather it has retained the

earlier benefits of stagnation in Grade-VIII under Clause-

3. It is mentioned that the Promotion Policy enumerated

above are enough to enunciate that this frozen amount is

not a pay related payment at all. Thus the discontinuance

of the frozen amount of Rs.950/- by the Management is

illegal, arbitrary and misconceived on the plea of Clause

2.4 of Post Merger LTS Settlement on 29.07.2010; and

hence, the Management has acted arbitrarily without trying

to make correct interpretation of the Clause 2.4 of Post

Merger Long Term Settlement ( LTS) dated 29.07.2010 in

spite of the fact that this frozen amount is not a pay related

payment. It is also contended by the Union that prior to

merger with IOCL, the Long Term Settlement (LTS) signed

on 08.03.2001 neither touched this frozen amount nor

revised the same due to its character of a Local Travel

Expenses, and even after the merger the LTS signed on

29.07.2010 had not touched the frozen amount and

continued payment of the said frozen amount for five

months from the date of settlement and if it would have

been a pay related payment it would have got revised in

the LTS settled on different occasion. Therefore the

continuance of frozen amount of Rs.950/- by the

management is illegal, arbitrary and misconceived on the

plea of Clause 2.4 of Post merger LTS on 29.07.2010. The

Union also pleaded that it is a clear case of

misinterpretation and misconception of the Clause 2.4 of

Post merger LTS on 29.07.2010, i.e. the settlement will

supersede the agreement(s) related to any other pay related

benefits arrived between the recognized Union of the

erstwhile BRPL and its management in respect of workmen

of Bongaigaon Refinery as made by the management and

taking the plea of clause 2.4 of Post merger LTS on

29.07.2010 the management has illegally stopped the

payment of frozen amount of Rs.950/- per month depriving

the poor employees of their lawful benefits. Hence, the

Union prayed for passing necessary order allowing them

appropriate relief and compensation.

3. The case of the management of IOCL,

Bongaigaon Refinery, in brief, is that the BRPL became a

unit of IOCL and known as IOCL, Bongaigaon Refinery

and all the workmen of erstwhile BRPL became the workmen

of IOCL, Bongaigaon Refinery. In terms of promotion

policy for the workmen of erstwhile BRPL effective from

July, 2004, the workmen working in SSG grade with six

years service in SSG grade (now Grade VIII) beginning

from 31.07.2004 were entitled to frozen personal pay of

Rs.950 per month as stagnation benefit. On 2.4.2009 a

Tripartite Settlement was signed regarding the works

related allowance, perquisites, benefits, etc. revising all

such benefits exactly as per IOCL and the said Settlement

includes a clause to the effect that erstwhile BRPL Rules

on leave/LTC/Holidays/Working Hours/Medical/ Loan

and Advances/ TA Rules etc. will be replaced with IOCL

Rules. Thereafter the management of IOCL at corporate

level signed a long Term Settlement (LTS) on wage revision

for workmen with all recognized Union of IOCL including

the claimant Union on 29.07.2010. Based on the said MOS

a tripartite settlement was signed between the

Management of IOCL, Bongaigaon Refinery and BGREU

at unit level on 27.10.2010 in presence of RLC (C), Guwahati

by which the wage revision was made common for all

refinery units of IOCL except to the extent that for BGR

workmen, the settlement was effective from 01.07.2007 and

for all others the settlement was effective from 01.01.2007.

Further in terms of clause 2.4 of the LTS dated 29.07.2010

all agreement(s) related to any other pay related benefits ,

earlier

arrived between the recognized Union of the

erstwhile BRPL and its management in respect of workmen

of BGR stands superseded. After signing of the LTS dated

29.07.2010 on wage revision, a Tripartite Settlement on

4632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

revised promotion policy was signed between the

Management of IOCL, BGR and BGREU on 16.09.2010

before the ALC(C), Guwahati in which the provision

regarding frozen personal pay of Rs.950/- per month to

SSG grade workmen completing six years service was not

included unlike pre-revised promotion policy settlement

and, clause 3 of the new promotion policy contains the

following provisions:

Clause 3: Stagnation Grade VIII.

Pending finalization of modalities for movement from

Grade VIII to Grade IX, workmen in Salary Grade VIII, who

do not get promotion to Officer Grade A on completion of

6 years in the grade shall be given an additional increment

at the rate of last increment drawn as personal pay,

provided he has minimum ‘satisfactory’ ACR rating in the

preceding three years, which will be treated as Basic Pay

for all purposes. This benefit, however, will be admissible

till the workmen is promoted to Grade A Officer.

Such eligible workmen who do not get promotion to

Officer Grade A upon completion of another 4 years service

in Grade VIII from the date of grant of Personal Pay as

Stagnation Benefit as above, shall be granted one

additional increment at the rate of last increment drawn as

Additional Personal Pay, which will be treated as Basic

Pay for all purposes. This benefit will be admissible till the

workman is promoted to Grade A Officer.

Thus after signing of the above LTS on 29.07.2010,

promotion policy settlement signed on 16.09.2010 and

earlier settlement on perquisites/allowance signed on

02.04.2009, all pay related benefits and perquisites/

allowances of BGR workmen have fully become uniform

with other refinery units of IOCL. With the implementation

of the settlement, no other dissimilar benefit/component

in BGR exists any longer for BGR workmen compared to

other IOCL workmen in refinery units; and no benefits on

old agreement/settlements will be available simultaneously

with the new benefits. It is also mentioned that the frozen

pay of RS.950/- as personal pay being drawn by the BGR

workmen under erstwhile BRPL promotion policy and

drawl of personal pay by any other workman on any other

count under erstwhile BRPL system was no longer payable

and hence discontinuance with effect from 1^st August,2010

i.e. after signing of LTS dated 29.07.2010 is legal and

justified.

The management also pleaded that the revised pay

scale including arrear payment was implemented on 28^th /

29^th October, 2010 and due to oversight, the frozen amount

of Rs.950/- drawn by SSG grade employees was continued.

Subsequently after coming to the notice of the

Management, BGREU was intimated vide letter dated

02.12.2010 that the frozen personal pay of Rs.950/- would

be discontinued with effect from 01.08.2010. Accordingly

the payment was discontinued from the salary of January,

2011 and recovery of the said frozen amount paid due to

oversight for the period August,2010 to December, 2010

was completed from the salary/arrear paid in February,

2011. Further pleading of the management is that due to

pay revision settlement, apart from common pay scale and

fitment benefit granted to the workmen some additional

benefits have accrued to BGR workmen as a result of merger

of BGR with IOCL on signing of common settlement are as

follows:

(a)

In the earlier system of BRPL, annual increment

otherwise used to be admissible from 1^st July of

the year and as per settlement after drawl of first

annual increment in the revised scale in July, 2007

the next annual increment has been allowed to be

drawn at full rate from 1^st January, 2008 and this

benefit of early drawl of increment by six months

every year is a benefit that will remain in force on

perpetual basis.

(b)

Under normal situation the D.A. for BGR workmen

would have started with 0% on 1^st July, 2007.

However, due to merger with IOCL and signing

of common settlement, BGR workmen have been

allowed DA of 1.3% from 1^st July, 2007 taking base

DA neutralization point of 1^st January, 2007; and

this additional benefit will be perpetual and keep

accruing has reached up to 2.1% additional DA

benefit as on 1^st July, 2012 which has become

additional pay benefit of Rs. 850 (approximately)

monthly. Thus the employee in Grade-VIII have

been substantially benefited from the revision of

pay and other work relating to allowances/

benefits and there stands no merit or basis in

allowing continuation of any pay related benefit

to workmen of Bongaigaon Refinery which is not

common with IOCL system and settlement.

The Management of IOCL, Bongaigaon Refinery

denied most of the averments made in the claim statement

submitted by the Union.

The Management categorically denying the

statements made by the Union in their claim statement at

Para-1(iii), 1(iv), 1(v), 1(vi), 2(1), 3, 4 and 5; and contended

that there was no any Bipartite Settlement arrived at on

24.07.1995 between the Management of BRPL and BRPEU.

In a meeting held on 19.05.1995 between the said parties it

was, inter-alia, agreed by the management to create a new

Special Selection Grade for promotion of employees in

SG/e grade on fulfillment of prescribed eligibility criteria

and it was also agreed with the employees in SSG Grade

would be entitled for drawl of the reimbursement/allowance

in place of the reimbursement of allowance admissible to

SG at the rates as applicable to the lowest executive grade

which are : (a) Reimbursement of Local Travel Expenses,

(b) Uniform reimbursement, (c) Children Education

Allowance.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4633

The above allowances were agreed by the

management of erstwhile BRPL as stagnation benefit taking

into consideration the resentment of the workmen

employed for long stagnation in SG/e Grade i.e. higher

grade in the workmen category due to non-availability of

sufficient vacancy in the executive cadre and the said

benefit was effective from 01.06.1995. On the basis of the

minutes of the meeting dated 19.05.1995 a scheme of

‘Channel for promotion from non executive to executive

cadre’ was notified on 24.7.1995 and neither in the minutes

of the meeting held on 19.5.1995 nor in the scheme notified

on 24.7.1995 as mentioned above there was any provision

for payment of frozen amount of Rs.950/-. The management

also stated that in terms of clause 2 of the Tripartite

Settlement dated 25.07.2004 stagnation benefit to SSG

grade employees upon completion of 6 years for SSG

grade was agreed by the management which are as

follows :

(a)Reimbursement of Local Travel Expenses for car

up to 70% of the rate as admissible to Executive

in grade B;

(b) A lump sum amount of Rs.550/- p.m. as

‘Compensating Allowance’.

It is also added that the Tripartite Settlement dated

25.7.2004 was subject to the approval of the Board of

Directors of erstwhile BRPL and as the Board did not agree

to the said clause 2 as stated above another Tripartite

Settlement was signed on 06.12.2004 modifying clause 2

of the settlement of 25.07.2004 as:

The employees in SSG upon completion of 6 years

in SSG grade as per the cut off date of eligibility, starting

from the year 2004 , and not promoted to executive grade

B will be allowed following benefit till promotion to

executive grade B, such as a frozen amount of Rs.950/- per

month as personal pay which was not counted except

retrial benefit at the time of retirement. Hence, the personal

pay was introduced for the first time by the settlement of

06.12.2004 as stagnation benefit and the same is pay related

benefit which is counted for retirement benefit also. The

Management also stated that it implemented the provision

of LTS dated 29.07.2010 and settlement on Promotion

Policy dated 16.9.2010 in its true words and spirit, while

the BGREU by raising this dispute on the issue settled

under a legally binding settlement has tarnished the

sanctity of the signed settlement. The Management added

that the frozen amount of Rs.950/- per month was

introduced only in the year 2004 vide settlement dated

06.12.2004 and as per the settlement of 2004 the frozen

amount of Rs.950/- was paid as personal pay which was a

stagnation relief for employees in SSG completing minimum

six years in the grade and not getting promotion to the

executive grade; and the management only implemented

the provision of LTS dated 29.07.2010 and the settlement

on promotion policy dated 16.9.2010 and there is no any

misinterpretation and misconception of the clause 2.4 of

the post merger LTS on 29.07.2010 on the part of the

management. Therefore the Management contended that

the union has miserably failed to make out any case for

interference by this Tribunal and in view of the above

circumstances the management prayed for passing the

appropriate award in their favour.

4. In order to prove their respective cases both the

management and the Union examined one witnesses each.

The workmen witness No.1, Sri Mahesh Ishwary, the

President of Bongaigaon Refinery Employees Union, in

his deposition stated that on the basis of a Tripartite

Settlement for (promotion policy) signed on 13.2.91 vide

Exhibit-2 a new concept on the promotion from non-

executive to executive cadre was mooted out by the

management in order to satisfy the resentment amongst

the workmen due to lack of avenues for promotion to

executive grade; and employees in Special Selection Grade

were made entitled to enjoy the benefit of reimbursement

of Local Travel Expenses, Uniform reimbursement and

Children Education allowance. Accordingly a Bipartite

Settlement was held on 24.7.95 vide Exhibit-3 (the minutes

of the meeting held between the BRPL Union and the

Management) titled as : ‘‘Channel of Promotion from Non-

Executive to Executive cadre” effective from 01.08.1994 in

which frozen amount to the tune of Rs.950/- was extended

which is basically named as Local Travel Expenses and

was paid as allowance and in this connection an Inter

Office Memorandum being No.PER: 4.02.20 dated 24.7.1995

was issued by the management vide Exhibit-4.

Subsequently as per tripartite settlement for promotion

policy signed on 25.7.2004 marked as Exhibit-6 between

the management of BRPL and the employees Union before

the RLC(C), Guwahati and the said frozen amount was

renamed as personal pay not to be counted for any other

purpose like DA, CCA, SDA, OT, Bonus and Incentive

etc. as its character was of a Local Travel Expenses.

Thereafter the said promotion policy was modified again

by a tripartite settlement signed on 06.12.2004 vide Exhibit-

7 extending it further for retrial benefit vide Clause No.2.1.

After merger a tripartite settlement signed on 16.09.2010

vide Exhibit-9 regarding promotion policy the personal

pay (frozen amount) was not touched, rather the same has

retained the earlier benefit of stagnation in Grade-VIII

under Clause-3. The W.W.1 mentioned that the frozen

amount is not at all pay related payment and if it would

have been a pay related payment, it would have got revised

in longer terms settlement arrived at on different occasions;

and hence the discontinuance of frozen amount of Rs. 950/-

per month by the management be declared as illegal,

arbitrary and misconceived on the plea of Clause 2.4 of

Post Merger Long Term Settlement on 29.07.2010. It is

also stated by the W.W.1 that the management has acted

arbitrary without trying to make correct interpretation of

the Clause 2.4 of the Post Merger LTS on 29.07.2010, vide

4634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Exhibit-8. He also said that prior to merger with IOCL, the

LTS signed on 08.03.2001 vide Exhibit-5, which neither

touched this frozen amount nor revised the same due to

character of a Local Travel Expenses and continued

payment of the said frozen amount; and even after merger

the LTS dated 29.7.2010 (Exhibit-8) do not touched that

frozen amount due to same character of Local Travel

Expenses and continued payment of the said frozen amount

for 5 months from the date of settlement. He again pleaded

that it is a clear case of misrepresentation and

misconception of Clause 2.4 of Post Merger LTS settlement

on 29.7.2010 (Exhibit-8) wherein it was stated that the

settlement will supersede this Agreement related to any

other pay related benefit arrived between the recognized

union of the erstwhile BRPL and its management in respect

of the workman of BGR as made by the management and

taking the plea of the clause 2.4 of said Post Merger LTS

settlement on 29.7.2010, the management has illegally

stopped the payment of frozen amount of Rs.950/-

depriving the poor employees of their lawful benefits.

In course of his cross-examination the workman

witness No.1, Sri Mahesh Ishwary stated that he had

mentioned in his evidence-on-Affidavit at para-3 that in

view of the tripartite settlement dated 13.2.1991 the

employees were allowed reimbursement of local travel

expenses, uniform reimbursement and children education

allowance but it was not mentioned in the tripartite

settlement dated 13.2.1991, marked as Exhibit-2 ; and that

in para-4 of his evidence-on-Affidavit he stated that as

per bipartite settlement dated 24.7.1995 frozen amount to

the tune of Rs.950/- only was extended to in the bipartite

settlement dated 24.7.1995 (Exhibit-4) but there is no

mention of extension of frozen amount. He also said that

there is no mention in the tripartite settlement dated

25.7.2004 (Exhibit-6) that the frozen amount has been

renamed as personal pay and the mention of frozen amount

of Rs.950/- is not there. He also said that as per Clause 2 of

the tripartite settlement dated 25.7.2004 (Exhibit-6) has been

superseded vide Clause 2.1 of the tripartite settlement dated

6.12.2004 (Exhibit-7); and that the frozen amount of

Rs.950/- as personal pay has been introduced for the

first time in tripartite settlement dated 06.12.2004 (Exhibit-

7). But after merger of BRPL with IOCL one Long Term

Settlement dated 29.7.2010 (Exhibit-8) was arrived at

between the management of IOCL and their Union wherein

the BGREU was also a party and he (WW.1) was the

President at that time and he put his signature on the said

Long Term Settlement vide Exhibit-8(1). He also agreed

that in the said settlement Clause 2.4 runs as follows:

“ This settlement will supersede the agreement(s), related

to any other pay related benefits, arrived between the

recognized Union of the erstwhile BRPL and its

Management in respect of workmen of BGR”. The W.W.1

added that on 16.9.2010 another tripartite settlement

(Exhibit-9) was arrived at and Clause-3 of the said

Agreement(s) (Exhibit-9) wherein certain benefits were

given to the Grade-VIII employees in the noting of the

said Clause 3, it is stated “besides the above, no other

stagnation benefit shall be permissible to be admissible to

the workmen in Grade-VIII” which is marked as Exhibit-

9(2). He again said that the employees in Special Selection

Grade (SSG) falls within the Grade-VIII. This witness again

mentioned that in the settlement dated 8.3.2001 (Exhibit-5)

there is no mention about the frozen amount of Rs.950/-

nor regarding any other payment like Local Travel

Expenses etc., and that the memorandum of settlement

dated 29.7.2010; 16.9.2010 and 27.10.2010 superseded all

other earlier agreements between the management of BRPL

and the Union. He denied the suggestion tendered by the

learned Advocate for the Management that in view of the

agreement dated 29.7.2010; 16.9.2010 and 27.10.2010 the

Union have no right to claim for any stagnation allowance/

frozen amount. He again stated that the management of

IOCL wrote a letter dated 02.12.2010 marked as Exhibit-11

to the General Secretary, BGREU stating that the frozen

amount of Rs.950/- as personal pay being drawn by the

workmen under the erstwhile BRPL will no longer be

payable and it will be discontinued with effect from

1^st August, 2010 i.e. after signing of the Long Term

Settlement dated 29.7.2010, and the amount of frozen

amount already paid was deducted from the salary of the

workmen for the month of February, 2011. But he denied

the suggestion that the management has rightly deducted

the amount from the salary. The workmen witness No.1

also admitted that due to merger of BRPL with the IOCL

the annual increment which was due every year have been

reckoned from January for which they received extra pay

benefit of lump sum amount, and because of the merger

they are getting additional benefit of D.A.

The Management witness No.1 Sri Subhash Chandra

Sarkar, in his evidence on Affidavit mentioned that a

tripartite settlement was signed on 2.4.2009 between the

management of IOCL, BRPL and the BGREU vide Exhibit-

B on work related allowances, perquisites, benefits etc.

revising all such benefits exactly as per IOCL, wherein in

Clause 1.12 it was mentioned that Rules and entitlements

on Leave, Holidays, LTC, HBA, Conveyance Advance,

Medical and TA of erstwhile BRPL would be replace with

corresponding IOCL Rules and entitlements; and Exhibit-

B(1) and B(2) are the signatures of the W.W.1. The

M.W.1 further mentioned that the IOCL, at Corporate level,

signed a Long Term Settlement on wage revision of the

workmen with all recognized Union of IOCL including the

BGREU on 29.7.2010 (Exhibit-8) and based on the said

settlement a tripartite settlement was signed between the

IOCL, BGR and BGREU at unit level on 27.10.2010 (Exhibit-

10) in presence of RLC (C), Guwahati on the matter

regarding wage revision in common for all Refinery Units

of IOCL except to the extent that BGR workmen, the

settlement was effective from 01.07.2007 and for all others

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4635

the settlement was effective from 1.1.2007. He again

mentioned that in terms of Clause 2.4 to the Long Terms

Settlement dated 29.7.2010 (Exhibit-8) all agreement(s)

related to any other pay related benefits, earlier arrived at

between the recognized Union of erstwhile BRPL in its

management in respect of the workmen of BGR stands

superseded vide Exhibit-8(2); and that after signing of the

LTS dated 29.7.2010 of wage revision, a tripartite settlement

on revised promotion policy was signed between the

management of IOCL, BGR and BGREU on 16.9.2010 before

the ALC(C), Guwahati (Exhibit-9) wherein the provision

for frozen personal pay of Rs.950 per month to SSG Grade

workmen was not included unlike pre-revised promotion

policy settlement. He also described the Clause-3 of the

new promotion policy wherein clause-3 stagenation in

Grade-VIII says that pending finalization of modalities for

movement from Grade VIII to Grade IX, workmen in salary

Grade VIII, who do not get promotion to Officer grade A

upon completion of 6 years in the grade shall be given an

additional increment at the rate of last increment drawn as

Personal Pay, provided he has minimum “satisfactory”

ACR rating in the preceding three years, which will be

treated as Basic Pay for all purposes. This benefit, however,

will be admissible till the workman is promoted to Grade A

officer.

The benefit of Additional Personal Pay shall be

performance linked and shall be given to such workmen

who have minimum two “outstanding” CR in Grade VIII in

the preceding 4 years. Exhibit-9(1) is the said clause 3. In

the note of Clause-3 it is clearly mentioned that it is

besides the above, no other stagnation benefit shall be

permissible to be admissible to the workmen in Grade

VIII (Exhibit-9(2).

The MW.1 mentioned that after signing of the LTS

vide Exhibit-8 Promotion Policy Settlement was signed on

16.9.2010 (Exhibit-9) and the early settlement on perquisite/

allowance etc. signed on 02.04.2009 (Exhibit-B) all pay

related benefits and perquisites/allowances of BGR

workmen have fully become equal with other refinery units

of IOCL with the implementation of the settlements, and

no other dissimilar benefits/component in BGR exists any

longer for the BGR workmen. He added that on

implementation of revised pay, the actual pay and benefits

would be as per revised pay and benefits only and no

benefits of old agreement/settlement would be available

simultaneously with the new benefits. As such, the

frozen pay of Rs. 950 per month as personal pay drawn by

the workman under erstwhile BRPL promotion policy and

drawl of personal pay by any other workmen on any other

workmen on any other count under erstwhile BRPL system

was no longer payable and hence, it was discontinued

with effect from 1.8.2010 i.e. after signing of the LTS marked

as Exhibit-8. It is stated by the MW 1 that the payment of

revised pay scale including arrear pay was implemented

on 28/29 October, 2010 and due to oversight the personal

pay of Rs. 950 drawn by SSG Grade employees was

continued but on coming to the notice of the management

the BGREU was intimated vide letter marked as Exhibit-11

intimating that the frozen personal pay of Rs. 950 would

be discontinued with effect from 1.8.2010. Accordingly

the payment was discontinued from the salary for the

month of January, 2011 and recovery of the said frozen

amount paid due to oversight for the period August,2010

to December, 2010 was completed from the salary/arrear

pay of February, 2010. The frozen amount of Rs. 950 was

introduced for the first time in 2004 vide the settlement

dated 6.12.2004 which was a stagnation relief for employees

in SSG completing minimum 6 years in the Grade and not

getting promotion to executive cadre. He added that

pursuant to the memorandum of settlement dated 29.7.2010,

16.9.2010 and 27.10.2010 the Union has no right to claim

the frozen amount of Rs. 950 in terms of old settlement as

mentioned above as the settlement marked as Exhibit-8, 9

and 10 have superseded all other earlier agreement entered

into by the management of BRPL and BGREU.

In course of his cross-examination the management

witness No.1 stated that prior to merger of BRPL and IOCL

the management of BRPL have separate juristic entity;

and as per Clause 2.1 of the minutes of the meeting

(Exhibit-3) for promotion to Special Selection Grade from

grade i.e. ( Groups-7,8,9,10 & 11) and as per clause 2.9 of

Exhibit-3 the employees of SSG Grade will be entitled to

drawl of reimbursement of Local Travel Expenses, Uniform

reimbursement and Children education reimbursement with

effect from 1.6.1995. But in the MOS of LTS dated 8.3.01

there is no specific mention of withdrawal/discontinuation

of the benefits allowed to the SSG employees granted vide

clause 2.9 of Exhibit-3 and the said benefits to the SSG

employees was given after long term settlement arrived

vide Exhibit-5. He also said that as per settlement dated

6.12.2004 vide Clause 2.1 it was settled that the frozen

amount of Rs. 950 per month as personal pay would be

given to the employees of SSG Grade upon completion of

6 years in SSG Grade as per cut off date of eligibility,

starting from 2004 and not promoted to executive grade,

and this personal pay would be paid monthly which will

not be counted for calculation other allowance except in

calculating at the time of calculation of gratuity. He again

said that the personal pay has not been defined in

Exhibit-7. The MW.1 also said that in the LTS marked as

Exhibit-8 in para 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 there is specific mention

of the category of the staff under SSG who were enjoying

benefit of frozen amount of Rs. 950 per month and although

in para 2.4 of the said settlement it has been mentioned

that this settlement would supersede the agreement(s)

related to any other pay related benefits in respect of the

workmen of BGR, there is no specific mention of SSG

category employees and the staff who are drawing the

frozen amount of Rs. 950. He again mentioned that there is

4636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

no mention of SG and SSG category of staff against salary

grade-8 and the matter regarding stagnation in grade-8

staff have been discussed in detail in para-3 of the

Memorandum of Settlement marked as Exhibit-9 but there

is no specific mention any where in the said agreement

regarding payment of frozen amount of Rs. 950 per month.

He again stated that on 27.10.2010 a Tripartite Settlement

was held between the parties in presence of the RLC(C) ,

Guwahati regarding revision of pay scale, pay related

matters and other allowances for the workmen wherein in

clause-2.0 the applicability/merger of the settlement has

been prescribed in Clause-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 but there is

no mention of SSG category of staff and the staff who

were drawing frozen amount of Rs. 950/- while there is

mention of revised pay scale of workmen including grade-

VIII, SG/SSG in Annexure-A. He denied the suggestion

advanced by the learned Advocate for the workmen that

the letter marked as Exhibit-11 was issued illegally.

5. I have gone through the entire case record along

with the evidence adduced by both the sides. I have also

heard arguments from both the sides at length.

During argument Mr. J.K.Kar, assisted by Mr. R.

Barpujari, learned Advocates for the workmen submitted

that the Management allowed the frozen amount of

Rs. 950 per month since 1991 to the SSG Grade-VIII

employees of the then BRPL vide memoranda of settlement

marked as Exhibit-2 and 3; and the channel of promotion

for non executive to executive agreed to have been

applicable to the SSG Group employees was determined

vide the MOS marked as Exhibit-4 but it was not worked

out. While some benefits in the form of reimbursement of

Local Travel Expenses, children allowance, uniform

allowance and subsequently the frozen amount/personal

pay to the SSG employees Group-VIII was also allowed

vide the MOS marked as Exhibit-7. Mr. Kar also added that

consequent upon the merger of BRPL with IOC settlements

were held on 29.7.2010 & 16.9.2010 vide Exhibit-8 & 9 and

thereafter on 27.10.2010 another tripartite settlement was

held between the parties before the RLC(C), Guwahati vide

Exhibit-10 but in these settlements there is no mention of

withdrawal of this frozen amount/personal pay granted to

the SSG Grade employees at the rate of Rs. 950 per month.

Mr. Kar, learned Advocate for the workmen further pointed

out that the management without any prior notice

discontinued the frozen amount/personal pay @ Rs. 950

per month as personal pay for SSG Grade- VIII employees

vide their letter No. HR/04/08/40 dated 2.12.2010

illegally, arbitrarily and with malafide intention to deprive

the employees from getting their benefit in order to

compensate their stagnation. In support of his contention

Mr. Kar relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

held in the Management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.—

vrs— Its workmen reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court

Cases 63 wherein it was decided that unilateral withdrawal

of compensatory allowance in absence of notice is fatal ;

compensatory allowance if same as housing subsidy.

Mr. R.Barpujari, learned Advocate for the

workman raised another point that the frozen amount/

personal pay is form of allowance and part of wage and as

such, it is a condition of service already enjoying by the

workmen since 1995 to 2010 and as it is a condition of

service but the Management has illegally discontinued it

without servicing any notice. He also stated that the frozen

amount nor pay related benefit as mentioned in Clause-2.4

of the MOS marked as Exhibit-10. He referred the provision

of Section 9A of Industrial Dispute Act wherein it has

been categorically provided that no employer, who propose

to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable

to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the

Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change, without giving

the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice,

within 21 days of giving such notice, provided that no

notice shall be required for effecting such change where

the change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or

award, or where the workmen likely to be affected by the

change are persons to whom the Fundamental and

Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, etc. that may be notified in

this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official

Gazette. Mr. Bapujari in order to strengthen his argument

referred the case of Monthly Rated Workmen at the Wadala

Factory of the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.—vrs—Indian

Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., Bombay, reported in 1986 (supp)

Supreme Court Cases 79, wherein it was held that the

benefit prevailing for long making it a condition of service

should not be allowed to be interfered with lightly to the

prejudice of the workmen in absence of compelling

materials and that the burden of proof to justify the

alteration on the management.

6. Mr. H. Sarma, learned Advocate for the

management objected the argument raised by the learned

Advocates for the workmen and submitted that in the

memoranda of settlements marked as Exhibits-2,3 and 4

there is no mention of the frozen amount/personal pay,

although the W.W.1 in his evidence categorically

mentioned that in the MOS marked as Exhibit-2 the

management agreed to pay reimbursement of local travel

expenses, clothing allowance, and children education

allowance. But there is no mention of the frozen amount/

personal pay in the MOS marked as Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-

6; and that the learned Advocate for the workmen also

pleaded that the frozen amount/personal pay was allowed

in order to compensate the stagnation of promotion of the

SSG Grade-VIII employee who have completed 6 years of

their service but they were not promoted to Officer

Grade. It is also added by Mr. Sarma, the learned Advocate

that the workmen witness No.1 categorically mentioned

that in the MOS marked as Exhibits-8,9,& 10 there is no

mention of frozen amount nor the same has been negated

after merger of BRPLO to IOCL and hence, the evidence of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4637

W.W.1 is found to contradictory & hence not reliable. The

learned Advocate for the Management submitted that in

the MOS dated 16.9.2010 marked as Exhibit-9 the

employees in SSG Grade-VIII who do not get promotion to

Officer Grade on completion of 6 years in the Grade were

allowed additional increments, and besides the above no

other stagnation benefit shall be permissible to be

admissible to the workmen in Grade-VIII. He also pointed

out that as per the memorandum of settlement dated

27.10.2010 the agreement(s) related to any other pay related

benefits arrived at between the recognized Union of the

erstwhile BRPL and its management in respect of the

workmen of Bongaigaon Refinery have been superseded.

As such, the workmen are not entitled to any frozen amount/

personal pay @ Rs. 950 per month and hence, the

management rightly discontinued the payment of frozen

amount/personal pay.

Mr. Sarma, learned Advocate for the Management

in support of his contention relied upon the decision laid

down in P. Virudhachalam and Ors. –vrs—Management

of Lotus Mills and another, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 650,

wherein it was held that any settlement between the

employer and the employees is placed on a higher pedestal

than an award passed after adjudication. The machinery

of the Act envisages resolution of industrial disputes and

conflicts at the grassroot level by conciliation by which

settlement can be arrived at between the employer and the

workmen and industrial peace can be achieved and

industrial strife can be put to an end. In view of Section

2(p), a settlement which is based on a written agreement

between the parties can be arrived at either in conciliation

proceedings or even outside conciliation proceedings

between the representatives of the workmen on the one

hand and the management on the other. Section 18(1) and

(3) deal with the binding nature of the two types of

settlement.

Mr. Sarma again relied upon decision laid down in

Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and Another—vrs— Pramod

Chandra Panigrahi and others reported in (2005) 13 SCC

379, that it is settled law that a settlement, admittedly arrived

at in the conciliation proceedings, is binding on all. This is

clear from Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

He also cited the case of National Engineering

Industries Ltd. –vrs—State of Rajasthan and Ors.

published in (2000) 1 SCC 371, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that Where pursuant to identical

charters of demands made by several unions, the

management and a representative union reached a

conciliation settlement to be operative immediately after

the expiry of the previous settlement, the new settlement

became binding on all workmen of the establishment

including those belonging to a dissenting minority union—

Principle of collective bargaining underlying the Act for

resolving industrial disputes and maintaining peace, taken

note of—Hence, during the existence of such a settlement,

a dissenting minority union, which was not eligible for

registration as a representative union, was not entitled to

raise an industrial dispute in respect of the demands left

out in the new settlement. It is also held by the Apex Court

that in the said circumstances the notice given by such a

minority union under S. 19(2) to terminate the earlier

settlement was invalid.

To assail the argument of learned Advocate for the

workman Mr. H.Sarma pointed out that no notice shall be

required for effecting any change as provided in Section

9A Proviso (a) and (b) where the change is effected in

pursuance of any settlement or award. In the instant

reference it is crystal clear that the stagnation benefit has

already granted to the workmen vide Exhibit-9 and that

the said MOS (Exhibit-9) specifically mentioned that no

other stagnation benefit shall be permissible to be

admissible to the workmen in Grade-VIII. He also mentioned

that according to the MOS dated 27.10.2010 (Exhibit-10)

all other agreement(s), related to any other pay related

benefit arrived at between the recognized Union of the

erstwhile BRPL and its management have been superseded

by the said settlement (Exhibit-10). As such, the argument

advanced by the learned Advocates for the workmen is

not at all fair and hence, it is liable to be rejected.

7. From the evidence on record as discussed above

it appears that on the basis of a tripartite settlement dated

13.2.1991 (Exhibit-2) on promotion policy a bipartite

settlement titled as “Channel of promotion from non-

executive to executive cadre” was arrived at on 24.7.1995

extending frozen amount to the tune of Rs. 950 per month

to the employees in SSG grade vide Exhibit-4. Thereafter

a settlement arrived between the Management of BGR and

Petro-Chemical Ltd. and their workmen in presence of

RLC(C), Guwahati on 25.7.2004 in which the SSG

employees who have completed 6 years in SSG as per the

cut off date eligibility, starting from the year 2004 and not

promoted to executive Grade-B were allowed

reimbursement of local travel expenses for car up to 70%

of the rate as admissible to Executive in grade B and lump

sum amount of Rs. 550 p.m. as “Compensating Allowance”

vide Exhibit-6. Again in a tripartite settlement between the

BRPL & their employees at the instance of RLC(C),

Guwahati on 6.12.2004 regarding promotion policy. As per

the said settlement the employees in SSG grade upon

completion of 6 years in SSG grades as per the cut off date

of eligibility starting from the year 2004 and not promoted

to executive grade B were allowed the benefit of frozen

amount of Rs. 950 per month as personal pay till promotion

to executive grade B vide para-2.1 of Exhibit-7.

Subsequently the BGR and Petrochemicals Ltd. was

merged with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. with effect

from 25.3.2009 and thereby BGPRL becomes a unit of IOCL

and known as IOCL. Consequent upon the merger of BGR

and Petrochemicals Ltd. with the Indian Oil Corporation

4638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ltd. a long terms settlement was arrived between the

management of Oil India Corporation Ltd., Refineries

Division ( including Corporate Office), Pipelines Division,

R & D Centre and Assam Oil Division, New Delhi and the

recognized Union operating the various establishment in

the Division Corporate Office, New Delhi and Assam Oil

Division was signed on 29.7.2010 for a period of 10 years

vide Exhibit-8. Subsequently another memorandum of

settlement was arrived on 16.9.2010 between the

management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ( Refineries

Division), BGR and their workmen represented by BGR

employees Union before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C), Guwahati vide Exhibit-9. In both the

settlements marked as Exhibit-8 and 9 there is no mention

of the frozen amount/personal pay however in the MOS

dated 16.9.2010 (Exhibit-9) at Clause-3 regarding stagnation

in grade VIII it was agreed that the workmen in salary

grade VIII, who do not get promotion to officer Grade A

upon completion of 6 years in the grade shall be given an

additional increment at the rate of last increment drawn as

personal pay, provided he has minimum satisfactory ACR

rating in the preceding 3 years which will be treated as

basic pay for all purposes; and this benefit would be

admissible till the workman is promoted to grade A Officer.

It is also agreed that such eligible workman who do not

get promotion to Officer grade-A upon completion of

another 4 years service in Grade VIII from the date of grant

of personal pay as stagnation benefit as above shall be

granted one additional increment @ last increment drawn

as additional personal pay which will be treated as basic

pay for all purposes. Further it was also decided that the

benefit of additional personal pay shall also be performance

link and shall be given to such workmen who have minimum

2 “outstanding” CR in grade VIII in the preceding 4 years.

It has been clearly mentioned in the note of clause-3 of the

aforesaid settlement vide Exhibit-9(ii) that besides the

above, no other stagnation benefit shall be permissible to

be admissible to the workmen in Grade VIII. It is found in

the settlement arrived at on 27.10.2010 before the RLC (C),

Guwahati, between the management of Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd. (Refineries Division), BGR and their

workmen regarding revision of pay scale, pay related and

other allowance for the workmen proved as Exhibit-10

wherein in Clause-2.4 marked as Exhibit-10(i) which

specifically mentions as “ This Settlement will supersede

the agreement(s), related to any other pay related benefits,

arrived between the recognized Union of the erstwhile

BRPL and its Management in respect of workmen of BGR”,

and in both the settlements the workmen witness No.1

was the signatory as President of the Union vide Exhibit-

9(1) and Exhibit-10(1).

Thus it is clear that although the management agreed

to pay some benefits due to the stagnation in promotion

of the employees of the BRPL prior to their merger in the

form of reimbursement of some expenditures such as, local

travel expenses, children allowances, compensatory

allowances, frozen amount/personal pay at different times

have been discontinued as per the terms of the tripartite

settlement marked as Exhibit-8 & 9 where there is no

mention to frozen amount/personal pay, rather in order to

compensate the stagnation benefit as additional increment

at the rate of last increment drawn as personal pay was

allowed. While according to the memorandum of settlement

dated 27.10.2010 (Exhibit-10) all other agreement(s), related

to any other pay related benefits arrived at between the

recognized Union and the erstwhile BRPL in its

management in respect of the workmen of BGR were

superseded.

8. Section 18 of I.D.Act runs as follows :

“ Persons on whom settlements and awards are

binding—(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between

the employer and workman otherwise than in the course

of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties

to the agreement.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an

arbitration award which has become enforceable shall be

binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the

dispute to arbitration.

(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation

proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a

case where a notification has been issued under sub-

section (3A) of Section 10A or an award of a Labour Court,

Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become

enforceable shall be binding on—

(a)

all parties to the industrial dispute;

(b)

all other parties summoned to appear in the

proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the

Board, arbitrator Labour Court, Tribunal or

National Tribunal, as the case may be, records

the opinion that they were so summoned without

proper cause;

(c)

where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause

(b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or

assigns in respect of the establishment to which

the dispute relates;

(d)

where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause

(b) is composed of workmen, all persons who

were employed in the establishment or part of

the establishment, as the case may be, to which

the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and

all persons who subsequently become employed

in that establishment or part.”

Thus the provision of Section 18 of I.D.Act is very

clear as regards the binding of settlements and awards

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4639

and the evidence of W.W.1 shows that he himself

represented the Union in all the settlement and, the

settlement dated 27.10.2010 (Exhibit-10) superseded all

other settlements/agreement(s) relating to any other pay

related benefit arrived between the recognized union of

the erstwhile BRPL and in its management in respect of

workmen of BGR.

9. The plea of the workmen that the Management

has withdrawn the frozen amount/personal pay illegally

without issuing any prior notice. On a plain reading of

proviso of the Section 9A of the I.D. Act, it is found that

where the change is effected in pursuance of any

settlement or award no notice shall be required for

informing such change. The MOS marked as Exhibit-9 &

10 clearly shows that the claim for stagnation of promotion

of SSG grade-VIII employee have been settled up by

allowing them one increment and that in terms of the MOS

dated 27.10.2010 all other previous settlements/

agreement(s) were superseded. In view of the submission

of learned Advocate for both the sides and the decisions

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court arrived at in the cases as

relied upon by the learned Advocate for the management

and having regard to the provisions of law as discussed

above, I find no reason to entertain the plea of the workmen

and hence, the arguments placed by Mr. J.K. Kar and

R. Barpujari are rejected.

Further pleading of the workmen is that the frozen

amount/personal pay is a form of allowance and part of

wages and as such, it is a condition of service already

enjoyed by the workmen, which can not be discontinued,

while the management vide their letter marked as Exhibit-

11 discontinued the same illegally. The frozen amount/

personal pay was allowed admissible by the management

in order to compensate the workmen in SSG grade-VIII

grade and those workmen who have not got their

promotion to higher grade on completion of six years and

hence, the frozen amount/personal pay granted by the

management is a pay related benefit. According to Clause

3 of the MOS marked as Exhibit-9 the stagnation benefit to

SSG grade VIII of the employee has been given in the form

of additional increment at the rate of last increment drawn

as personal pay and besides the said benefit, no other

stagnation benefit shall be permissible to be admissible to

the workmen in grade VIII. As such, I find no force in the

argument raised by the learned Advocates for the workmen.

10. From my above discussion and having regard to

my findings arrived at as above it can safely be held that

the workmen have not been able to establish their claim

that they are entitled to frozen amount/personal pay of

Rs. 950 per month in terms of the settlement dated 29.7.2010,

16.9.2010 and 27.10.2010 (Vide Exhibit-8, Exhibit-9 & Exhibit-

10 respectively). Accordingly it is opined that the action

of the management of M/s IOCL, Bongaigaon Refinery in

discontinuance of the payment of frozen amount/personal

pay of Rs. 950 per month in terms of Tripartite Settlement

dated 29.7.2010 (clause 2.4) is justified and as such, the

workmen under grade-VIII (earlier SSG) employees are not

entitled to any relief. In the result, this reference is decided

in negative against the workmen.

11.Send the no relief Award to the Government as

per law.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

16^thday of May, 2014, at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1768-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Mh- vkbZ-

,- ,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;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

26@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@1@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. DIAL and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-11012/1/2010-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, DELHI

Present:- SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID No. 26/2010

Sh. Harbir Singh and Ors.

Versus

Dial, Cargo Terminal, IGI

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-11012/1/2010-IR (M) dated 14.07.2010

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal

for adjudication :-

4640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“1. Whether the action of the management of

M/s. EATS, Contractor of M/s. DIAL in closing down

their establishment on 15/10/2008, without following

provisions of I.D. Act is justified or legal? What

relief the workmen are entitled for?”

“2. Whether the action of the management of

M/s. UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Contractor

of M/s. DIAL in not allowing to work to the workmen

(List enclosed ) on and after 16/10/2008 is justified

or legal? What relief the workmen are entitled for?”

On 26.07.2010 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 26/2010 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.

After service of notice 199 workmen/Claimants on

22.09.2011 filed claim statement, without affidavit. Through

which they claimed continuity of service and back wages

alongwith their reinstatement etc.

Respondent No.1 , 2 and 3 separately filed written

statement. Through which they claimed dismissal of claim

statement. Workmen through authorized representative

filed rejoinders unsupported with affidavit.

Case proceeded on the basis of question of

determination mentioned in reference.

Claimant’s /Workmen continuously remained absent

and adduced no evidence in their support.

While MW1 Sh. G. Ch. Bhusan was produced as

MW1, Sh. Major Naresh Kumar as MW2, Sh. GP. Capt.

Prashant Chandra MW3 were produced as witness on

behalf of respondents. They tendered their affidavit.

Thereafter I heard the arguments.

In the light of arguments I perused the evidence on

record which makes it crystal clear that there is no evidence

of workmen on record to support the claim statement of

workmen.

In these circumstances this tribunal has no option

except to dismiss the claim statement.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of

considered view that present reference is liable to be

decided against workmen/Claimants and in favour of

management.

Which is accordingly decided.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-09/05/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1769-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbiQ bU'kqjsUl

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vtesj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 05@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@5@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1769.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ajmer now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-17012/5/2008-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

vuqca/

Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k] vtesj

ihBklhu vf/dkjh % Jh jfo dqekj xqIrk] vkj,pts,l

izdj.k la[;k lhvkbZVhvkj 05@08

jsisQjsal la[;k ,y&17012@5@2008&vkbZvkj(,e) fnukad

23-6-2008

Jh jes'k pan caqnsy iq=k

Jh ?khlwyky caqnsy tfj;s

lsØsVªh vkWy bafM;k ,l-lh-@

,l-Vh- ,aM cqf¼"V]

,yvkbZlh ,EIykbZt osyisQ;j

,lksfl,'ku ds;j vkWiQ ,yvkbZlh

vkWiQ bafM;k] fMohtu vkWfIkQl

jkukMs ekxZ] vtesj

---izkFkhZ

cuke

nh lhfu;j fMohtuy eSustj]

,yvkbZlh vkWiQ bafM;k]

fMohtuy vkWfIkQl]

thou izdk'k jkukMs ekxZ] vtesj

---vizkFkhZ

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4641

mifLFkfr

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh Mh-Mh- 'kekZ] vf/oDrk

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh Ñ".kkorkj] vf/oDrk

vokMZ

fnukad % 13-11-2013

1- dsUæ ljdkj] Je foHkkx dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; ds

vf/fu.kZ;kFkZ fuEu fookn izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS %

2- uksfVl ds mijkar mHk; i{k mifLFkr vk, A izkFkhZ dh

vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ us ikfjr

naMkns'k fnukad 28-2-2005 ls rhu osru o`f¼;ka e; egaxkbZ HkÙks tks

dkVh xbZ gS mUgsa e; C;kt X;kjg izfr'kr ok£"kd dh nj ls Hkqxrku

fnyk;k tkos o vU; vuqrks"k tks mfpr gks Hkh fnyokus dh izkFkZuk

dh gS D;ksafd vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dks ,d vkjksi i=k fnukad 30-7-2004

iznÙk dj vkjksi yxk;k gS fd Jfed us Åaph vkokt esa Jh larks"k

diwj lgk;d ls vHkæ O;ogkj fd;k o vi'kCn dgs o dk;kZy; esa

xfjek ,oa e;kZnk dk mYya?ku fd;k] ftldh foHkkxh; tkap dh

xbZ] ftlesa vizkFkhZ us iwokZxzg ls xzflr gksdj izkÑfrd U;k; ds

fl¼kUrksa ds fo#¼ naMkns'k fnukad 28-2-2005 ikfjr dj rhu

ok£"kd osru o`f¼ LFkkbZ :i ls jksd nh A vkxs Dyse esa ;g Hkh

fy[kk gS fd foHkkxh; vihy esa Hkh mls O;fDrxr :i ls lqus fcuk

mldk naMkns'k cgky j[kk A var esa naMkns'k dks voS/ crkrs gq,

dbZ dkj.kksa dk foLr`r mYys[k djrs gq, ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd mlus

tkap vf/dkjh cnyus dh ekax dh Fkh fdUrq vizkFkhZ us dksbZ mÙkj

ugha fn;k A var esa naMkns'k dks vuqikfrd :i ls vR;f/d gksuk Hkh

o£.kr fd;k gS A leFkZu esa izkFkhZ dk 'kiFk i=k Hkh is'k fd;k gS A

3- blds foifjr tokc esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k

gS fd izkFkhZ dk mDr ekax i=k fujLr djrs gq, jsiQjsal [kkfjt djus

dk fuosnu fd;k gS D;ksafd (izkjfEHkd vkifÙk) ;g fookn vkS|ksfxd

fookn dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS og izkFkhZ Hkh Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk

esa ugha vkrk gS o u gh mldk dk;Z o osru Hkh Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk

esa ugha vkrs gSa A vkxs tokc esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd osyisQ;j

,lksfl,'ku dk izkFkhZ dh lsok laca/h fookn mBkus dk vf/dkj ugha

gS] blfy, Hkh izkFkhZ dk ekax i=k [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gksuk

crk;k gS A Jh larks"k diwj dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gS A vkxs

tokc esa ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd izkFkhZ us tkap vf/dkjh cnyus dh

ekax ugha dh] izkFkhZ us tkap esa tkucw>dj Hkkx ugha fy;k] u gh

fdlh izdkj dh vkifÙk;ka is'k dh] izkFkhZ tkucw>dj ckj&ckj

lwpuk fn, tkus ds ckotwn tkap dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr ugha gqvk A

var esa naMkns'k dks vuqikfrd :i ls lgh gksuk crkrs gq, izkFkhZ dks

fdlh vuqrks"k dk vf/dkjh ugha gksuk o£.kr fd;k gS A lkFk gh

vfrfjDr vfHkdFku esa ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd ;fn U;k;ky; tkap esa

dksbZ fof/d =kqfV ekurh gS rks U;k;ky; ds ekè;e ls tkap djk,

tkus dks vizkFkhZ rRij gksuk dgk gS leFkZu esa Jh ,e-,y- pkS/jh

eaMy izca/d dk 'kiFk i=k Hkh is'k fd;k x;k gS A

4- mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh xbZ] i=kkoyh dk voyksdu

fd;k x;k A mHk;i{k dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl o mldk tokc Hkh

izLrqr fd, x, gSa A mHk;i{k dh vksj ls ekSf[kd o fyf[kr cgl

esa Dyse o tokc ds rF;ksa dks gh yxHkx nksgjk;k gS A

5- vizkFkhZ i{k dh eq[; o izFke vkifÙk ;gh gS fd izkFkhZ

dk ;g fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS o

izkFkhZ Hkh Jfed dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrk gS A bl lanHkZ esa vkbZ-Mh-

,DV] 1947 Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] ftlesa

deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk fuEu izdkj gS ¶deZdkj¸ ls dksbZ ,slk O;fDr

(ftlds varxZr f'k{kq Hkh vkrk gS) vfHkizsr gS] tks fdlh m|ksx esa

HkkM+s ;k buke ds fy, dksbZ 'kkjhfjd] vdq'ky] rduhdh]

lfØ;kRed] fyfidh; ;k i;Zos{kf.kd dk;Z djus ds fy, fu;ksftr

gS] pkgs fu;kstu ds fuca/u vfHkO;Dr gksa ;k foof{kr vkSj fdlh

vkS|ksfxd fookn ds laca/ esa bl vf/fu;e ds v/hu dh fdlh

dk;Zokgh ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, blds varxZr dksbZ ,slk O;fDr vkrk

gS tks ml fookn ds laca/ esa ;k mlds ifj.kkeLo:i inP;qr ;k

mUeksfpr dj fn;k x;k gS ;k ftldh NaVuh dj nh xbZ gS vFkok

ftldh inP;qfr mUekspu ;k NaVuh fd, tkus ls og fookn iSnk

gqvk gks] fdUrq blds varxZr dksbZ ,slk O;fDr ugha vkrk gS tks

¶1- ok;qlsuk vf/fu;e] 1950 (1950 dk 45) ;k lsuk

vf/fu;e] 1950 (1950 dk 46) ;k ukSlsuk vfèkfu;e]

1957 (1957 dk 62) ds v/hu gks] vFkok

2- iqfyl lsok esa ;k fdlh dkjkxkj ds vf/dkjh ;k vU;

deZpkjh ds :i esa fu;ksftr gks] vFkok

3- eq[;r% izca/dh; ;k iz'kklfud gSfl;r esa fu;ksftr gks]

vFkok

4- i;Zosf{kf.kd gSfl;r esa fu;ksftr gksrs gq, izfrekl ,d

gtkj N% lkS (vc nl gtkj #i,) ls vf/d etnwjh

ysrk gks vFkok ;k rks in ls layXu drZO;ksa dh izÑfr ds

;k vius esa fufgr 'kfDr;ksa ds dkj.k ,sls ÑR;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrk gS tks eq[;r% izca/dh; izÑfr ds gSa A¸

6- iz=kkoyh ij miyC/ leLr nLrkosth lk{; dk lexz o

izFkd&izFkd :i ls voyksdu djus o izkFkhZ i{k }kjk bl fcUnq dks

fl¼ djus dh ckcr~ dksbZ fof/d n`"Vkar Hkh izLrqr ugha djus ds

dkj.k izkFkhZ ;g fl¼ djus esa iw.kZr;k foiQy jgk gS fd ;g fookn

vkS|ksfxd fookn dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS A lkFk gh izkFkhZ Hkh Jfed

dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gks] ;g Hkh izkFkhZ i{k lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k

vliQy jgk gS A mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ us vius Dyse esa gh Lo;a

dks vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa vfHkys[k fyfid gksuk o£.kr fd;k gS ,oa

?kVuk@fookn dh fnukad 20-7-2004 dks mHk;i{k us Lohdkjk gS A

pawfd izdj.k o"kZ 2005 dk gS] vr% rRle; Hkh izkFkhZ dk osru

(iqjkuh nj ds vuqlkj lkSyg lkS #i;s ls vf/d) Fkk A bls izkFkhZ

i{k Hkh ncs Lojksa esa lger gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa ek=k blh vk/kj ij

izkFkhZ esjs fouez er esa bl U;k;ky; ds le{k Lo;a dks Jfed o

4642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkS|ksfxd fookn gksus ckcr~ dksbZ Bksl lk{; izLrqr ugha dj ikus ds

dkj.k viuk izdj.k lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vliQy jgk gS A vr%

;fn izkFkhZ pkgs rks l{ke U;k;ky; ds le{k vius fof/d vf/dkjksa

dk iz;ksx djus dks Lora=k gksxk A vr% rnuqlkj fookn dk mÙkj

fn;k tkuk U;k;laxr gksxk A

vkns'k&vokMZ

iQyr% Je foHkkx dsUæ ljdkj dh vksj ls izsf"kr fookn dk

mÙkj bl izdkj ls fn;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ jes'k paæ caqnsy Lo;a dks

Jfed gksuk o ;g fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn dh Js.kh esa vkuk lkfcr

ugha dj ikus ds dkj.k vizkFkhZ ls vFkok bl U;k;ky; ls dksbZ jkgr

ikus dk vf/dkjh ugha gS A

jfo dqekj xqIrk] U;k;k/h'k

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1770-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbiQ bU'kqjsUl

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 19@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@5@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kota now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-17012/5/2009-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

vuqca/

U;k;k/h'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k (dsUæh;) dksVk

(jkt-)

ihBklhu vf/dkjh % Jh izdk'k pUæ ixkjh;k]

vkj-,p-ts-,l

funsZ'k izdj.k Øekad % vkS- U;k-@dsUæh;@19@2009

fnukad LFkkfir % 16-12-2009

izlax %

izlax % Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k

Øekad ,y&17012@5@09&vkbZvkj ¼,e½ fnukad 18@9@96

funsZ'k@fookn varxZr /kkjk 10¼1½ ¼?k½ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e] 1947

e/;

lR;ukjk;.k 'kekZ iq= Hkks>k'kadj 'kekZ]

}kjk la;qä lfpo] fgUn etnwj lHkkx] caxkyh dkyksuh]

Nkouh] dksVk

&çkFkhZ@deZdkj

,oa

jhtuy eSustj] Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe]

fMfotuy vkWfQl thou çdk'k]

jsukMs ekxZ] ihch 2] vtesj

&vçkFkhZ@fu;kstd

mifLFkr

çkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj

dksbZ mifLFkr ugha

ls çfrfuf/k

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj

dksbZ mifLFkr ugha

ls çfrfuf/k

vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad % 23@7@2013

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds çklkafxd

vkns'k Øekad ,y&17012@5@09&vkbZvkj ¼,e½ fnukad

18@9@09 ds }kjk fuEu funsZ'k@fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr Þvf/kfu;eß ls lEcksf/kr fd;k

tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½¼?k½ ds varxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks

vfèkfu.kZ;kFkZ lEçsf"kr fd;k x;k gS %

“Whether Shri Satyanarayan Sharma S/o Shri

Bhojashanker Sharma has worked continuously from

16/4/2003 to 9/7/2007 and has completed 240 days

of service in calander year? If so, whether the action

of the management of LIC in terminating the services

of Shri B. Sharma w-e-f- 10/7/2007 is just and legal?

What relief the workman is entitled to and from which

date?”

2- funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa çkIr gksus ij iathc)

mijkar i{kdkjksa dks uksfVl@lwpuk tkjh dj fof/kor voxr

djok;k x;kA

3- ;g jsÝsUl bl U;k;kf/kdj.k esa çdj.k la- vkbZVh

¼dsUæh;½&19@09 ds :i esa fnukad 16@12@09 dks ntZ fd;k

x;k A bl ekeys esa lquokbZ ds nkSjku ;g çdV gqvk fd blh

frfFk dk blh deZdkj ds laca/k esa jsÝsUl iwoZ esa bl U;k;kf/kdj.k

dks çkIr gksdj fnukad 20@10@09 dks ntZ gksdj çdj.k

la[;k vkbZVh ¼dsUæh;½ &15@09 ds :i esa yafcr gS] vr% ml

çdj.k i=koyh dks Hkh lquokbZ gsrq ,d gh lkFk fu;r fd;k

x;k A ml jsÝsUl dh çdkj.k ç=koyh esa Hkh fookn dk fcUnq

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4643

'krsaZ o i{kdkjku leku gSa ,oa nksuksa esa gh lsokeqfä dh frfFk

10@7@2007 gSA

4- vr% ,d gh deZdkj dh ,d lsokeqfä ds laca/k esa nks

jsÝsUl dkuwu ugha py ldrs gSa D;ksafd nksuksa esa fookn dk fcUnq]

i{kdkjku Hkh leku gSaA vr% i'pkr~orhZ jsÝsUl çdj.k la-

vkbZVh ¼dsUæh;½& 19@09 tks lger ls ntZ jftLVj gks x;k

gS] mldks vc vkSj pyk, tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gS D;ksafd

lHkh fcUnqvksa dk fofu'p; rks iwoZ ds yafcr jsÝsUl çdj.k la[;k

vkbZVh ¼dsUæh;½ 15@09 esa gks tk;sxkA vr% i'pkr~orhZ jsÝsUl

çdj.k la- vkbZVh ¼dsUæh;½&19@09 blh çØe ij fuLrkfjr

gksdj QSly 'kqekj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i i'pkr~orhZ jsÝsUl çdj.k la[;k vkbZVh

¼dsUæh;½&19@09 blh vuq:i mÙkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd iwoZ esa

gh blh fookn ds laca/k esa çdj.k la- vkbZVh ¼dsUæh;½&15@09

yafcr gksus ls ;g jsÝsal çdj.k la- vkbZVh ¼dsUæh;½&19@09

pyus ;ksX; ugha gS ,oa blesa çkFkhZ dks dksbZ vuqrks"k ugha fn;k

tk jgk gSA çkFkhZ tks Hkh vuqrks"k vkfn çkIr djsxk og jsÝsUl

çdj.k la- vkbZVh ¼dsUæh;½&15@09 esa çkIr dj ldsxkA vr%

blh ds lkFk ;g i=koyh QSly 'kqekj dh tkdj jsÝsUl çdj.k

la- vkbZVh ¼dsUæh;½&15@09 ds lkFk layXu dh tkosA

izdk'k pUæ ixkjh;k] U;k;k/h'k

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1771-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vgen iq=k vCnqy ethn HkkbZ] ykbe LVksu ekbzal vksuj] fiik[ksM+h

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

vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@43@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2008)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kota now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Jahur

Ahmad S/o Abdul Majid Bhai, Lime Stone Mines Owner,

Pipakhedi and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 6/6/2014.

[No. L-29011/43/2006-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

vuqca/

U;k;k/h'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k (dsUæh;) dksVk

(jkt-)

ihBklhu vf/dkjh % Jh izdk'k pUæ ixkjh;k]

vkj,pts,l

funsZ'k izdj.k Øekad % vkS- U;k-@dsUæh;@13@2008

fnukad LFkkfir % 17-4-2008

izlax %

izlax % Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k

Øekad ,y&29011@43@06&vkbZvkj ¼,e½ fnukad 11@3@08

funsZ'k@fookn varxZr /kkjk 10¼1½ ¼?k½ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e] 1947

e/;

tujy lsØsVªh] jk"Vªh; etnwj la?k ¼baVd½

jkexat e.Mh ftyk dksVk

&çkFkhZx.k deZdkj

&;wfu;u

,oa

tgwj vgen iq= vCnqy ethn HkkbZ]

ykbZe LVksu] ekbZUl v‚uj] ihik[ksM+h]

dksVk ¼jktLFkku½

&vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr

çkFkhZx.k deZdkj ;wfu;u dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k %

& dksbZ mifLFkr ugha

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k %

& ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh

vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad 31@7@2013

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds çklkafxd

vkns'k Øekad ,y&29011@43@06&vkbZvkj¼,e½ fnukad

11@3@08 ds }kjk fuEu funsZ'k@fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ ftls rnqijkUr½ ßvf/kfu;eß ls lacksf/kr

fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ds varxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks

vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEçsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&

2- funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa çkIr gksus ij iathc)

mijkar i{kdkjksa dks uksfVl@lwpuk tkjh dj fof/kor voxr

djok;k x;kA

3- çkFkhZx.k deZdkj ;wfu;u dh vksj ls Dyse LVsVesaV

is'k fd;k x;k ftlesa of.kZr fd;k x;k fd çkFkhZx.k

deZdkjksa@Jfedksa dh ,d jftLVMZ pquh gqbZ laLFkk@;wfu;u gS

rFkk bl ;wfu;u }kjk vçkFkhZ laLFkku esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ds

laca/k esa ,d ekaxi= fn;k x;k os ekaxs 1@11@05 ls Lohdkj

fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k ijUrq os ekaxs eatwj ugha dh x;hA

4644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2014/JYAISTHA 31, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fQj bl laca/k esa lgk;d Je vk;qä ds ek/;e ls Hkh ,d

Lej.k&i= fHktok;k x;k] ogka ij fu;kstd i{k dks cqyok;k

x;k ijUrq okrkZ gsrq dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gqvkA fu;kstd oxZ

Jfedksa ds çfr mis{kkiw.kZ O;ogkj j[krk gS ,oa blh dkj.k ls

fu;kstd i{k us ;wfu;u dh mfpr ekaxksa dks Hkh ugha ekuk ftlds

dkj.k dsUæh; Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ;g jsÝsUl bl

U;k;kf/kdj.k dks Hkstk x;kA vr% jsÝsUl ds ek/;e ls bl

;wfu;u us vius 5 lw=h ekax&i= tks fnukad 1@11@05 dks

fu;kstd ds ;gka is'k fd;k Fkk] mls Lohdkj dj vuqrks"k fnyk;s

tkus dh ekax dhA

4- bl jsÝsUl ls vçkFkhZ dks voxr djok;k x;kA vçkFkhZ

dh vksj ls ckotwn uksfVl rkehy ds Hkh fdlh ds mifLFkr ugha

vkus ls vknsf'kdk fnukad 30@9@11 ds }kjk vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

ds fo#) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dk vkns'k fn;k x;k ,oa mlds

i'pkr ls i=koyh vkt fnu rd lk{; çkFkhZ gsrq fu;r dh

tkrh jgh ijUrq vkt fnu rd dksbZ lk{;] lk{; çkFkhZ ,drjQk

esa Hkh is'k ugha gqbZA vknsf'kdk fnukad 12@3@12 }kjk Hkh çkFkhZ

;wfu;u dks lk{; gsrq volj fn;k x;kA blds i'pkr~ fnukad

23@8@12 o 12@3@13 dks Hkh dksbZ lk{; çkFkhZ ,drjQk is'k

ugha gqbZ] gkykafd bu nksuksa fnu LFkkuh; ckj }kjk U;kf;d dk;Z

LFkfxr fd;k gqvk FkkA vkt Hkh lquokbZ frfFk ij uk rks çkFkhZx.k

;k ;wfu;u ds dksbZ inkf/kdkjh@çfrfuf/k mifLFkr gq, ,oa uk

gh dksbZ lk{; is'k dh x;hA vkS|ksfxd fookn fu;e 10&ch¼8½

ds rgr fdlh Hkh i{kdkj dks lk{; vkfn ç;kstu gsrq rhu gh

volj fn;s tkus ,oa bu voljksa ds LFkxu dh vof/k Hkh çk;%

lIrkg Hkj dh gh gksxh] ,slk micaf/kr gSA

gLrxr ekeys esa rks çkFkhZ i{k dks ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh ds

vkns'k fn- 30@9@11 dks gksus ls vkt fnu rd djhcu 26 ekg

dk le; ,di{kh; lk{; is'k fd;s tkus gsrq fey pqdk gS ijUrq

vkt fnu rd dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh x;h] ;gka rd fd fdlh

dk 'kiFk&i= Hkh is'k ugha gqvk gS ,oa vkt dh lquokbZ frfFk ij

rks çkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr gh ugha gqvk gSA vr%

,sls esa i{kdkj dh vuqifLFkfr esa U;k;ky; Lo;a viuh çsj.kk ls

çdj.k dks vkxs ugha pyk ldrk gSA ;fn i{kdkj U;k;ky; ls

vuqrks"k pkgrk gS rks mls U;k;ky; esa vkdj vius ekeys esa

iSjoh djuh gksxhA gLrxr ekeys esa vkt çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls

fdlh ds mifLFkr ugha vkus ls o uk gh fdlh çdkj dh dksbZ

lk{; is'k gksus ls vc vfuf'prdky rd muds vkus ds bartkj

esa gh ekeyk yafcr ugha j[kk tk ldrk gS ,oa ,rn~}kjk lk{;

çkFkhZ can dh tkrh gSA vçkFkhZ ds fo#) Hkh iwoZ esa gh ,di{kh;

dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k gSA

5- pwafd Dyse LVsVesaV esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks çkFkhZx.k@;wfu;u

dks viuh lk{; ls lkfcr djuk Fkk ijUrq çkFkhZ i{k }kjk dksbZ

lk{; is'k ugha dh x;h] ;gka rd fd ,di{kh; lk{; esa fdlh

dk 'kiFk&i= Hkh is'k ugha gqvk ,oa uk gh vkt dh lquokbZ

frfFk ij çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr vk;s] vr% ,slh

ifjfLFkfr esa çkFkhZ i{k vius Dyse LVsVesaV esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks

lk{; ls lkfcr djus esa foQy jgk gS] vr% çkFkhZx.k@;wfu;u

bl ekeys esa dksbZ vuqrks"k çkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha curs

gSa ,oa jsÝsUl Hkh blh vuq:i mÙkfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA

ifj.kkeLo#i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh

}kjk çklkafxd vkns'k Øa- ,y&29011@43@2006&vkbZvkj¼,e½

fnukad 11@3@08 ds tfj;s lEçsf"kr funsZ'k@jsÝsUl dks blh

çdkj mÙkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd ekeys esa çkFkhZx.k ;wfu;u dh

vksj ls çLrqr vius Dyse LVsVesaV ds leFkZu esa fdlh çdkj

dh dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh x;h gS] vFkkZr~ oks çkFkhZx.k ds ekeys

dks lkfcr djus esa foQy jgh gS] vr% çkFkhZx.k@;wfu;u dksbZ

vuqrks"k çkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSaA

çdk'k pUæ ixkjh;k] U;k;k/kh'k

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1772-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSustj] eSllZ

eathr LVksu daiuh] dksVk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 3@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

06@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@47@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1772.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2008)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kota now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of Manager,

M/s. Manjeet Stone Company, Kota and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

6/6/2014.

[No. L-29012/47/2007-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

vuqca/

U;k;k/h'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k (dsUæh;) dksVk

(jkt-)

ihBklhu vf/dkjh % Jh izdk'k pUæ ixkjh;k]

vkj-,p-ts-,l-

funsZ'k izdj.k Øekad % vkS- U;k-@dsUæh;@3@2008

fnukad LFkkfir % 2-4-2008

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 21] 2014@T;s"B 31] 1936

4645

izlax %

izlax % Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k

Øekad ,y&29012@47@07&vkbZvkj ¼,e½] fnukad

4@12@2007

funsZ'k@fookn varxZr /kkjk 10¼1½ ¼?k½ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e] 1947

e/;

Hkoj flag iq= Hkhe flag }kjk egkea=h] iRFkj [kku dkexkj

;wfu;u] caxkyh dkyksuh] Nkouh] dksVk A

&çkFkhZ deZdkj ;wfu;u

,oa

eSustj] eS- euthr LVksu dEiuh] Nkouh] dksVkA

&vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr

çkFkhZ deZdkj ;wfu;u dh

% Jh iq:"kksÙke nk/khp

vksj ls çfrfuf/k

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj

% ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh

ls çfrfuf/k

vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad 17@9@2013

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds çklkafxd

vkns'k Øekad ,y&29012@47@07&vkbZvkj¼,e½ fnukad

4@12@07 ds }kjk fuEu funsZ'k@fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr Þvf/kfu;eß ls lacksf/kr fd;k

tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ds varxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks

vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEçsf"kr fd;k x;k gS %&

2- funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa çkIr gksus ij iathc)

mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks uksfVl@lwpuk tkjh dj fof/kor voxr

djok;k x;kA

3- çkFkhZ deZdkj dh vksj ls mlds fof/kd çfrfuf/k }kjk

Dyse LVsVesaV is'k fd;k x;k ftlesa of.kZr fd;k x;k fd çkFkhZ

Hkaoj flag dks vçkFkhZ çca/kd euthr LVksu daiuh Nkouh] dksVk

fu;kstd }kjk fnukad 1@1@60 dks MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;ksftr

fd;k x;k o fnukad 1@3@05 ls mls ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k

x;kA gVkus dk dkj.k ;g gS fd deZdkj us fu;kstd ls fnukad

1@3@05 ls 31@8@05 rd ds osru dh ekax dh gSA deZdkj

dh ;wfu;u us ,d uksfVl Hkh fu;kstd dks Hkstk ijUrq fu;kstd

us dksbZ mÙkj ugha fn;kA vr% çkFkhZ deZdkj ;wfu;u us çkFkhZ

deZdkj dks fnukad 1@3@05 ls 31@8@05 rd dk osru

fu;kstd ls fnyk;s tkus ds vuqrks"k dh ekax bl Dyse LVsVesaV

ds ek/;e ls dhA

4- ekeys esa vçkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ckotwn rkehy uksfVl

ds ugha vkus ls mlds fo#) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dk vkns'k fn;k

x;k o blh chp ,d çkFkZuk&i= deZdkj dh e`R;q gks tkus

mlds fof/kd çfrfuf/k }kjk fnukad 23@7@12 dks mUgsa

dk;eeqdke cuk;s tkus ckcr is'k fd;k x;kA ml çkFkZuk&i=

dks vkt ,d i`Fkd vkns'k ls fuLrkj.k fd;k x;k ,oa vkns'kkuqlkj

og çkFkZuk&i= dk;eeqdke cuk;s tkus ckcr [kkfjt fd;k

x;kA

5- pwafd deZdkj dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS rFkk mlds okfjlku

}kjk mUgsa dk;eeqdke cuk;s tkus dk çkFkZuk&i= Hkh [kkfjt

dj fn;k x;k gS] vr% ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa çdj.k ,d çdkj ls

fu"çHkkoh gks tkrk gS ,oa ,sls esa dksbZ vuqrks"k fn;k tkuk laHko

ugha gS ,oa jsÝsal Hkh blh vuq:i mÙkjfr gksus ;ksX; gSA

ifj.kkeLo#i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh

}kjk çklkafxd vkns'k Øa- ,y&29012@47@2007 ds

vkbZvkj&¼,e½ fnukad 4@12@07 ds tfj, lEçsf"kr funsZ'k@

jsÝsUl dks blh çdkj mÙkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd ekeys esa çkFkhZ

deZdkj Hkaoj flag dh e`R;q gks tkus o mlds okfjlku }kjk

dk;eeqdke cuk, tkus dk çkFkZuk&i= i`Fkd vkns'k ls [kkfjt

dj fn, tkus ls vc ekeyk fu"çHkkoh gks tkrk gS ,oa ,sls esa

dksbZ vuqrks"k fn;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA

çdk'k pUæ ixkjh;k] U;k;k/kh'k

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.