x`g ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2055-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

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

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

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

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

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS%

ds-vkS-lq- cy bdkbZ Mh,evkjlh] fnYYkh

¹la- 12017@1@2012&fgUnhº

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

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O. 2055.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

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

Government hereby notifies the following office of the

Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the percentage of the

2853 GI/2014

(5357)

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- 30]

ubZ fnYyh, tqykbZ 20—tqykbZ 26] 2014] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 29—Jko.k 4] 1936

No. 30]

NEW DELHI, JULY 20—JULY 26, 2014, SATURDAY/ASADHA 29—SRAVANA 4, 1936

bl 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)

staff having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above

80% :

CISF Unit DMRC, Delhi

[No. 12017/1/2012-Hindi]

AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director (OL)

lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;

(bysDVkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2056-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk jktHkk"kk (la?k ds

'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx ds

iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds varxZr vkus okys jk"Vªh; bysDVªkWfudh ,oa

lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku (ukbfyV) uked Lok;Ùk laLFkk ds nwljh

eafty] ik'oZukFk esVªks ekWy] banzyksd esVªks LVs'ku] fnYyh fLFkr

dsUnz] ftlds 80» ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d

Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- 7(2)@2005&fg-v-º

jktdqekj xks;y] la;qDr lfpo

5358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Electronics and Information Technology)

New Delhi, the 15h July, 2014

S.O. 2056.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of the rule

10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby

notifies the Centre of National Institute of Electronics and

Information Technology (NIELIT), an autonomous society

under the administrative control of the Department of

Electronics and Information Technology, located at IInd

floor, Parsvnath Metro Mall, Inderlok Metro Station, Delhi-

110052, More than 80% staff whereof have acquired the

working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 7(2)/2005-H.S.]

R. K. GOYAL, Jt. Secy.

'kgjh fodkl ea=kky;

(lsfjeksfu;y [email protected] izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2057-—fnukad 31 ekpZ] 2011 dh vf/lwpuk

la- 25011@7@85&MCY;w 2 esa vkaf'kd la'kks/u djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj

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

(LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2058-—tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ la'kks/u v?;kns'k] 2013 dh /kjk 3d dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k_

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM ([k)

ds vuqlj.k esa vkSj lacaf/r fo'ofo|ky;ksa@LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;ksa }kjk ;Fkk lwfpr] fuEufyf[kr O;fDr dks bl vf/lwpuk ds tkjh

gksus dh frfFk ls pkj o"kks± ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ ds lnL; ds :i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gS A

vr% vc] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds mica/ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds rRdkyhu

LOkkLF; ea=kky; dh fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 138 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u fd, tkrs gSa] vFkkZr~ %

Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky; dh fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 3325(v) vkSj mlds

la'kks/u esa vafre izfof"V rFkk rRlaca/h izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks tksM+k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %

Øe la-

fo'ofo|ky; dk uke

fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k

pquko dk rjhdk

38-

ihiqYl fo'ofo|ky;] Hkksiky

MkW- fot; dqekj ekaM;k] dqyifr] ihiqYl

izca/u cksMZ }kjk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkksiky

fuokZfpr

¹la[;k oh- 11013@7@2013&,e bZ ih&Iº

vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo

ikn fVIi.kh % fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dk-vk- 138 ds rgr Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa eq[; vf/lwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh;

vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ (la'kks/u)] f}rh; vè;kns'k] 2013 (2013 dk 11) ds rgr vafre ckj la'kksf/r fd;k x;k Fkk A

jkt?kkV lekf/ vf/fu;e] 1951 (1951 dk 41) dh /kjk 4 dh

mi&/kjk (1)] (2) rFkk (3) ds lkFk ifBr }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Jh dey ukFk ds LFkku ij Jh ,e- osadS;k

uk;Mq 'kgjh fodkl ea=kh dks jkt?kkV lekf/ lfefr ds vè;{k ds

:i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹la- 25011@7@85&MCY;w 2º

jkWfcu vnkoy] funs'kd (fuekZ.k)

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

(Ceremonial Section/Works Division)

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O. 2057.—In partial modification of the Notification

No. 25011/7/85-W2 dated 31st March, 2011, the Central

Government appoints Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu, Minister of

Urban Development, as Chairman of Rajghat Samadhi

Committee in place of Shri Kamal Nath, in exercise of the

powers conferred by Section 3 read with sub-section (1),

(2) and (3) of Section 4 of the Rajghat Samadhi Act, 1951

(41 of 1951).

[No. 25011/7/85-W2]

ROBIN ADAVAL, Director (Works)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5359

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2014

S.O.

2058.—Whereas on 6th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of the

powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and as informed by the respective universities/health science universities, the

following have been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for four years with effect from the date of issue

of this notification.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government

hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number

S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960, namely :

In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare number S.O. 3325(E)

dated the 06th November, 2013 and amendments thereto, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following shall

be inserted, namely :

Sl. No.

Name of the University

Details of the Elected Member

Mode of Election

38.

People’s University, Bhopal

Dr. Vijay Kumar Pandya, Vice-Chancellor,

Elected by Board of

People’s University, Bhopal

Management

[No. V. 11013/7/2013-MEP-I]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

Foot Note

: The principal notification was publish in he Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960

and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).

fo|qr ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2059-—dsUnzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa fo|qr ea=kky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu ikoj fxzM dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds th-vkbZ-,l- 400@220 dsoh

midsUnz] (fudV iQkftyiqj xkao)] lSDVj 71,@72] lksguk jksM] xqM+xkao&122002 (gfj;k.kk)] ftlds 80 izfr'kr deZpkjho`an us fgUnh dk

dk;Zlk/d Kkr izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- 11017@10@2013&fgUnhº

MkW- vkj- lh- 'kekZ] la;qDr funs'kd (jk-Hkk-)

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O. 2059.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the G.I.S. 400/220 KV Sub-station (Near Fazilpur Village) Sector

71A/72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. under the administrative

control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 11017/10/2013-Hindi]

Dr. R. C. SHARMA, Jt. Director (O.L.)

5360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

oL=k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2060-—dsUnzh; ljdkj (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy,) jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa] oL=k ea=kky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; dks ftlds 80» ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gS %

1- gLrf'kYi foi.ku ,oa lsok foLrkj dsUnz] fodkl vk;qDr (gLrf'kYi) dk dk;kZy;] 192&ubZ vukt eaMh] jsokM+h&123401(gfj;k.kk)

2- gLrf'kYi foi.ku ,oa lsok foLrkj dsUnz] fodkl vk;qDr (gLrf'kYi) dk dk;kZy;] lR;e VkWoj] 6oha eafty] ef.kuxj jsyos

LVs'ku ds lkeus] ef.kuxj if'pe] vgenkckn&380008 (xqtjkr)

3- vuqla/ku izlkj dsUnz] dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ] bZ.Vkyh jksM] iQrguxj&313205 ftyk mn;iqj (jktLFkku)

4- js'ke mRiknu izf'k{k.k fo|ky;] dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ] bZ.Vkyh jksM] iQrguxj&313205 ftyk mn;iqj (jktLFkku)

5- oL=k ijh{k.k iz;ksx'kkyk@izn'kZu ,oa rduhdh lsok dsUnz] dsjsizkSvla] dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ] pUnzyksd dkEIysDl] rhljh eafty]

?kaVk?kj] Hkkxyiqj&812001 (fcgkj)

6- izn'kZu ,oa rduhdh lsok dsUnz] dsjsizkSvla-] dsUnh; js'ke cksMZ] Jh txUukFk ,osU;w] c/Zeku dEikmUM] dkyst pkSd]

dVd&753003 (vksfM'kk)

7- vuqla/ku izlkj dsUnz] dsrvoizla- dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ] czgeuxj] jkcVZlxat] lksuHknz&231216 (mÙkj izns'k)

¹la- bZ&11016@1@2011&fgUnhº

lqu;uk rksej] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2060.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose of the

Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Textile, more than 80%

staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :

Handicraft Marketing and Service Centre, Development Commissioner (Handicraft), 192-Nai Anaj Mandi,

Rewari-123401 (Haryana)

Handicraft Marketing and Service Centre, Development Commissioner (Handicraft), Satyam Tower, 6th floor,

Opposite of Maninagar Railway Station, Maninagar West, Ahmedabad-380008 (Gujarat)

Research Extension Centre, Central Silk Board, Intaly Road, Fatehnagar-313205, District Udaipur (Rajasthan)

Sericulture Training School, Central Silk Board, Intaly Road, Fatehnagar-313205, District Udaipur (Rajasthan)

Textile Testing Laboratory/Demonstration-cum-Technical Service Centre, CSTRI, Central Silk Board, Chandralok

Complex, 3rd Floor, Ghantaghar, Bhagalpur-812001(Bihar)

Demonstration-cum-Technical Service Centre, CSTRI, Central Silk Board, Sri Jagannath Avenue, Bardhaman

Compound, College Chowk, Cuttack-753003(Odisha)

Research Extension Centre, CTR & TI, Central Silk Board, Brahmanagar, Sonbhadra-231216 (U.P.)

[No. E-11016/1/2011-Hindi]

SUNAINA TOMAR, Jt. Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5361

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2061-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

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

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal la- LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk- ek- la-@Hkkx@

la-

dh frfFk

irk

[k.M@o"kZ

o"kZ@ekg

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1- 2840862

3@01@2014

euey ,.M lUl]

?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa

Hk- ek- 3854 % 1997

104] igyk ekyk]

ds fy, fLops

ts- ih- dksykdks b.MLVªht bLVsV]

okyho] olbZ iwoZ]

ftyk Bk.ks&401 208

2- 2840963

3@01@2014

euey ,.M lUl]

250 oksYVrk vkSj 16 ,EihvlZ

Hk- ek- 1293 % 2005

104] igyk ekyk]

rd jsfVr /kjk ds Iyx vkSj

ts- ih- dksykdks b.MLVªht bLVsV]

lkWdsV

okyho] olbZ iwoZ]

ftyk Bk.ks&401 208

3- 2840155

6@01@2014

LVjykbZV VsDuksykWtht fy-

f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,

Hk- ek- 398 Hkkx 5 %

losZ la- 209,] iQsl 2]

,Y;wfefu;e pkyd—Hkkx&5]

1992

fiifj;k b.M- bLVsV]

,y;wfefu;e pkyd] vfrfjDr

flyoklk]

mPp oksYVrk (400 dsoh vkSj

ftyk nknjk vkSj uxj

vf/d) ds fy, tLrhÑr

gosyh&396 230

bLikr izcfyr

4- 2842361

6@01@2014

MSx izkslsl bULVªwesaVl]

,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLiQvlZ—Hkkx&1] Hkk-ek-@vkbZbZlh

lh 4] uanuou b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]

iQyseizwiQ buDykstj ^Mh* }kjk

60079 % Hkkx&1

,lhlh ds lkeus] ,y ch ,l ekxZ]

miLdj laj{kk

2007

Bk.ks if'pe]

ftyk % Bk.ks&400 604

5- 2842058

13@01@2014

LVjykbZV VsDuksykWtht fy-

f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,

Hkk-ek- 398 Hkkx&2 %

losZ la- 209,] iQsl 2]

,Y;wfefu;e pkyd—Hkkx&2]

1996

fiifj;k b.M- blVsV]

,y;wfefu;e pkyd] tLrhÑr

flyoklk]

bLikr izcfyr

ftyk nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh&396 230

6- 2846066

16@01@2014

izrhd ,DlIykstuizwiQ izk- fy-

,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLiQvlZ—Hkkx&1] Hkk-ek-@vkbZbZlh

lh 11] tseukuh b.MLVªh;y daikm.M]

iQyseizwiQ buDykstj ^Mh* }kjk

60079 % Hkkx&1

IykWV la- 143] olkj jksM]

miLdj laj{kk

2007

xk;dokM ikMk]

vacjukFk iwoZ]

ftyk % Bk.ks&421 501

5362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7- 2847371

28@01@2014

fnus'k b.MLVªht]

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kkn~; feDlj

Hkk-ek- 4250 % 1980

104] dksijxk¡o bLVsV] LVscy la- 2]

(nzohij vkSj xzkbMj)

'ksM la- 8] 9 ,oa 10] yoysu]

ek>xk¡o]

eqacbZ&400 010

8- 2849678

31@01@2014

b.MLVªh;y izksMDVl] , 15]

,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLiQvlZ—Hkkx&1] Hkk-ek-@vkbZbZlh

lksukokyk b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]

iQyseizwiQ buDykstj ^Mh* }kjk

60079 % Hkkx&1

lksukokyk Økl jksM ua- 2]

miLdj laj{kk

2007

eksgu flYd fey da-

xksjsxk¡o iwoZ] eqacbZ&400 063

¹la- dsUnzh;&izek.ku foHkkx@13 %11º

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k (,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ)

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2014

S.O. 2061.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifes the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and address (factory) of

Product

IS No./Part/Sec./

No.

the party

Year

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2840862

3/01/2014

Manmal & Sons,

Switches for domestic and

IS 3854 : 1997

104, First Floor, J. P. Colaco Indl.,

similar purposes

Estate,

Valiv, Vasai East,

Distt. : Thane-402208

2840963

3/01/2014

Manmal & Sons,

Plugs and socket outlets of

IS 1293 : 2005

104, First Floor, J. P. Colaco Indl.,

250 volts and rated current

Estate,

up to 16 amperes

Valiv, Vasai East,

Distt. : Thane-402208

2840155

6/01/2014

Sterlite Technologies Ltd.,

Elastomer insulated cables

IS 9968 : Part 1 :

Survey No. 209, Phase II,

Part 1 for working Voltages

1988

Pipria Indl., Estate,

upto and including 1100 V

Silvassa,

Distt. : Dadra and Nagar

Haveli-396 230

2842361

6/01/2014

DAG Process Instruments,

Explosive Atmospheres—

IS/IEC 60079 :

C-4, Nandanvan Industrial Estate,

Part 1 : Equipment Protection

Part 1 : 2007

Opposite ACC, LBS Marg,

by Flameproof Enclosures ‘‘d’’

Thane (West),

Distt. : Thane-400604

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5363

2842058

13/01/2014

Sterlite Technologies Ltd.,

PVC insulated (Heavy Duty)

IS 1554 : Part 1 :

Survey No. 209, Phase II,

Electric Cables : Part 1 for

1988

Pipria Indl., Estate,

working Voltages upto and

Silvassa,

including 1100 V

Distt. : Dadra and Nagar

Haveli-396 230

2846066

16/01/2014

Prateek Expliosionproof Pvt. Ltd.,

Plugs and socket outlets of

IS 1293 : 2005

C-11, Gemnami Ind. Compound,

250 volts and rated current

Plot No. 143, Vasar Road,

upto 16 amperes

Gaikwad Pada, Ambernath East,

Distt. : Thane-421 501.

2847371

28/01/2014

Dinesh Industries, 104, Kopergaon

Switches for domestic and

IS 3854 : 1997

Estate, Stable NBO 2, Shed No. 8, 9, similar purposes

10, Lovelane, Mazgaon,

Mumbai-400 010

2849678

31/01/2014

Industrial Products,

Switches for domestic and

IS 3854 : 1997

A-15, Sonawala Indl. Estate,

similar purposes

Sonawala, Cross Road No. 2,

Mohan Silk Mill Compound,

Goregaon (E),

Mmbai-400 063

[No. CMD/13 : 11]

T. KALAIVANANA, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2062-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

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

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal la- ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc¼ Hkkjrh;

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la-

ekud dk 'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1- 7606677

jks'ku b.MLVªht]

Hkk- ek- 9857 % 1990

15@01@2014

IykV ua- 47] dqaMyk jksM]

osfYMax dscYl

vrqy b.MLVªht bLVsV ds ikl]

foyst okMhoyh]

okMk&421 303

ftyk Bk.ks

2- 3944576

vkslfou b.MLVªht]

Hkk-ek- 3854 %1997

31@01@2014

xkyk la- 27@28] igyk ekyk]

?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy, fLops

iVsy b.M- bLVsV] U;w foax]

nfglj iqfyl LVs'ku ds lkeus]

,l oh jksM] nfglj iwoZ] eqacbZ&400068

¹la- dsUnzh;&izek.ku foHkkx@13 % 13º

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k (,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

5364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2014

S.O. 2062.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifes that the licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each ::—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name and address of the licensee

Article/process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

standard covered by the Licence

cancellation

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

7606677

Roshan Industries,

IS 9857 : 1990

15/01/2014

Plot No. 47, Kundala Road,

Welding Cables

Nr. Atual Ind. Estate,

Vill. : Vadavali,

Wada-421 303

Dist. : Thane

3944576

Oswin Industries,

IS 3854 : 1997

31/01/2014

G. No. 27/28, First Floor,

Switches for domestic and similar purposes

Patel Industrial Estate,

New Wing, Opp. Dahisar

Police Station,

S.V. Road, Dahisar (E),

Mumbai-400 068

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANANA, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2063-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

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

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal la- LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk- ek- la-@Hkkx@

la-

dh frfFk

irk

vuqHkkx o"kZ

o"kZ@ekg

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1- 4748884

20140619

esllZ vkj- vkj- ,Dok baMLVªhl]

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543 % 2004

,l- ,iQ- la- 1651@3]

feujy ty ds vykok)

jktk rksV~Ve] dqywj] eksnkdqfjph iksLV]

bZjksM&638 104

2- 4748783

20140619

esllZ fouq ckykth feujYl] ,l- ,iQ

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543 % 2004

la- 333] 2,] 2ch] ,Yykdkmq rksV~Ve]

feujy ty ds vykok)

rUuhj iUnky] eksfIijhiky;e iksLV]

djQeÙkeiV~Vh] dks;EcÙkwj&641 659

3- 4749179

20140624

esllZ i;ksuhj IykbZoqM baMLVªhl]

lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds fy, IykbZoqM

IS 303 % 1989

10@100@1] ,- ,l- ih- rksV~Ve]

lsUxksMxkSUMuiqnqj jksM] eqrwxkSUMu iqnqj]

lqywj] dks;EcÙkwj&641 402

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13 % 11º

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5365

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2014

S.O. 2063.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and address (factory) of

Title of the Standard

IS No./Part/Sec.

No.

the party

Year

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

4748884

20140619

M/s. R. R. Aqua Industries,

Packed Drinking Water (other

IS 14543 : 2004

SF No. 1651/3, Raja Thottam,

than Packaged Natural Mineral

Kulur, Modakurichi (P.O.),

Water)

Erode-638 104.

4748783

20140619

M/s. Vinu Balaji Minerals,

Packed Drinking Water (other

IS 14543 : 2004

SF No. 333, 2A, 2B, Ellakadu

than Packaged Natural Mineral

Thottam, Thanneer Pandhal,

Water)

Moppiripalayam (P.O.),

Karumathampatti,

Coimbatore-641 659

4749179

20140624

M/s. Poineer Plywood Industries,

Plywood for General Purposes

IS 303 : 1989

10/100/1, A.S.P., Thottam,

Sengodugounden Pudur Road,

Muthugounden Pudur, Sulur,

Coimbatore-641 402

[No. CMD/13 : 11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2064-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

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

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal la- ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jn~n fd, x, ykblsal ds

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la- lh ,e@,y

varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1- 3386265

esllZ esgyk e'khUl bafM;k fyfeVsM]

mQtkZ n{k izsj.k eksVjsa—rhu iQsth fLd;sjy dst] 03&06&2014

5@43 ch] vfoukf'k jksM] dfu;wj]

IS 12615 % 2004

djQeÙkeiV~Vh iksLV] iYYkMe rkyqd]

dks;EcÙkwj&641 059

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13 % 13º

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

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2014

S.O. 2064.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

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

5366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name and address of the Licensee

Article/process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

Standard covered by the Licence

Cancellation

CM/L

Cancelled/Suspension

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3386265

M/s. Mehala Machine India Ltd.

Induction Motors—Energy Efficient,

03.06.2014

5/43 B, Avinashi Road, Kaniyur,

Three-phase, Squirrel cage—

Karumathampatti Post,

IS 12615 : 2004

Palladam (TK),

Coimbatore-641 059

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYYkh] 15 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk-

2065-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

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

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa)

jn~n gksus dh

la[;k

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

tks fd jn~n gksus gSa]

frfFk

vxj gS] fd la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&E 06 % 2006 oL=kkfn—jax

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ 06 /Ccs ds izfr jax dk

iDdkiu % {kkj

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&F 02 % 2009 oL=kkfn—jax

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx ,iQ 02 lwrh ,oa foLdksl

,sMtslsUV diM+s dh fof'kf"V

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&F 03 % 2001 oL=kkfn—jax

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx ,iQ 03 ikWyh,ekbM

,sMtslsUV diM+s dh fof'kf"V

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&F 04 % 2001 oL=kkfn—

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx ,iQ 04 ikWyh,ekbM

,sMtslsUV diM+s dh fof'kf"V

vkbZ ,l 1367 (Hkkx 1) % 2014@vkbZ ,l vks 8992 %

15 tqykbZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1367 (Hkkx 1) %

15 tqykbZ]

2005 bLikr ds pwM+hnkj ca/dksa dh rduhdh iw£r 'krs±

2002@vkbZ ,l vks

2014

Hkkx 1 oksYV] LØw] LVM ,oa uVksa dh lkekU; vis{kk,¡

8992 % 1986

(pkSFkk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 1367 (Hkkx 8) % 2014@vkbZ ,l vks 2320 %

15 tqykbZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1367 (Hkkx 8) %

15 tqykbZ]

2008 bLikr ds pwM+hnkj ca/dksa dh rduhdh iw£r 'krs±

2002

2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5367

Hkkx 8 izhosfyax VkdZ VkbZi LVhy uV—;kaf=kd ,oa

dk;Zdkfjr xq.k/eZ (pkSFkk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 2370 % 2014 okd—bu dksYM :e—fof'kf"V

15 tqykbZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 2370 % 1963

15 tqykbZ]

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

2014

vkbZ ,l 3871 % 2014@vkbZ ,l vks 1968 % 2004 js'kksa

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

ls cuh jfLl;k¡ ,oa dkWMsZt 'kCnkoyh (rhljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 6239 % 2014 oL=kkfn—Ñf=ke js'kksa—oxZ uke

15 tqykbZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 12673 % 1989

15 tqykbZ]

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

2014

10-

vkbZ ,l 8414 % 2014 feVh rFkk jkWdfiQy ds cka/ksa ds

15 tqykbZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 8414 % 1977

15 tqykbZ]

fy, fjlko fu;a=k.k ds fMtkbu ds ekxZn'khZ fl¼kar

2014

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

11-

vkbZ ,l 10322 (Hkkx 1) % 2014 iznhid Hkkx 1

15 tqykbZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 10322 (Hkkx 1) %

15 tqykbZ]

lkekU; vis{kk,¡ vkSj ijh{k.k (igyk iqujh{k.k)

1982

2014

12-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks@Vh ,l 12805 % 2011 uSuks izksn~;ksfxdh

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

lkefxz;ksa dh fof'kf"V;k¡—fo'ks"k uSuks&oLrqvksa laca/h

ekxZn'khZ fl¼kar

13-

vkbZ ,l 13039 % 2014 ckgjh gkbZMªsUV flLVe—izko/ku

15 tqykbZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 13039 % 1991

15 tqykbZ]

rFkk j[k&j[kko—jhfr lafgrk (igyk iqujh{k.k)

2014

14-

vkbZ ,l 14202 (Hkkx 4) % 2014@vkbZ ,l vks@vkbZ bZ lh

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

7816&4 % 2013 igpku dkM~Zl ,dhÑr ifjiFk dkM~Zl

Hkkx 4 laxBu] lqj{kk vkSj vknku&iznku ds fy;s vkns'k

15-

vkbZ ,l 14202 (Hkkx 12) % 2014@vkbZ ,l vks@vkbZ bZ lh 15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

7816&12 % 2013 igpku dkM~Zl ,dhÑr ifjiFk dkM~Zl

Hkkx 12 laidZ lfgr dkMZ ;w,lch fo|qr baVjiQsl vkSj

lapkyu izfØ;k,a

16-

vkbZ ,l 16149 % 2014@vkbZ bZ lh 61345 % 1998

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

izdk'k oksYVh; (ih oh) ekWM;wyksa gsrw ;w oh ijh{k.k

17-

vkbZ ,l 16169 % 2014@vkbZ bZ lh 62116 % 2008

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

;wfVfyVh baVjdusfDVM bUoVZjksa gsrq vkbZ ySafMx jksd&Fkke

mik;ksa dh ijh{k.k i¼fr

18-

vkbZ ,l 16170 (Hkkx 1) % 2014@vkbZ bZ lh 61853&1 %

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

2011 izdk'koksYVh; (ih oh) ekWM;wy dk;Zdkfjrk ijh{k.k

,oa mQtkZ jsfVax Hkkx 1 fofdj.k ,oa rkieku dk;Zdkfjrk

ekiu ,oa ikoj jsfVax

19-

vkbZ ,l 16175 % 2014 vkof/d fujh{k.k ,oa iqu%

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

vgZrk—okguksa ds iz;ksx ds fy, nzfor isVªksfy;e xSl

(,yihth) flfyaMj—jhfr lafgrk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

5368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

20-

vkbZ ,l 16182 % 2014 dks;ys ls cus Liat ykSgk ds

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

pkj esa pqEcdRo—Kkr djus dh i¼fr

21-

vkbZ ,l 16185 % 2014 xSl flfyaMj—osfYMr dkcZu—

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

bLikr xSl flfyaMj vkof/d fujh{k.k ,oa ijh{k.k—

jhfr lafgrk

22-

vkbZ ,l 16186 % 2014 oL=kkfn—50 fdxzk [kk|;a=k

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

iSd djus ds fy;s gYds Hkkj okys iVlu ds cksjs—fof'f"V

23-

vkbZ ,l 16187 % 2014 oL=kkfn—iQy vkSj lfCt;ksa

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

dh iSdsftax vkSj HkaMkj.k ds fy, mPp ?kuRo

iksyhizksikbyhu (,p- Mh- ih- bZ-)@iksyhizksikbyhu (ih- ih-)

ds cqus gq, yhuks cksjs—fof'kf"V

24-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 29701 % 2010 uSuks izksn~;ksfxdh

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

bu foVªks flLVeksa ds fy, uSuks lkefxz;ksa ds uewuksa ij

,.MksVkWfDlu ijh{k.k—ykbewyl ,ehckslkbV ykblsV

(,y , ,y) ijh{k.k

25-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ bZ lh 60479&1 % 2005 ekuo ,oa i'kq/u

15 tqykbZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 8437 (Hkkx 1) %

15 tqykbZ]

ij djsaV ds izHkko Hkkx 1 lkekU; igyw

1992

2014

26-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ bZ lh 60479&2 % 2007 ekuo ,oa i'kq/u

15 tqykbZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 8437 (Hkkx 2) %

15 tqykbZ]

ij djsaV ds izHkko Hkkx 2 fo'ks"k izHkko

1992

2014

27-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ bZ lh 60479&4 % 2004 ekuo ,oa i'kq/u

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

ij djsaV ds izHkko Hkkx 4 ekuo ,oa i'kq/u ij ykbZVfuax

LVªksd ds izHkko

28-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ bZ lh 60479&5 % 2007 ekuo ,oa

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

i'kq/u ij djsaV ds izHkko Hkkx 5 ykbZVfuax ls HkkSfrd

izHkko lqj{kk ds fy, Vp oksYVst Fkzs'kgksYM eku

29-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ bZ lh 61701 % 2011 izdk'k oksYVh; ekWM;wy

15 tqykbZ] 2014

—

dk yo.k feLV la{kkj.k ijh{k.k (igyk iqujh{k.k)

bu Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYYkh&110002 {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa %

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

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

baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gS A

¹lanHkZ % PUB/GN-1 : 1º

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

fnukad % 15&07&2014

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5369

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2014

S.O. 2065.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

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

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

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

on the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Date of

No. & Year of the

Date of

No.

Established

Establishment

Indian Standards to

Cancellation

be cancelled, if any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS/ISO 105-E 06 : 2006 Textiles - Test for

15 July, 2014

Nil

colour fastness - Part E 06 : Colour Fastness

to spotting : Alkali

IS/ISO 105-F 02 : 2009 Textiles - Tests for

15 July, 2014

Nil

colour fastness - Part F 02 : Specification for

cotton and viscose adjacent fabrics

IS/ISO 105-F 03 : 2001 Textiles - Tests for

15 July, 2014

Nil

colour fastness - Part F 03 : Specification for

polyamide adjacent fabrics

IS/ISO 105-F 04 : 2001 Textiles - Tests for

15 July, 2014

Nil

colour fastness - Part F 04 : Specification for

polyester adjacent fabrics

IS 1367 (Part-1) : 2014/ISO 8992:2005 Technical

15 July, 2014

IS 1367 (Part-1) :

15 July, 2014

Supply Conditions for Threaded Steel Fasteners

2002/ISO 8992 : 1986

Part-1 General requirements for Bolts Screws

Studs and Nuts (Fourth Revision)

IS 1367 (Part-8) : 2014/ISO 2320 : 2008 Technical

15 July, 2014

IS 1367 (Part-8) : 2002

15 July, 2014

Supply Conditions for Threaded Steel Fasteners

Part-8 Prevailing Torque Type Steel Nuts -

Mechanical and Performance Properties (Fourth

Revision)

IS 2370 : 2014 Walk - in Cold Rooms –

15 July, 2014

IS 2370 : 1963

15 July, 2014

Specification (First Revision)

IS 3871 : 2014/ISO 1968 : 2004 Fibre ropes and

15 July, 2014

Nil

cordage – Vocabulary (Third Revision)

IS 6239 : 2014 / ISO 2076 : 2010 Textiles - Man

15 July, 2014

IS 12673 : 1989

15 July, 2014

Made Fibers - Generic Names (Second Rivision)

10.

IS 8414 : 2014 Guidelines for design of under-

15 July, 2014

IS 8414 : 1977

15 July, 2014

seepage control measures for earth and rockfill

dams (First Revision)

11.

IS 10322 (Part-1) : 2014 Luminaries Part-1

15 July, 2014

IS 10322 (Part-1) : 1982

15 July, 2014

General requirements and tests (First Revision)

5370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

IS/ISO/TS 12805 : 2011 Nano technologies -

15 July, 2014

Nil

Materials Specification - Guidance on Specifying

Nano-objects (First Revision)

13.

IS 13039 : 2014 External Hydrant Systems -

15 July, 2014

IS 13039 : 1991

15 July, 2014

Provision and Maintenance - Code of Practice

(First Revision)

14.

IS 14202 (Part-4) : 2014 ISO/IEC 7816-4 : 2013

15 July, 2014

Nil

Identification Cards - Integrated Circuit Cards -

Part-4 : Organization Security and Commands

for Interchange

15.

IS 14202 (Part-12) : 2014 ISO/IEC 7816-12 : 2005

15 July, 2014

Nil

Identification cards - Integrated circuit cards -

Part-12 : Cards with contacts - USB electrical

interface and operating procedures

16.

IS 16149 : 2014/IEC 61345 : 1998 UV Test for

15 July, 2014

Nil

photovoltaic (PV) Modules

17.

IS 16169 : 2014/IEC 62116 : 2008 Test procedure

15 July, 2014

Nil

of islanding prevention measures for utility

interconnected photovoltaic inverters

18.

IS 16170 (Part-1) : 2014/IEC 61853-1 : 2011

15 July, 2014

Nil

Photovoltaic (PV) module performance testing

and energy rating Part-1 : Irradiance and

temperature performance measurements and

power rating

19.

IS 16175 : 2014 Periodic Inspection and

15 July, 2014

Nil

Requalification - Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

Cylinders for Automotive use - Code of Practice

20.

IS 16182 : 2014 Magnetics in char from coal

15 July, 2014

Nil

based sponge iron (DRI) - Methods of

Determination

21.

IS 16185 : 2014 Periodic Inspection and Testing -

15 July, 2014

Nil

Welded Carbon Steel Gas Cylinders - Code of

Practice

22.

IS 16186 : 2014 Textiles - Light weight jute

15 July, 2014

Nil

sacking bags for packing 50 kg foodgrains—

Specification

23.

IS 16187 : 2014 Textiles - High density

15 July, 2014

Nil

polyethylene (HDPE) / polypropylene (PP) leno

woven sacks for packaging and storage of fruits

and vegetables - Specification

24.

IS/ISO 29701 : 2010 Nano technologies -

15 July, 2014

Nil

Endotroxin test on Nano-material samples for in

vitro systems - Limulus amebocytelysate (LAL)

test

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5371

25.

IS/IEC 60479 (Part-1) : 2005 Effects of current on

15 July, 2014

IS 8437 (Part-1) : 1992

15 July, 2014

human beings and livestock - Part-1 General

aspects

26.

IS/IEC 60479 (Part-2) : 2007 Effects of current on

15 July, 2014

IS 8473 (Part-2) : 1992

15 July, 2014

human beings and livestock - Part-2 Special

aspects

27.

IS/IEC 60479 (Part-4) : 2004 Effects of current on

15 July, 2014

Nil

human beings and livestock - Part-4 Effects of

Lightning strokes on human beings and livestock

28.

IS/IEC 60479 (Part-5) : 2007 Effects of current

15 July, 2014

Nil

on human beings and livestock - Part-5 Touch

voltage threshold values for physiological effects

29.

IS/IEC 61701 : 2011 Salt mist corrosion testing

15 July, 2014

Nil

of photovoltaic (PV) modules (First Revision)

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

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

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

Patna, Pune, Kochi.

[Ref: PUB/GN-1:1]

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

Date : 15.07.2014

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2066-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

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

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal la- LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk- ek- la-@Hkkx@

la-

dh frfFk

irk

[k.M@o"kZ

o"kZ@ekg

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1- 2858679

13@02@2014

ikWfydWc ok;lZ b.MLVªht izk- fy-

1100 oksYV rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh Hkk- ek- 694 % 1990

losZ ua- 353@1 vkSj 2]

oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh jksf/r

ne.k b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]

dscy

nknjk vkSj ukxj gosyh]

neu&396210

2- 2858578

14@02@2014

Jh Ñ".kkJs; (b) izk- fy-

lhfyax jksftt

Hkk- ek- 371 % 1999

IykV la- 08] losZ la- 200@1&Mh (8)

,oa IykWV la- 9]

losZ la- 200@1&bZ (9)]

iapky m|ksx uxj]

Hkheiksj] neu]

neu ,oa nho&396201

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

5372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3- 2857677

19@02@2014

usokrsoj bysDVªhdy ,.M MhftVy

fuEu oksYVrk fLopfx;j vkSj

Hkk- ek-@vkbZbZlh

flLVe izk- fy-

dUVªksy fx;j Hkkx 3 fLop]

60947&3 % 1999

Mh&4] ,evk;Mhlh ,fj;k]

fMldusDVj] fLop fMldusDVj

tyxk¡o&425003

vkSj Ý;wt la;kstu ;wfuV

4- 2861769

24@02@2014

:ie b.MLVªht]

1100 oksYV rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh Hkk- ek- 694 % 1990

12@ch] ?ku';ke b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]

oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh jksf/r

nwljh eafty] ohjk nslkbZ ekXkZ]

dscy

va/sjh&if'pe]

eqacbZ&400053

5- 2861870

27@02@2014

nliku bysDVªhd b.MLVªht]

250 oksYVrk vkSj 16 ,EihvlZ rd

Hkk- ek-1293 % 2005

113@899] eksrhyky uxj la- 1]

jsfVr /kjk ds Iyx vkSj lkWdsV

jksM la- 8] f=kdksuh efLtn ds utnhd]

xksjsxk¡o&if'pe]

eqacbZ&400104

6- 2861971

27@02@2014

nliku bysDVªhd b.MLVªht]

?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy,

Hkk- ek- 3854 % 1997

113@899] eksrhyky uxj la- 1]

fLopsa

jksM la- 8] f=kdksuh efLtn ds utnhd]

xksjsxk¡o&if'pe]

eqacbZ&400104

7- 2862266

28@02@2014

dscy dkiksZjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM]

ØklfyaDM ikWyhfFkyhu fo|qrjks/h

Hkk- ek- 7098

,iQ&3@2] ,evk;Mhlh]

FkeksZIYkkfLVd vkofjr dscy Hkkx 3] Hkkx 3 % 1993

flUUkj baMLVªh;y ,fj;k]

66 dsoh ls 220 dsoh rd ,oa

ftyk % ukfld&422103

lfgr dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk gsrq

¹la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13 % 11º

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k (,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ)

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O. 2066.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifes the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and address (factory) of

Title of the Standard

IS No./Part/Sec.

No.

the party

Year

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2858679

13/02/2014

Polycab Wires Industries Pvt. Ltd.

PVC insulated cables for

IS 694 : 1990

Survey No. 353/1 & 2, Daman

working voltage upto and

Industrial Estate,

including 1100 V

Dadra and Nagar Haveli,

Daman-396210

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5373

2858578

14/02/2014

Shri Krishnashray (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Ceiling roses

IS 371 : 1999

Plot No. 8, Survey No. 200/1-D(8)

and Plot No. 9,

Survey No. 200/1-E(9),

Panchal Udyog Nagar,

Bhimpore,

Daman,

Daman and Diu-396201

2857677

19/02/2014

Novateur Electrical and Digital

Low votage switchgear and

IS 60947 : Part 3 :

Systems Private Limited,

controlgear—Part 3 switches,

1999

D-4, MIDC Area,

disconnectors, switch-discon-

Jalgaon-425003

nectors and fuse combination

units

2861769

24/02/2014

Roopam Industries,

PVC insulated cables for work-

IS 694 : 1990

12/B, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, ing voltages upto and

2nd Floor,

including 1100 V

Veera Desai Road,

Andheri (W),

Mumbai-400053

2861870

27/02/2014

Daspan Electric Indus.,

Plugs and socket outlets of

IS 1293 : 2005

113/899, Motilal Nagar No. 1,

250 volts and rated current

Road No. 8, Near Trikoni Masjid,

upto 16 amperes

Goregaon West,

Mumbai-400104

2861971

27/02/2014

Daspan Electric Indus.,

Switches for domestic and

IS 3854 : 1997

113/899, Motilal Nagar No. 1,

similar purposes

Road No. 8, Near Trikoni Masjid,

Goregaon West,

Mumbai-400104

2862266

28/02/2014

Cable Corporation of India Ltd.,

Cross-linked polyethlene

IS 7098 : Part 3 :

F-3/2, MIDC, Sinnar Industrial Area, insulated thermoplastic

1993

Distt. : Nashik-422103

sheathed cables : part 3 for

working voltage from 66 KV

upto and including 220 KV

[No. CMD/13 : 11]

T. KALAIVANANA, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2067-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

5374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal la- ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc¼

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la-

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1- 2813253

ljLorh ok;j ,.M dscy b.MLVªht]

Hkk- ek- 1554 (Hkkx 1) % 1988

12@02@2014

IykV la- lh&1] ,l,y la- 47@2]

ih oh lh jksf/r (Hkkjh M~;wVh) fo|qr dscy %

osowj xk¡o] iksLV euksj jksM]

Hkkx 1] 1100 oksYV dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk rd

iky/j iwoZ] ftyk % Bk.ks&401 404

o lfgr ds fy,

2- 3822865

lkbZ bysDVªhdYl]

Hkk- ek- 3854 % 1997

24@02@2014

:e ua- 1397] pkWy 175] eksrhyky

?kjsyw vkSj lek iz;kstksa ds fy, fLops

uxj ua- 1] ry eafty] Mk- esxk dne

xSyjh ds ikl] xkjsxkao if'pe]

eqacbZ&401104

¹la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13 % 13º

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k (,e ;w ch vks&bZbZbZ)

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O. 2067.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

following Schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name and address of the Licensee

Article/process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

Standard covered by the Licence

cancellation

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

2813253

Saraswati Wire and Cable Inds.,

IS 1554 : Part 1 : 1988

12/02/2014

Plot No. C-1, Sl. No. 47/2,

PVC insulated (Heavy Duty) Electric

Vevoor Village,

Cables : Part 1 for working Voltages

Post Manor Road,

upto and including 1100 V

Palghar (E),

Distt. : Thane-401 404

3822865

Sai Electricals,

IS 3854 : 1997

24/02/2014

Room No. 1397,

Switches for domestic and

Chawl 175, Motilal Nagar No. 1,

similar purpose

Ground Floor, Near Dr. Megha Kadam,

Gallery,

Goregaon (West),

Mumbai-401 104

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5375

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2068-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèkr=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@258@2005&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2014

S.O.

2068.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 49/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 07/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/258/2005-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 27th day of May, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 49/2006

BETWEEN

The Vice President,

(Sri M. Babu Rao)

Singareni All Workers Joint & Central Union

(SAWJAC)

Mandamarri Area,

H.No.C2/214, Sharada Nagar,

Godavarikhani – 505209.

. . . .Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri -540231.

. . . Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana &

K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &

Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri,

Advocates

AWARD

By virtue of reference No. L-22012/258/2005-IR(CM-

II) dated 10.8.2006 Government of India, Ministry of Labour

and Employment, required this Tribunal to adjudicate the

dispute,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Mandamarri

Division, in imposing penalty of reduction of 4

increments (4SPRAs) on Sri Peddapalli

Satyanarayuana, Coal filler, Somagudem-3 Incline

(SMC-3 INC) Mandamarri Division, is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID

No.49/2006 on the file of this Tribunal and notices were

served on the parties concerned. Both the Petitioner and

Respondent appeared before the Tribunal and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of each other and

the Tribunal. M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner union

and M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri,

Advocates appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows :

Sri Peddapoalli Satyanarayana (who will hereinafter

be referred as workman) has been appointed in the service

of the Respondent company and he has been discharging

his duties as badli filler. While so, charge sheet dated

22.12.1999 was issued alleging that he held meetings in

the main premises without previous permission of the

Management with a view to create industrial unrest and to

organise an illegal strike on 6.12.1999, despite objections

raised by the mine officials which amounts to misconduct

under Standing Orders No.25.41. The workman has

submitted his explanation dated 10.1.2000 denying the

charges and stating that no meeting was conducted in

the mine premises. However, without considering the

submissions in proper perspective, an enquiry was initiated

wherein the workman was not given any opportunity much

less valid in nature. The whole enquiry was proceeded

with a pre-conceived notion as if workman is guilty of

charges. The workman was not given opportunity to lead

evidence on his behalf. The documents relied upon by

the Enquiry Officer were not furnished to the workman.

The workman could not be present before the Enquiry

5376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Officer once or twice. Taking advantage of the same the

Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry as if the workman has

no witness to examine on his behalf. The enquiry procedure

was not explained to the workman resulting into great

prejudice to him. Basing on the evidence which is not

establishing the guilt of the workman and the documents

which were not supplied to the workman and without

affording opportunity to workman to produce his evidence

the Enquiry Officer has given his findings which are

perverse in nature, finding the workman guilty of the

charges and submitted his report. Accepting such findings

and the report Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause

notice to the workman for which workman has submitted

his reply. But without considering his submissions

impugned office order dated 30.7.2001/28.8.2001 was issued

imposing penalty of reversion to lower stage by reducing

four increments with cumulative effect with effect from

1.8.2001 which is unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary. The

Disciplinary Authority has not applied his mind

independently, a cryptic and unreasoned order has been

passed by him. Even as per the Management witnesses

there was no loss of production on account of the meetings

allegedly conducted by the workman. Workman has been

serving in the Respondent company sincerely and

dedicatedly and to the satisfaction of his superiors. He is

also striving hard by espousing genuine grievances of

the workmen and also making them aware of their duties

and responsibilities. As a result of imposition of the

penalty against him workman and members of his family

are facing lot of hardship. He is not responsible for the

charges even if he is responsible for the same imposition

of such penalty is highly excessive and disproportionate

to the charges. Hence, the indulgence of the Tribunal is

sought for. The impugned office order is liable to be set

aside declaring it as illegal, arbitrary consequently directing

the Respondents to restore the increments deferred to the

workman duly granting all other consequential benefits

such as monetary benefits such as with effect from 1.9.2001.

3. Respondents filed their counter with the

averments in brief as follows:

The workman has conducted gate meetings at four

mines of Mandamarri area within the mine premises without

prior permission of the Respondent . Hence, he was issued

with the charge sheet alleging that he committed

misconduct under company’s Standing Orders No.25.41

which reads as follows:

“25.41: Holding meeting within the mines/

establishment premises without the previous

permission of the Management”.

In the charge sheet the dates of the meetings held

were specified. Without prior permission of the Respondent

company and with a view to create industrial unrest and

to organise illegal strike on 6.12.1999 despite objections

raised by the mine officials the meetings were held. The

workman has submitted his explanation which was found

to be not satisfactory. Full fledged domestic enquiry was

conducted. The workman has participated in the enquiry.

He was given full and fair opportunity to defend himself.

The Enquiry Officer found that the charges were proved

beyond doubt. The workman was issued with show-

cause notice dated 5.10.2000 enclosing copies of enquiry

report and enquiry findings to enable the workman to make

representation against the findings of the enquiry. He

made his representation dated 22.11.2000. The Disciplinary

Authority has carefully considered the enquiry report, all

the material papers on record and also the representation

made by the workman and concurred with the findings of

the Enquiry Officer holding the workman guilty of

misconduct under company’s Standing Orders No.25.41.

Since there were no extenuating circumstances to take a

lenient view, the punishment warranted is that of dismissal.

However, to give the workman an opportunity to improve

himself it was decided to impose penalty of reversion to

lower stage by reducing four SPRAs in the present pay

with cumulative effect with effect from 1.8.2001 vide office

order dated 2.9.2001. As per the certified Standing Order

No.29 of the Respondent company Petitioner can avail an

opportunity to submit an appeal within 45 days of the

receipt of order of punishment. But the workman did not

avail the said opportunity. During the enquiry the workman

has cross-examined all the five Management witnesses

who were examined. Considerable opportunity was given

to him to bring his witnesses but he failed to lead evidence.

He made his statement during the enquiry. There are no

documents submitted during enquiry except the letters

written by the concerned mine managers informing that

the workman has conducted pit meetings at the mine

premises without permission on the dates mentioned in

the charge sheet. There is valid evidence available to prove

the charges against the workman. All the Management

witnesses are eye witnesses to the incident. Though there

is no loss of production as per the industrial relations

policy of the Respondent company contained in office

memo dated 5.10.1998, read with code of discipline that

the unrecognised unions are barred from holding any pit

meetings in the premises of the mines/departments. The

penalty was liable to be imposed. If such penalty is not

imposed everybody conducts pit meetings at the beginning

of every shift which leads to labour unrest. SAWJAC

Union is not a recognised union and it got no

representative status at Mandamarri area. Thus, it got no

locus standi to represent the issues of the workmen in

Mandamarri area under code of discipline. Contrary to

guidelines in clause Nos.3.11.0 to 3.11.3 and 5.10 relating

to gate meetings communicated vide memorandum dated

5.10.1998, the workman has conducted gate meetings as

mentioned in the charge sheet. Hence, the claim petition is

liable to be dismissed.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5377

4. After hearing both parties and considering the

written arguments submitted by the Petitioner also, this

Tribunal has held that the domestic enquiry conducted

in this case is legal and valid, by virtue of order dated

18.3.2011.

5. Heard the arguments of either party under

Sec.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. The points that arise for determination are :

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in

imposing penalty of reduction of 4 increments

(4SPRAs) on Sri Peddapalli Satyanarayuana, Coal

filler, Somagudem-3 Incline (SMC-3 INC)

Mandamarri Division, is legal and justified?

II.

To what relief the workman is entitled to?

7. Point No. I :

As already discussed above, this Tribunal has held

that the domestic enquiry conducted in this case is legal

and valid after hearing the arguments of either party. The

said order has become final. Thus, there is no need for

going into the merits and demerits of the contentions raised

by either party regarding the conduct of the domestic

enquiry, now.

8. The legality and justification in finding the

workman guilty of the charges and the proportionality of

and justification for, the punishment awarded are the

questions now to be gone into.

9. As can be seen from the statement of Sri Udaya

Mohan, one of the Management witnesses he is not an

eye witness to the incident. He received information of

the meeting conducted that one Sri Janak Prasad the

General Secretary of SCSWU conducted the said meeting.

It is also his information that the workman who is the Vice

President of the said union which is an unrecognised

union, was with Janak Prasad at the meeting. That means

he got no personal knowledge of the said event. The

second witness Sri R. Narasaiah also stated that one Janak

Prasad alone has addressed the meeting and the workman

was present there only. Whereas one M. Mallikarjuna Rao

the third witness has stated that the workman also has

addressed the gathering in the meeting. The fourth

witnesss Sri M. Suresh also gave statement to the effect

that Janak Prasad, the workman and others conducted the

meeting. But, during cross examination this witness has

stated that only Janak Prasad has spoken. The fifth witness

Sri Ch. Rajender and also the other witness Sri A.

Sudarshan have spoken regarding the presence of the

workman during the meeting. Sri Sudarshan has got no

previous acquaintance with the workman and according

to him through some others he came to know that the

person who was present there was the workman.

10. The above referred evidence shows that there

are material contradictions in the evidence adduced for

the Management, regarding the participation of the

workman in the meetings conducted in the mine premises.

All the Management witnesses have spoken regarding

the presence of the workman in the said meetings. But

some of them have stated that workman also has addressed

the gathering whereas others have stated that he did not

address. It is the contention of the workman that these

witnesses are strangers to him; that he was not at all

present during the given meetings and that at the instance

of the Management they are claiming that he was present

during the meetings. If at all, all these witnesses were

actually eye witnesses and the workman has conducted

the said meetings and addressed the meetings, in all

likelihood there would have been consistent evidence

regarding his addressing the gathering. The contradictory

evidence given by the Management witnesses who are all

claiming to be the eye witnesses, with this regard,

indicates that in all likelihood they have not witnessed

any such events . It can be said so since if, a person

addressed a meeting, all the persons who heard him during

the meeting will certainly speak that he addressed the

meeting. If one says that he addressed the meeting and

the other says that he did not address the meeting, one

has to doubt the veracity of the said witnesses.

11. Basing on such evidence that too, which is to

the effect that there was no monetary loss/work loss for

the company due to the alleged meeting, the impugned

orders were passed, causing substantial status and

monetary loss to the workman, which is not reasonable

and justified. If there are contradictions in the evidence

of the eye witnesses, benefit of the said contradictions is

to be given to the workman who is facing allegations, but

not to the Management since, the workman will be in

disadvantageous position when compared with the

Management, in all respects.

12. Further more, though it is irrelevant it is not out

of place to note that as can be gathered from the evidence

of the Management witnesses, there were no instructions

from the Management prohibiting such meetings and

requiring the officials to prevent such meetings. Due to

the conduction of the alleged meetings there was no delay

in the attendance of the workmen to the work. There was

no loss of production.

13. In the given circumstances, finding the workman

guilty of the charges levelled against him and imposing

punishment of reduction of four increments (Four SPRAs)

with cumulative effect is most unjust and unreasonable

and the same are to be set aside.

This point is answered accordingly.

5378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. Point No. II :

In view of the finding in Point No.I the action of the

Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited

in imposing penalty of reduction of 4 increments (4SPRAs)

on Sri Peddapalli Satyanarayana, Coal filler, Somagudem-

3 Incline (SMC-3 INC) Mandamarri Division, is neither

legal nor justified and it is to be liable to be set aside.

Consequently, the workman is entitled for restoration of

the four increments (Four SPRAs)with all attendant

benefits including monetary benefits and arrears of pay

accrues consequent to this relief.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited in imposing penalty of

reduction of 4 increments (4SPRAs) on Sri Peddapalli

Satyanarayana, Coal filler, Somagudem-3 Incline (SMC-3

INC) Mandamarri Division, is held as neither legal nor

justified and is here by set aside. Consequently, the four

increments(Four SPRAs) reduced by the Management by

virtue of the impugned order No.P/MM/7/2/01/3864 dated

2.9.2001 are hereby restored. The workman is entitled for

all attendant benefits and arrears of pay which accrues

consequent to the restoration of these four increments

(four SPRAs). The Management shall pay all the arrears

of pay accrues to the workman, Sri Peddapalli

Satyanarayana within one month from the date of

publication of this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 27th

day of May, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2069-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

iqjLdkj izdkf'kr djrk gS (lhvkj uacj 54@2008) tujy eSustj]

VsyhdkWe fMikVZesaV] gqcyh 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;] cSaxyksj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 54@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@36@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2014

S.O. 2069.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (C.R. No. 54/

2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of General Manager, Telecom

Department, Hubli and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 06/07/2014.

[No. L-40011/36/2007-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED : 13th JUNE 2014

PRESENT :

Shri S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C R No. 54/2008

I Party

Smt. Rukmini R Ganji,

W/o Late R G Ganji,

R/o Manjunathanagar,

Gokul Road,HUBLI – 20.

II Party

The General Manager,

O/o the General Manager,

Telecom Department,

Dharwad Telecom District,

Sanchar Sadan, Station Rd.,

HUBLI – 20.

APPEARANCES :

I Party

Sh. M S Anandaramu,

Advocate

II Party

Shri Y Hari Prasad,

Advocate

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5379

AWARD

1. The Central Government which initially had

declined to make a reference by issuing an endorsement

dated 17.09.2007 consequent to the order of Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka in W P No. 8434/2008 filed by the wife

of the late workman by order No. L- 40011/36/2007-IR(DU)

dated 18.06.2008 in exercise of the power conferred by

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

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

made this reference for adjudication with the following

schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom Department, BSNL, Hubli, in

terminating the services of their workman Late

Shri R. G. Ganji w.e.f. 12/04/2001 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the legal representative of the

late workman is entitled to ?”

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in

C R No. 54/2008 when the notices were issued to the

parties the wife of Late Sh. R. G. Ganji who raised the

dispute and the II Party entered their appearance through

their respective advocates and the claim statement of the

wife of the late workman came to be filed on 20.05.2010,

whereas, the counter statement of the II Party on 06.10.2010.

3. Having regard to the assertion made in the claim

statement filed by the wife of the late workman that in the

departmental enquiry held against her husband no

reasonable opportunity was given to the I Party workman

and deliberately he was placed exparte when he was

admitted in KMC Hospital, Hubli to his acute illness while

raising a Preliminary Issue as to;

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against

the deceased I Party by the II Party is fair and

proper?’’

after receiving the evidence adduced by both the sdies

and hearing the arguments addressed by learned counsel

of both the sides by order dated 05.07.2012 the said issue

came to be answered in the affirmative holding that the

Domestic Enquiry held against the late workman by the

II Party is fair and proper. When the I party was called

upon to lead evidence on the point of victimization and

late workman being not gainfully employed after his

removal from service if any, the learned advocate

representing the wife of late workman since submitted he

has no evidence to lead on these point and filed his written

arguments on merits, the learned advocate appearing for

the II Party also filed his written arguments substantiating

the impugned action.

4. The brief facts leading to the reference and award

may be stated as under :

5. Late Sh. R. G. Ganji who was appointed as Group D

Employee by the II Party w.e.f. 13.01.1988 since he remained

absent without applying for any leave from 01.08.1998 he

was issued with show cause notice dated 21.09.1998 for

unauthorised absence the copy of which is produced at

Ex M-2 while leading evidence on Preliminary Issue which

was returned undelivered as not claimed in support of

which the copy of the postal cover is produced at Ex M-3.

Then he was served with charge sheet dated 26.11.1998

the copy of which is produced at Ex M-5 as under :

“ANNEXURE – I

Statement of articles of charges framed against

Sri R. G. Ganji. Gr. “D”

That Sri R.G. Ganji, Group “D” o/o G.M. DTD,

Vidyanagar, Hubli – 21 while functioning as Group

“D” under C.S.S. Planning Section in the office of

the General Manager, DTD, Vidyanagar, Hubli – 21,

is charged with remaining unauthorisedly absent

from his duties from 01/08/1998, thereby violating

Rule 3(1)(ii) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of C.C.S.(C.C.A)

Rules – 1964.

ANNEXURE – II

Statement of Imputations of Misconduct or

Misbehaviour in support of the charges framed

against Sri R.G.Ganji, Gr. “D” o/o GM, DTD,

Hubli – 21.

Sri R.G. Ganji, Gr. “D” has been working as Group

“D” in Planning Section of G.M.DTD Vidyanagar,

Hubli, under the control of S.D.E. (E.P). While thus

functioning as Group “D” Sri R.G. Ganji has remained

absent from duties from 01/08/1998. He didn’t submit

any application for leave, produced Medical

Certificate nor obtained prior permission from his

controlling officer for proceedings on leave. A Memo

bearing No. MM/6-38/5 dated 21/09/1998 was sent

to his address asking him to report for his duties

and to explain the reasons for his un-authorised

absence. But neither he reported for his duties nor

submitted his explanation. The letter was returned

undelivered.

Sri R.G. Ganji, Group “D” has continued to remain

absent without prior intimation or permission on

several occasions in the past also, thereby

dislocating the work in the Department of ten. The

said Sri R.G. Ganji, Group “D” has thus failed to

maintain absolute devotion to his duties by

remaining unauthorisedly absent for long period of

time, behaving in a manner unbecoming of a Govt.

Servant.

5380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE – III

List of Documents by which the Article of Charges

framed against Sri R.G. Ganji, Group “D” are

proposed to be sustained.

(1) Attendance Register maintained in Planning/

M.M.Section. (2) Letter O.M. Nos. (a) MM/6-20/97-

98/67 dated 20/0897, (b) MM/6-20/97-98/74 dated

19/11/97, (c) MM/6-20/97-98/88 dated 27/02/98 & (d)

MM/6-38/5 dated 21/09/98. and (3) Service Book of

Sri R.G. Ganji. Group “D”

ANNEXURE – IV

List of witnesses by whom the article of charges

framed against Sri R.G.Ganji, Gr. “D” o/o GN DTD,

Hubli – 21 are proposed to be sustained.

1. Sri P Y Sanganal, C S S Planning Section o/o The

GM, DTD Vidyanagar, Hubli – 21.”

6. Pursuant to the service of the charge sheet

through Registered Post, postal acknowledgement of

which is produced at Ex. M-6 he gave a reply dated

11.12.1998 the copy of which is produced at Ex. M-7

submitting that due to Jaundice he was not able to move

out of bed and that on his recovery he would report and

submit his leave application along with Medical Certificate.

The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the

said reply by appointing Sh. J. C. Umari, Chief Accounts

Officer as Enquiry Officer and Sh. B F Talikoti, Senior

Accounts Officer as Presenting Officer ordered for

Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer while issuing notice

to the late workman to appear before him on 14.11.1999 at

the Office of the Executive Engineer, Telecom Civil Division,

Lamington Road, Hubli as he did not turn up at the given

time and even till 03.00 p.m. he directed the Presenting

Officer to produce the evidence by which he proposes to

prove the articles of charge in the next hearing and

forwarded the copy of the proceedings to the late workman

with notice to appear on 11.10.1999 and on that day late

workman while appearing before the Enquiry Officer

admitting the receipt of the charge sheet dated 26.11.1998

submitted that though he admits the charges claimed that

as he was suffering from Jaundice could not send the

leave letter nor intimation to the Officer where he was

working, the Enquiry Officer taking that he do not plead

guilty instructed him to nominate the defence assistant

and postponed the enquiry till 28.10.1999. On 28.10.1999

the late workman without nominating any defence

assistant requested for 15 days time and having regard to

it the enquiry the Enquiry Officer postponed the enquiry

till 22.11.1999. Again on 22.11.1999 the late workman

expressing his inability to nominate his defence assistant

requested to grant time and accordingly the Enquiry

Officer postponed the enquiry to 15.12.1999. On 15.12.1999

the workman did not appear though the Enquiry Officer

waited for him till 03.00 p.m. as such on that day without

any progress the enquiry was postponed without fixing

further day. Again the Enquiry Officer while issuing notice

to appear on 04.02.2000 and as the late workman did not

turn up he postponed the enquiry to 21.02.2000 and as

even on that day the late workman remained absent he

decided to proceed exparte and fixed the further date to

13.03.2000 and on that day also the late workman did not

appear he postponed the enquiry to 27.03.2000 on which

day also the late workman since did not appear he recorded

the evidence of Sh. P. Y. Sanganal and postponed the

enquiry without fixing the next date of hearing. Again

causing notice to the late workman and also the Presenting

Officer to appear on 19.05.2000 as on that day late workman

appeared furnishing him the copies of the previous days

proceedings containing the evidence of the management

and as he submitted that he has nothing to cross-examine

with a request for postponement of the enquiry the Enquiry

Officer postponed the enquiry to 16.06.2000 and on that

received the written brief submitted by the Presenting

Officer and furnishing its copy to the late workman directed

him to submit his written brief on or before 03.07.2000 and

as he did not submit his written brief on that day with note

that a day will be fixed for oral arguments he caused notice

to the Presenting Officer and the late workman to appear

on 18.09.2000 and as the late workman did not turn up on

that day he heard the arguments of the Presenting Officer

and postponed the enquiry for the arguments of the

workman to 06.10.2000 and as on that day the late workman

did not turn he concluded the enquiry and he submitted

his enquiry finding dated 08.12.2000 the charge being

proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority while sending

copy of the enquiry finding gave a second show cause

notice 09.01.2001 called upon him to submit his reply within

15 days and inspite of its service since he did not submit

any reply he passed the impugned order of Removing him

from Service dated 12.04.2001.

7. After passing of the impugned order of

punishment the wife of the late workman through her

representation dated 01.08.2001 reporting that her husband

died on 25.05.2001 requested for her compassionate

appointment and there was no response to the same she

approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W P

No. 11400/2003 seeking directions for her compassionate

appointment and when the same was disposed off by order

dated 07.11.2005 directing the II Party to consider her

representation for compassionate appointment and to pass

appropriate order within a period of three months and then

the II Party gave her endorsement dated 01.03.2006

rejecting her request she approached ALC(C), Hubli

through her representation dated 19.09.2006 and the

ALC(C), Hubli submitting his failure report the Ministry

of Labour issued endorsement dated 17.09.2007 declining

to refer the matter for industrial adjudication. Thereafter

when the wife of the late workman approached the Hon’ble

High Court of Karnataka in W P No. 4834/2008 the Hon’ble

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5381

High Court by Order dated 04.04.2008 while quashing the

communication dated 17.09.2007 directed the ministry to

refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, the Central

Government made this reference for adjudication.

8. Since after receiving the evidence of both the

sides on the Preliminary Issue touching the Domestic

Enquiry the same being held as fair and proper by order

dated 05.07.2012, the points that now remains for my

consideration are :

Point No. 1: Whether the finding of the Enquiry

Officer charge being proved is shown as perverse?

Point No. 2 : If not, whether the punishment of

removal from service is disproportionate to the

proved misconduct?

Point No. 3 : What Order/Award?

9. On appreciation of the pleadings with the material

brought on record in the Domestic Enquiry in the light of

the written arguments submitted by the learned advocates

appearing on both sides my finding on Point No. 1 and 2

are in the negative and No. 3 is as per final order for the

following reasons:

REASONS

10. As narrated by me above in detail the late

workman remaining absent without applying for leave from

01.08.1998 being admitted by his reply to the charge sheet

copy of which is produced at Ex. M-7 he claimed that as he

was suffering from Jaundice he was not in a position to

move out of bed and as his family members were illiterate

and did not know how to submit leave letter and medical

certificate there was lapse on his part the charge that he

had remained absent without applying for leave which

can be termed as unauthorised is not in dispute and it was

for the late workman to adduce evidence that he was

suddenly fell ill and was not in a position to submit the

leave application and even through his family members,

but he failed to place on record any evidence in that regard

including the medical evidence as such there was no other

go for the Enquiry Officer to hold the charge as proved.

Under the circumstances, the learned advocate appearing

for the wife of the late workman was also unable to

demonstrate from the evidence on record how the finding

of the Enquiry Officer can be said to be perverse. In other

words the late workman having unequivocally admitted

that he remained absent from 01.08.1998 without applying

for leave and having failed to substantiate his claim that it

was due to he having suffered from jaundice there is no

reason to term the finding of the Enquiry Officer charge

being proved as perverse. Accordingly, I arrive at

conclusion of answering Point No. 1 in the Negative.

11. Point No. 2 : As already adverted to by me

above it is borne out from the records though the

Disciplinary Authority while forwarding a copy of the

enquiry report to the late workman called upon him to

show cause and inspite of its service he failed to make any

representation the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to

pass the impugned order of Removal from Service and to

treat the period of absence as Dies-non. Since under Rule

162 P&T manual volume 3 the employee remaining absent

from duty is expected to submit the leave application by

the quickest possible means quoting the reasons for not

obtaining the prior sanction of the leave but there being

no material that the late workman applied for sanction of

any leave even after issue of Memo dated 21.09.1998 and

Charge Sheet dated 26.11.1998 along with the medical

certificate, since as observed by the Disciplinary Authority

in his order imposing the punishment the unauthorised

absence was being considerably for a longer period and

he failed to explain it by necessary evidence he exhibited

uttered lack of devotion to duty and scant regard to the

official communication amounting to serious act of

indiscipline. Therefore, under the circumstances the Order

passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing him from

service with immediate effect and treating period of

absence as Dies-non is just and proper and cannot be

termed as disproportionate. Accordingly, I arrive at

conclusion of answering this point in the negative.

12. Point No. 3 : In view of my finding on point

No. 1 and 2 neither the enquiry finding is found perverse

nor the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority

is found excessive/disproportionate the action of the

management against its late workman Sh. R. G. Ganji has to

be held as legal and justified. The wife of the late workman

Sh. R. G. Ganji at whose instance this reference came to be

made also in her claim statement seeks direction for her

appointment on compassionate ground but the schedule

of the reference is being restricted only for the action of

the II Party removing her husband from service there is no

scope to consider the same. Even otherwise the action of

the management removing him from service is found as

legal and justified this relief of compassionate appointment

cannot be considered. In the result, I pass the following :

ORDER

The action of the management of General Manager,

Telecom Department, BSNL, Hubli, in terminating the

services of their workman Late Shri R. G. Ganji w.e.f.

12.04.2001 and treating the period of absence as Dies-non

is held as legal and justified and that his legal

representative is not entitle for any relief. No order as to

costs.

(Typed by UDC to my Dictation, corrected and

signed by me on 13th June 2014).

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

5382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2070-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

lhfu;j lqifjUVsUMsUV] iksLV vkWfiQl] cjsyh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

fnYYkh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@8@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2014

S.O.

2070.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 20/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Sr. Superintendent, Post Office, Bareilly,

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 06/07/2014.

[No. L-40011/8/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, DELHI 110 032

PRESENT :

Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

I.D. No. 20/12

Sh. Nathulal Saxena

Versus

Sr. Superintendent, Post Office

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-40011/8/2011-IR(DU) dated

29.12.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication :

“Whether the action of management of Sr.

Superintendent of Post Office, Bareily , in reducing

wages in violation of provisions of I.D. Act is illegal

and unjustified? What relief workman is entitled to ?

On 10.01.2012 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 20/2012 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman appeared and filed

his claim statement alongwith his affidavit on 11.12.12.

On the basis of contents of claim statement workman

prayed that his pay be against from Rs. 1375 to 1740 and

arrear of pay since 2002 be ordered to be paid to workman.

Workman Sh. Nathulal Saxena be promoted like other

employees to the post of postman. Such promotion be

given from the date on which other junior workmen have

been promoted to the post of postman. Any other relief

which court deems fit be also awarded to workman.

In reply of claim statement management filed its

written statement on 09.05.2013 . Which was introduced

on record by my Ld. Predecessor. He passed following

order on order sheet :

“Written statement filed. On perusal of the written

statement, it came to light that the management

nowhere disputes proposition that notice under

section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was

not given, prior to reduction of wages of the

claimant. Hence, no evidence is to be called for from

the parites. Case adjourned for arguments for

15.07.13. Long date is given at the request of

Shri Atul Bhardwaj, authorized representative of the

management.

But aforesaid Industrial Dispute has been transferred

to this tribunal and case was taken up on 15.07.2013 in my

absence. Then 02.08.2013 was fixed for arguments. On

02.08.2013 proxy counsel for the management requested

for adjournment on his request case was adjourned to

13.09.13 for arguments.

On 13.09.2013 Ld. A/R for the management expressed

his desire to move amendment application of amending

written statement for which he sought time on his request

case was adjourned to 17.10.2013. On 17.10.2013

amendment application for amending written statement

moved by management. Copy of which supplied to

Ld. A/R for the workman.

03.012.2013 was fixed for objection and disposal of

amendment of application. On 03.12.13 workman filed

objection against amendment application 06.02.2014 was

fixed for disposal of application of amendment but

argument to dispose of amendment application heard by

me on 24.03.2014. Then I fixed 26.03.2014 for order. On

26.03.13 I passed following order :

Case is fixed for order relating to disposal of

application for amendment in Written Statement filed by

management and its relative objection.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5383

I have heard the Ld. A/R’s for the parties at length

on 24.3.14 to dispose of aforesaid application I perused

the record.

Perusal of order sheet dated 9/5/2013 shows that my

Ld. Predecessor passed following order on the order sheet.

“Written Statement filed. On perusal of the written

statement, it came to light that the management

nowhere disputes proposition that notice under

section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was

not given, prior to reduction of wages of the

claimant. Hence, no evidence is to be called for from

the parties. Case adjourned for arguments for 15.7.13.

Long date is given at the request of Sh. Atul

Bhardwaj, authorized representative of the

management”.

Which in itself shows that by filing Written

Statement by respondent right accrues to workman. On

the basis of which my Ld. Predecessor held that no

evidence is required in the instant case and fixed 15/7/

2013 for arguments. To whistle out aforesaid order Ld. A/

R for the management took long date and subsequently

moved amendment application for amending its written

statement.

Hence amendment application has not been filed in

good faith and has been moved after the date fixed for

arguments. On the basis of settled law this Tribunal has

no option except to reject the application which is hereby

rejected. Fixed 6. 5.2014 for Arguments.

On 06.05.2014 I have heard the arguments of Ld. A/

R’s for the parties.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the pleadings of parties settled law on the point

and relevant provisions of concerned law.

Perusal of order sheet dated 09.05.2013 passed by

my Ld. Predecessor Or. R. K. Yadav shows that he observe

that no notice u/s 9(A) of Industrial Dispute Act was given

to workman prior to reduction of wages of the claimant/

workman. In this respect management in its written

statement mentioned nothing. Hence my Ld. Predecessor

came to conclusion that no evidence is to be called for

from the parties.

It is further relevant to mention here that

management subsequently moved an amendment

application to amend its written statement which was

rejected by me through detailed order dated 24.03.2014.

Wherein I came to conclusion that amendment application

moved by management was not filed in good faith. Rather

it was moved to whistle out the order dated 09.05.2013

through which right to workman accrued not to adduce

evidence to support his claim . In this background totality.

of circumstances justifies that reference is liable to be

decided in favour of workman and against management.

Which is accordingly decided.

Management is directed to pay salary of Rs. 1740

p.m. instead of 1375 p.m. to workman since 2002. Workman

Sh. Nathulal Saxena be promoted like other employees to

the post of postman. Such promotion be given from the

date on which other juniors workmen have been promoted

to the post of postman.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 24/06/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2071-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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] eqcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh&2@56 dk 2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@2@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2014

S.O.

2071.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

2/56 of 2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Air Force Canteen and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 06/07/2014.

[No. L-14011/2/2010-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/56 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF AIR FORCE CANTEEN

5384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Air Officer Commanding,

The Manager Incharge

Air Force Canteen, Headquarter Maritime

Air Operations, IAF

AFI Buildin, Dhobi Talao

Mumbai-400 020.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Shri Ram Eliya Rao

C/o. Maharashtra Employees Union

Kokanipada

Kurar Village

Malad (E)

Mumbai 400 097.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Mr. Selwyn Parades,

Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. F. R. Mishra,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 8th May, 2014.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour&

Employment by its Order No.L-14011/2/2010-IR (DU), dated

31.05.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the

following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the action of the Air Officer

Commanding (AOC), The Manager-Incharge, Air

Force Canteen, Mumbai in terminating the services

of Shri Ramu Elliya Rao, w.e.f. 16/09/2008 is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to ?”

2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice second

party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-4.

According to the second party workman he was appointed

on 11.01.2000 by Mr. Mishra, Jr. Ward Officer of the first

party as a Canteen Attendant against regular and

permanent vacancy. However no appointment letter was

given to him. He worked as Helper-cum-delivery man from

11.01.2002 to 16.8.2008. On 16/09/2008 he was taken ill and

could not attend his duties. He obtained medical

certificate from the panel doctor in respect of his illness.

On 18/09/2008 at about 9.30 a.m. he had been to the Air

Force Canteen with medical certificate to resume his duties.

However Mr. A.P. Lokhande, Sqn. Ldr.in IAF told him that

his services are not required. He orally terminated his

services without following due process of law. At the time

of his illegal termination he was drawing wages of

Rs. 4,450 p.m. According to the workman such termination

of his services is illegal. Therefore he has raised industrial

dispute. As conciliation failed the ALC (C) made a report

of the Central Labour Ministry. On his report the Ministry

sent the reference to this Tribunal. The workman prays

that the action of termination of his services be declared

illegal, mala fide and contrary to the provisions of law. He

also prays that the first party be directed to reinstate him

in the service with back wages and continuity of service.

3. The first party, management resisted the

statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex-8.

According to them the reference is misconceived, mala

fide and not maintainable in law. The Air Force Canteenis

run by the unit and there is no system for regular or

permanent employee or civilians unless vacancy is

released from Air Force Headquarters, Delhi. The second

party workman was employed as daily casual labourer as

and when required on day to day basis. Neither he was

appointed nor any appointment letter was issued to him.

He was being paid daily wages. Therefore neither he was

issued pay slip nor given leave card. He was issued only

gate pass for entry in the secured defence area. Due to

frequent absence his services were terminated by the

Officer-in-charge. He was paid his wages till 15/09/2008.

He was not recruited or appointed in the service. There

was no vacancy released by the Headquarters. Therefore

the workman is not entitled to the relief claimed for.

Therefore they pray that the reference be dismissed with

cost.

4. Following are theissues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether the workman under

reference is employee of first

party and whether there exists

employee-employer relationship ?

Yes.

Whether the termination of

services of the workman con-

cerned is legal and justified ?

No.

If not, whether the workman is

entitled to be reinstated with

full back wages ?

No.

What relief the workman is

As per

entitled to?

order

below.

What order ?

As per final

order.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5385

REASONS

Issue No. 1 :

5. In this respect according to the workman he was

appointed against clear vacancy. As against this it is

contended on behalf of the first party that neither there

was vacancy nor workman was appointed as their

employee. According to them the workman was appointed

as daily wager as and when required for. In this respect

the ld. adv. for the first party submitted that they are merely

selling the goods of canteen to the Air Force staff.

Therefore they are not employer and question of employer-

employee relation does not arise. In support of his

argument the ld. adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in

Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu

and Ors. 2004 I CLR 802. In that case the Society was

rendering services to its members in return for commission.

The Hon’ble Court thus held that the Society was not

engaged in any trading activity, that the concerned workers

having been engaged both by the growers and traders, it

was not society which employed the workers either for

the purpose of loading or unloading or grading, and the

Tribunal and High Court correctly arrived at a finding that

the concerned workers have failed to establish the

existence of any employer-employee relationship between

them and the society.

6. In the case at hand the first party is not like

independent Society. On the other hand the first party is

one of the Govt. Departments. Maintaining and selling

the goods of the canteen is one of the functions of the

first party. It cannot be compared with a society providing

goods to its members. Therefore the ratio laid down in the

above ruling is not attracted to the set of facts of the

present case as first party herein is one of the Govt.

Departments.

7. In this backdrop the question before me is

whether there exists employee-employer relation between

the second party with the first party. From the evidence

on record it is clear that, neither workman was appointed

by following the procedure for recruitment nor any

appointment letter was given to him. He may not be a

regular or permanent employee of the first party. However

the first party has also not disputed that the workman was

working with it in their canteen. According to them he

was working on daily wages and as and when required for.

Whereas according to the workman he was appointed

against clear vacancy. However the workman himself has

contended in the statement of claim that neither he was

given any appointment letter nor any pay slip was issued

to him and the wages were paid to him by obtaining his

signature on some register.According to the workman after

2006 his signatures were also not obtained on any register

for having received the payment. All these indicate that

the workman was never appointed against

permanentvacancy. From the pleadings and evidence on

record it is revealed that though the workman was not

permanent or regular employee of the first party, he was

very well employed by the first party, may be as a daily

wager and there exists employee-employer relationship

between the second party workman and the first party.

Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in the affirmative.

Issue No. 2 & 3 :

8. In this respect according to the first party the

workman was neither appointed by following the

procedure prescribed for the recruitment nor his

appointment is against any vacancy. It is the case of the

first party that the workman was working on daily wages.

Therefore he is not entitled to claim either reinstatementor

any other relief.

9. On the point it was submitted on behalf of the

second party workman that, the first party has not denied

the fact especially its witness has not denied in his cross

examination that, the second party workman had worked

with the first party from 11/01/2000 to 18/09/2008.

According to the second party the workman has worked

continuously for more than eight years. He has worked

more than 240 days in each calendar year. Therefore

according to the second party, the workman is entitled to

protection under Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. In this

respect fact is not disputed that the workman was neither

served with notice nor given a charge sheet and his

services wereterminated arbitrarily without any inquiry or

by following procedure laid down under Section 25-F of

the I.D. Act. The ld. adv. for the second party submitted

that even services of temporary employee cannot be

terminated without following the procedure prescribed

under Section 25-F of I.D. Act. In support of his argument

the ld. adv. cited Apex Court ruling in Management of

Wilcox Buckwell (I) Ltd. V/s. JaganNath1973 (O) AIJEL –

SC 16973wherein the Hon’ble Court referred its earlier

judgement in Digwadih Colliery V/s. Their Workmen (1965)

3 SCR 448 in which a bidi workman had worked as employee

for more than 240 days. He was retrenched in 1961 and the

Court apparently proceeded on the basis that even a

person who was working as a badli was entitled to the

benefit of provisions relating to retrenchment if he fulfilled

the requisite condition.

10. The ld. adv. for the second party also submitted

that though a workman remained absent without leave his

services cannot be terminated without notice and inquiry.

Such a termination is void. In support of his argument the

ld. adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in L. Robert D’Souza

V/s. The Ex- Engineer, South Railway & Ors.1982 LAB.I.C.

5386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

811wherein the Hon’ble Court in para 21 of the judgement

observed that ;

“Absence without leave constitutes misconduct and

it is not open to the employer to terminate the

services without notice and inquiry or at any rate

without complying with the minimum principle of

natural justice.”

In para 7 of the saidjudgement the Hon’ble Court further

observed that;

“If termination of service of a workman is brought

about for any reason whatsoever it would be

retrenchment except if the case falls within any of

the excepted categories i.e. termination by way of

punishment etc.”

11. In the case at hand the services of the workman

was terminated without any inquiry or by way of

punishment, or compulsory retirement etc.Therefore as

observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court it amount to

retrenchment. Though the workman at hand is not a

permanent workman, however as he had worked for more

than 240 days in a calendar year the workman was well

entitled to the protection under Section 25-F of the I.D.

Act. As first party management has not paid notice pay or

retrenchment compensation, the termination or

retrenchment of the workman has to be held illegal. In the

case at hand the workman was not appointed by following

recruitment process. He was a daily wager workman. In

the circumstances instead of reinstatement in the service

I think it proper to direct the first party to pay compensation

to the workman. Accordingly I decide this issue no.2 & 3

in the negative. In this respect to meet the end of justice

I think it proper to award compensation to the workman to

the tune of Rs.75,000/-. Thus I proceed to pass the

following order :

ORDER

(i)

The reference is partly allowed with no order as

to cost.

(ii)

The order of termination of services of workman

is illegal and unjustified

(iii)

Instead of reinstatement, the first party is directed

to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/-

to the workman.

Date : 08/05/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2072-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

jsyos esy lfoZl] jk;iqj] 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@2@93) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@7@92&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O.

2072.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/2/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Superintendent, Railway

Mail Service, Raipur and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-40012/7/92-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/2/93

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri P. V. Upganlawar,

Bhanapeth Ward No. l,

Kasturba Road,

Chandrapur (Maharashtra)

. . . Workman

Versus

The Superintendent,

Railway Mail Service,

Raipur Division,

Raipur (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of May 2014

As per letter dated 28-12-92 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

7/92-IRDU dated 28-12-92. The dispute under reference

relates to :

“Whether the action of the management of Postal

(RMS) Raipur Division in removing from service Shri

P.V.Upaganlawar, Sorting Asstt. w.e.f. 31-8-87 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the affected

workman is entitled to ?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5387

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

parties. 1st party workman submitted statement of claim at

Pages 3/1 to 3/ 4. Case of workman is that he was appointed

ad confirmed employee of (P&T) RMS vide order dated

14-8-69. His service record was excellent. Charge sheet

was issued to him on 19-1-82 for unauthorized absence

from 13-10-80, that Mr. S.R.Pankaj was appointed as

Enquiry officer. He was terminated from 31-8-87. His appeal

was dismissed on ground of delay. Subsequent appeal on

the application for condonation of delay was rejected. That

termination of his services and departmental enquiry are

illegal. Charge sheet was extremely vague, not disclosed

correct facts. That workman was not given opportunity

for his defence. He was not given proper Defence

Assistant to cross-examine witnesses in support of the

defence. The documents requested by him on 27-7-85 were

not produced. That applicant had submitted medical

certificates by post were received by the IInd party

management. That 10 medical certificates were sent by

him. Inspite of his request to produce dispatch register,

inward register for evidence, his request was rejected. It

was not proved that IInd party had not issued those

documents. Applicant was not unauthorisely absent.

Material facts were not produced. Concerned clerk was

not examined findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. The

punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the alleged

misconduct. Workman could not attend duties because of

illness. That showcause notice was not issued to him

before passing order of punishment. Enquiry was

conducted following principles of natural justice. On such

ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with back

wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Pages 7/1 to

7/3. It is submitted that workman was confirmed as Sorting

Assistant from 1-7-72 and not from 14-8-69 pleaded by

him. Under Rule 38 of Post and Telegraphs Manual Volume-4,

workman was transferred from office of APSO Bhopal to

office of SRO, RMS, Raipur Division. Workman joined his

place of duty on 19-6-80 and immediately proceeded on

leave from 20-6-80 to 12-10-80. Workman remained

unauthorisely absent till 19-1-1982. For his unauthorised

absence, violation of Rule 63 charge sheet was served on

workman on 19-1-84 . Workman denied charges, therefore

Enquiry Officer was appointed. That R.K.Maitra was

appointed as Defence Assistant. Enquiry was conducted

against workman as per Rule 14 of CCS ( CCA ) Rules,

1965. Enquiry Officer found workman guilty of charges

against him. The Disciplinary Authority considering facts

and circumstances imposed punishment of removal from

service on 31.8.87, the punishment is proportionate to the

charges. It does not call for interference. It is further

pleaded that if enquiry is found vitiated, management be

allowed opportunity to prove misconduct before this

Tribunal. IInd party has pleaded that initially workman was

appointed by SSRM ‘‘L” Division, Bhusawal, Raipur was

subordinate to Appointing Authority. Sr. Superintendent

of Post , Raipur was appointed as ad hoc according to

rule. On such contentions IInd party prayed for rejection

of claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Postal

(RMS) Raipur Division

in removing from service

Shri P. V. Upaganlawar,

Sorting Asstt. w.e.f. 31.8.87

is legal and justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Before dealing with the evidence, I may pointout

that the record of enquiry was not produced by

management. As per order sheet dated 18-11-98

management wanted time to produce DE papers. It was

observed that sufficient time have already been granted.

Prayer not allowed. Management to prove misconduct in

court on next date. The order sheet dated 15-2-99 clearly

shows that management wanted time to prove misconduct.

Time was granted on cost of Rs. l 00. As such the record

of enquiry was not produced before Court. The issue about

legality of enquiry proceeding was not decided instead

the management was permitted to prove misconduct in

Court. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri S. K. Jugnar. Management’s witness has stated that

workman was working as Sorting Assistant vide order

dated 23-5-80, he was transferred from Sub Record Office,

RMS Raipur Division, Bilaspur vide order dated 16-6-80,

workman was transferred by Sr. Suptd.RMS, Air Mail

Sorting Division, Mumbai. Workman reported to duty on

19-6-80. After joining place of duty, workman proceeded

on leave for 12 days from 20-6-80 on medical ground.

Workman thereafter remained unauthorisely absent from

13-10-80 till the chargesheet was issued to him as per letter

dated 11-9-81. That Suptd. RMS, Raipur Division Mr.

N.K.Nayak issued letter dated 12-10-81 asking workman

to resume duties. Chargesheet was issued to workman on

19-1-1982. Workman remained absent unauthorisely from

13-10-80.

6. In his cross-examination, management’s witness

says he filed affidavit as per record. All documents are

produced on record. In 1980-81, he was posted at Bhilai.

Workman did not work under him at any time. He was not

concerned with DE conducted against workman as he was

not posted at Raipur. He claims ignorance as to which

officer initiated enquiry against workman. Workman was

5388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

transferred from Bombay. In 1981 witness was working as

Sub Divisional Postal Inspector at Durg. He was

Disciplinary Authority of Class-IV employees. He was not

competent to take disciplinary action against workman.

Management’s witness says if any employee goes to his

native place and fell ill, the certificate of Private Doctor

can be considered. The orders on the application and

related documents are passed by Competent Authorities.

Letters issued to employee bears outward number,

discharge register is to be maintained in the office. No

entries are made in respect of Document No. Ml4 in

dispatch register. Document M-4-A, B, C, D were received

in the office. Document Exhibit M-4 C, F, G, H were also

received in the office. The documents Exhibit M-1, M-5-J,

K, L, M, N, O, P were sent. Document M-6-B, M-5, M-6

were sent on same address. The management’s witness

claims ignorance whether document Exhibit M-6(B) bears

signature of workman. Chargesheet Exhibit M-7 was sent

to workman by post. Chargesheet Exhibit M-7 was sent to

workman by post. Its postal receipt is not available. On

19-1-82, when workman came for joining duties, at that

time, chargesheet Exhibit M-7 was given to him. full address

of workman is written on Exhibit M-8. Nomination was not

sent to workman on his Nagpur Address. Whether the

medical certificate of workman Exhibit M-1 to M-5 were

sent to Raipur office, the witness was not able to tell.

Management’s witness claims ignorance whether workman

was suffering from illness and he was sending medical

certificate to office in 1980-81. Management’s witness is

unable to tell whether any adverse entries were recorded

in his service book. That the application for leave of

workman are not received in the office.

7. Now turning to the evidence of Ist party workman,

affidavit of his evidence is filed. He has stated that he was

granted leave from 20-6-80 to 12-10-80. That he submitted

application for extension of leave. His application was not

rejected. He suffered serious illness. He received treatment

from Pvt. Doctor. The information about his illness was

given to the management from time to time. He sent

application for extension of leave. He was not intimated

whether his leave was refused. He was under the belief

that his leave was sanctioned. workman has produced

copies of leave application marked as M-4, medical

certificate Exhibit M-4-A, B, C, D leave application Exhibit

M-4(E), Medical Certificate M-4(j to n) & other documents,

application for leave and medical certificates dated

20-6-80, 4-4-82, postal receipts. The workman could not be

cross-examined by Management, as the right to cross

examination by management is closed on 8.9.2009. The

documents produced Exhibit M-1 is copy of transfer order.

The transfer was subject to conditions. Exhibit M-4 is leave

application dated 20-6-80, M-4-A is leave application dated

1-9-88, M-4-B appears postal receipt, 4-C also copy of

medical certificate dated 1-9-80. Exhibit M-4B application

for medical leave from 1-9-80 and other applications for

medical leave are produced at Exhibit M-4 F ,G, I, L,

Certificate M-4(M). All those documents Exhibit M-4-N,

O, P, documents are produced by the management.

However management has not produced any order

whether the leave requested by workman was sanctioned

or rejected. Management’s witness says that leave

applications were not received, his evidence is

contradictory as IInd party producing all those leave

applications on record. Chargesheet was issued to

workman Exhibit M-7 dated 19-1-82. Second Party has not

produced postal receipt or acknowledgement about

service of Charge sheet on workman. The evidence of

managements’ witness discussed above shows that he

has no personal knowledge about unauthorized absence

of workman. He was not working at relevant time at Raipur.

No other witness is examined by management to prove

that Ist party workman was unauthorisely absent from

13-10-80 till 19-1-82. As discussed above management was

permitted to prove misconduct, however evidence of

management’s witness that workman was unauthorisely

absent from 13-10-80 onwards is not supported by

authentic documents. The relevant record and witness is

not produced by management. Thus the evidence adduced

by IInd party is not sufficient to prove charge against

workman. Therefore the action of the management

imposing punishment of removal from service cannot be

said proper and legal. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

8. Point No. 2- Ist party is removed from service on

31.8.1987 for unauthorized absence from 13-10-80 to

19-1-82. Management itself has produced several leave

applications submitted by workman. Management’s

witness claims that applications were not received in the

office, what orders were passed on leave applications

submitted by workman is not known to him. Without

verifying the applications submitted by workman with

medical certificates received in the office of IInd party,

chargesheet was issued and on report of Enquiry Officer,

workman was removed from service. The record of Enquiry

proceedings is not produced. The evidence of management

witness is not co-gent to prove unauthorized absence of

workman. As per evidence of management’s witness,

workman had come for joining duties, at that time charge-

sheet was served on him. Action taken by the Competent

Authority appears very in-haste without verifying record.

Considering above aspects, though the order of removal

from service of workman is illegal and workman deserves

to be re-instant. However, workman has attained age of 60

years. His evidence is silent about what work he was doing

after removal for his survival. Considering above aspects,

first party workman is entitled to 50% wages from date of

his removal till date of his superannuation. Accordingly, I

record my findings on point No. 3.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5389

9. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

Action of Management of Postal (R.M.S.), Raipur

Division in removing Shri P. V. Upaganlawar from

service w.e.f. 31.8.1987 is illegal.

(2)

Order of removal of Ist party workman dated

31.8.87 is set-aside.

(3)

IInd party is directed to pay 50 % wages to the

workman from 31-8-87 to the date of his

superannuation and Pensionary benefits as per

rules be also allowed to workman.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2073-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj viQlj bapktZ]

Fksvksyksftdy losZ vkWiQ bafM;k] 'kgMksy ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@174@97)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@95@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O.

2073.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/174/97) 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 Office Incharge,

Theological Survey of India, Shahdol and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

14/07/2014.

[No. L-42012/95/96-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/174/97

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding officer

Shri Kodulal Kumhar & 2 others,

Gram Semra, PO Llpur,

Thana Burhar,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

Officer Incharge,

Theological Survey of India,

Unit No.329,

Burhar Drilling Camp,

PO Burhar,

Distt.Shahdol

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 18-6-97by 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-42012/

95/96-IR(DU) . The dispute under reference relates to :

“ Whether the action of the management of STA(D)

Incharge Unit No.329, Geological Survey of India,

Burhar Drilling camp in terminating the services of

S/Shri Kodulal Kumhar, Jailal Kumhar and Guman

Kumhar as unskilled contingent workers at Burhar

Drilling Camp in August, 1995 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled to ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Pages 2/1

to 2/4. Case of workman is that they were continuously

working as labours with IInd party from 1986 to 17-8-95.

That their services were discontinued from 17-8-95 without

assigning any reasons. They were paid Rs. 1010 per month.

They were not served with any chargesheet. Before

termination of their services, they were intermittently

granted leave. Their services are discontinued in violation

of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. They were not served with

notice, they were not paid pay in lieu of notice. That IInd

party violated Section 25-N of I.D.Act. Principles of last

come first go was not followed. They claims to be

employees under Section 25-B of I.D. Act. Their services

were terminated without notice. Termination of their service

is illegal. On such grounds, workmen are praying for

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Pages 10/1

to 10/2. Claim of workman is denied. It is submitted that

workmen were not permanent employee of management.

They were engaged as casual labours for drilling work

and other related jobs. That workman have not worked

with management from 1986 to 17-8-95. They had not

completed 240 days in any calendar year. Workmen were

engaged purely on temporary basis as casual labours.

Their engagement was for specific work for specific period.

Their services were automatically discontinued after their

5390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

work was finished. The record of casual labour is not

maintained. Workmen were engaged on basis of no work

no pay. There was no need to issue chargesheet. No

appointment letters were given to them. There was no

question of payment of retrenchment compensation to

the workmen. That the management is not an Industry

under I.D.Act. management is an organization engaged

for specific work. On such grounds IInd party prays for

rejection of claim.

4. Workmen filed rejoinder at Pages 15/1 to 15/2

reiterating their contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of STA(D)

Incharge Unit No.329,

Geological Survey of India,

Burhar Drilling camp in

terminating the services of

S/Shri Kodulal Kumhar,

Jailal Kumhar and Guman

Kumhar as unskilled

contingent workers at

Burhar Drilling Camp in

August, 1995 is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per

workman is entitled to?”

final order.

REASONS

6. Workmen are challenging termination of their

services for violation of Section 25-F, N of I.D.Act.

Workmen are claiming that they were working

continuously from 1986 till 17-8-95. Identical affidavit of

evidence is filed by all these workmen. That they were

continuously working from 1986 till 17-8-95. They were

paid Rs.1010 per employee. Their services were terminated

without notice. Jailal in his cross-examination says he had

not read contents of his affidavit. From his re-examination,

he proved Document Exhibit W-1. Kodulal Kumhar in his

cross-examination says that he had worked more than 240

days in 1995-96. He did not worked continuously at same

place. He produced documents about working from 1986

to 1995. Appointment letter was given to him which he

produced in court. He denies that he had not worked for

240 days in any year. Guman Kumhar in his cross-

examination says he has not produced documents about

his working during 1986 to 1995. Appointment letter was

not given to him. He was not given any leave. He was

staying at Katkona camp during 1986 to 1995. He was not

working on machine. Work was temporary. He had not

submitted leave applications. He was orally requesting

for leave. He denies that he had not worked for 240 days .

From his evidence in re-examination Document Exhibit W-

1(a) is proved.

7. The document Exhibit W-1, W-1/A shows that

Jailal and Guman Kumhar were working with IInd party

from 1-4-88 till 31-1-95 & 3-1-88 to 31-1-95 respectively.

They were working in break not exceeding 140 days at a

time as per rules. Those circulars clearly shows that they

were not allowed to complete more than 180 days

continuously. Circular does not show that any break was

given to them during above period.

8. Management filed affidavit of Shri Pratik Roy

Choudhary. Management’s witness says drilling camp

exists at particular location. The role of incharge of a

drilling camp is limited to manage day to day affairs of the

drilling camp. That they are not entitled to issue

engagement certificates. The GSI Headquarter at Kolkata

does not maintain engagement details of casual labour

engaged at Drilling camps. When IInd party is not

maintaining engagement details of casual labour, evidence

of management’s witness that workman had not completed

240 days in a calendar year has no basis. In his cross-

examination, management’s witness says he has not

produced any document in support of his affidavit. All

three workmen were working in Unit 329 as casual

employees. If evidence of workmen are compared with

evidence of management’s witness, evidence of

management’s witness cannot be accepted as any

document is not produced by him. The evidence of

workman Jailal and Guman Kumhar is corroborated by

document Exhibit W-1, W-1(a). Therefore, evidence of

workman cannot be disbelieved. From evidence of

workman supported by document W-1 & W-1(a) it is

proved that workman was continuously working for 240

days, their services are terminated without notice.

Termination of their service is in violation of Section 25-F

of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Negative.

9. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point 1,

question arises whether workmen are entitled for

reinstatement with back wages. The evidence on record

clearly shows that workmen were engaged as casual labour

for drilling camps. The appointment letters were not issued

to them. They were working in 1988 to 17-8-95. Considering

above aspects reinstatement would not be appropriate. In

my considered view, compensation Rs.75,000 to each

workmen would be appropriate. Accordingly, I record my

finding in Point No. 2.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of STA(D)

Incharge Unit No.329, Geological survey of India,

Burhar Drilling camp in terminating the services

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5391

of S/Shri Kodulal Kumhar, Jailal Kumhar and

Guman Kumhar as unskilled contingent workers

at Burhar Drilling Camp in August, 1995 is not

legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay Rs.75,000 to each of

the workmen within 30 days from the date of

publication of award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2074-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

bathfu;j] xSfjlu bathfu;j] tcyiqj 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;] bZLV tcyiqj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@49@92) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@92@91&Mh&2 (ch)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O.

2074.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/49/92) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Executive Engineer, Garrison

Engineer, East Jabalpur and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-14012/92/91 D-2 (B)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/49/92

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding officer

Shri Bhure Singh,

S/o Shri Nanhe Singh,

Q. No. 1629, New Christian Colony,

Post Ghamapur,

Jabalpur

. . .Workman

Versus

The Executive Engineer,

East, Jabalpur

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 6-3-92 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-14012/

92/91-D-2(B). The dispute under reference relates to :

“ Whether the action of Executive Engineer, Garrison

Engineer (East), Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Bhure Singh S/o Shri Nanhe Singh,

Ex. Chowkidar w.e.f. 25-8-89 is legal and justified? If

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

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page

2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed on

office watchman on 10-8-83 in establishment of Garrison

Engineer, Jabalpur under Govt. of India. That he is a

handicapped person having disabilities. He was appointed

in clear vacancy after his name was sponsored through

Employment Exchange. That Garrison Engineer is a

establishment performing all civil work – construction,

repairing buildings, roads, drains etc. About 1000 workers

were engaged in various types of masson working. That

workman had completed 6 years uninterrupted service as

watchman. He has acquired status of quasi-permanent

employee. His service record is unblemished. In February,

1989, workman applied for leave till 4-2-89. After sanction

of leave, he had gone to his Village Sarauli Area. That he

had applied for extension of leave till 27-3-89. Workman

was declared fit by Medical Officer on 27-3-89. Workman

reported to join duty on 28-3-89 alongwith certificate but

the workman was not allowed to join duty. Workman

submits that any enquiry was not conducted against him.

His services were terminated without notice, without

issuing chargesheet or conducting enquiry. On such

grounds, workman prays for his reinstatement with back

wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 12/1 to

12/8. Preliminary objection is raised by IInd party that

reference is not tenable. Provisions of I.D. Act are not

applicable to Garrison Engineer as it is part of army. Its

services are used by Army for their use. The establishment

of defence forces are to defend the territories of the country

from external aggregation. That IInd party is discharging

5392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sovereign functions of the State. That as per ratio held in

case of Bangalore Water Supply, the sovereign functions

of state are excluded from Industry. As such the reference

is not tenable. It is reiterated that as IInd party is

discharging sovereign functions being part of the Military

Establishment, provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable to

it. It is not covered as industry under Section 2(j) of I.D. Act.

4. IInd party further submits that Ist party workman

remained absent on various days during January to June,

1987. Workman applied for 6 days leave from 30-1-89 to

4-2-89. After expiry of sanctioned leave, he was supposed

to join on 5-2-89. Workman remained absent from February,

1989 to June, 1989. The notice was issued in daily news

paper calling him to join duty within 30 days. Workman

did not report to the duty. It was presumed that workman

was not interested to join duty. Notice was published in

daily newspaper on 20-9-89. Workman did not resumed

duties.

5. IInd party has reiterated that workman remained

absent without intimation. He did not return for duty even

after notice issued to him. Therefore service of workman

are terminated. On such contentions, IInd party prays for

rejection of claim.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the establishment of

In Affirmative

IInd party is an Industry under

Section 2(j) of I.D. Act?

(ii)

Whether the action of Executive

In Negative

Engineer, Garrison Engineer

(East), Jabalpur (MP) in

terminating the services of

Shri Bhure Singh, S/o Shri Nanhe

Singh, Ex.Chowkidar w.e.f.

25-8-89 is legal and justified ?

(iii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

7. Point No. 1—workman is challenging termination

of his services on various grounds. IInd party has raised

objection that it is part of Army Establishment discharging

sovereign functions of State. It is not covered as Industry.

The provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable to

establishment of IInd party. Section 2(j) of I.D. Act defines-

“Industry means any business, trade,

undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers

and includes any calling service, employment,

handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of

workmen. Said section was amended as per Act.

18 of 52 Sub clause (b) deals for exclusion of

agricultural operation, hospitals or dispensaries,

educational, scientific research or training

institutions, Khadi or village industries, charitable

social institutions etc. there is no reference of

execution of Garrison Engineer- IInd party No. 2.

8. IInd party filed affidavit of witness Shri S.V.

Vyavahare. Witness has stated that management of

Garrison Engineer is part of and parcel of Indian Army.

Indian Army is discharging sovereign functions. Brief

narration is found that IInd party is engaged in

construction, repairs of buildings.

9. Learned counsel for workman has submitted

citation in—

Case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Vrs.

A.Rajappa and others reported in 1978-SSC(L&S)-

215. In para 179 of the judgment, their Lordship have

discussed abut the exceptions called out by Court

is in favour of activities undertaken by the

Government in the exercise of its inalienable

functions under the constitution, call it regal,

sovereign or by any other name. Their Lordship

further observed if water supply and sewerage

schemes or fire fighting establishments run by a

Municipality can be industries, so ought to be the

manufacture of coins and currency, arms and

ammunition and the winning of oil and uranium. The

fact that these latter kinds of activities are or can

only be, undertaken by the State doesnot furnish

any answer to the question whether these activities

are industries. When undertaken by a private

individual they are industries. Therefore when

undertaken by the State, they are industries. The

nature of the activity is the determining factor and

that doesnot change according to who undertakes

it. Items 8,11,12,17 & 18 of the first schedule read

with Section 2(n)(vi) of the I.D. Act render support

to this view. These provisions which were described

in Hospital Mazdoor Sabha as very significant at

least show that conceivably a Defence Establishment,

a Mint or a security press can be an industry even

though these activities are, ought to be and can

only be undertaken by the State in the discharge of

its constitutional obligations or functions. The State

doesnot trade when it prints a currency note or

strikes a coin. And yet, considering the nature of

the activity, it is engaged in an industry when it

does so.”

Considering ratio in above case, IInd party is covered

as an Industry under Section 2(j) of I.D. Act. therefore I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

10. Point No.2—perusal of record shows that

workman has filed affidavit of his evidence workman has

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5393

stated that his services were terminated without notice,

no enquiry was conducted against him. He was not given

opportunity of hearing. In his cross-examination, workman

says that address shown in affidavit is correct. He has not

received any notices. He was submitting leave applications

to Head clerk. That he was absent from 30-1-89 to 4-9-89

as he was not keeping well. He had submitted application

for leave by post. The affidavit of evidence filed by witness

of management Shri S.V. Vyavahare shows that workman

was absent. Notices were issued to workman. Even after

public notice, workman did not resume to duty therefore it

was presumed that workman would not return back on

duty. Evidence on record clearly shows that workman was

not served with chargesheet, no enquiry was conducted

for his unauthorised absence. Therefore termination of

services of workman cannot be justified. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.

11. In view of my finding in Point No.2, termination

of service of workman is illegal, question arises whether

workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages.

On above point, learned counsel for IInd party has placed

reliance on ratio held in Case of L.Robert D’Souza versus

Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another

reported in AIR 1982-Supreme Court 854. Their Lordship

of the Apex court considering striking off name of workman

form roll without anything more held it constitutes

retrenchment. In present case, services of workman were

terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation despite the workman was appointed since

1983 merely issuing notice or publishing in newspaper,

the services of workman were terminated. In view of my

finding in Point No.2, termination of workman is illegal ,

workman deserves to be reinstated in service. The

evidence of Ist party workman is devoted that he was not

allowed to join duties on 20-3-89. His affidavit is not clearly

stating what he was doing after termination from service.

The affidavit of evidence of management’s witness

Shri S.V. Vyavahare is silent about gainful employment of

workman. Considering workman was terminated long back

in 1989, for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act,

reinstatement of workman with 30 % back wages would be

appropriate relief. Accordingly I record my finding.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of Executive Engineer, Garrison

Engineer (East), Jabalpur (MP) in terminating

the services of Shri Bhure Singh, S/o Shri Nanhe

Singh, Ex.Chowkidar w.e.f. 25-8-89 is illegal.

(2)

IInd party management is directed to reinstate

workman with continuity of service with 30 %

back wages.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2075-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

fnfo'kuy bathfu;j] VsyhdkWe izkstsDV] jk;iqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@213@98)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@18@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O. 2075.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/213/98) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project, Raipur and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-40012/18/98-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/213/98

SHRI R.B.PATLE , Presiding Officer

Shri Paraslal,

S/o Shri Dukhu,

Vill Ghatkachhar,

PO Sighora, Tehsil Saraipali,

Raipur

. . . Workman

Versus

Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II, Choubey Colony,

Raipur (MP)

. . . Management

5394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 10-9-1998 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

18/98/IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to :

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in

terminating the services of Shri Dukhu, Ex Mazdoor

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

is entitled?”

2. After receivmg reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

3/1 to 3/4. The case of workman is that he was appointed

as mazdoor on permanent post in 1986. His services were

discontinued on 16-2-88. That he worked more than 240

days. He was performing his duties honestly. That

terminatin of his service was by way of punishment. He

was not paid one month’s notice or one months pay in lieu

of notice. The termination of his service is in violation of

Section 25-F(A,b) of I.D. Act. the action of Ilnd party is

arbitrary by way of victimisation of unfair labour practice.

Workman further submits that employee junior to him filed

Petition No. 196/90 before CAT Jabalpur for regularisation

claiming that they worked more than 240 days working for

more than 5 years. Hon’ble CAT Jabalpur directed IInd

party to accommodate concerned petitioners against

available vacancies. Ist party workman submits termination

of his service is illegal. He prays for his reinstatement.

3. IInd party filed written statement at page 6/1 to

6/2. It is submitted that workman was engaged purely on

temporary basis on daily wages. It is denied that workman

was appointed by management. Any post was not lying

vacant with the management. Workman was not engaged

by DE, Telecom project, Raipur. He was engaged by DE

Coaxial cable project. Workman was engaged on muster

roll on daily wages. The retention period of muster roll is

5 years. It is difficult to comment whether workman was

engaged and discontinued as dispute is raised by workman

after long gap of 10 years. All other adverse contentions

of workman are denied. Ilnd party prays for rejection of

claim.

4. Rejoinder is filed by workman at Page 7/1 to 7/2

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim. It is

submitted that casual workers working in Coaxial Project

Raipur has been merged with DE Telecom Project, Raipur.

It is submitted that workman had rendered more than 240

days service. The service of workman are terminated in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur (MP) in terminating

the services of Shri Dukhu,

Ex Mazdoor is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to ?”

order.

REASONS

6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman

has stated that he was appointed by management of IInd

party against permanent post in 1996. Appointment letter

was not issued to him, that he worked continuously from

1986 to 31-3-88. He had worked more than 240 days.

Services were terminated without compliance of Section

25-F of I.D. Act. In his cross-examination, workman says

he passed Vth standard. He stated that his affidavit is in

English. That post was not advertised before his

appointment. His name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. Coaxial project was for special

work. He was paid wages for his working days.

7. Management’s witness shri R.R.Yadav has stated

that workman was engaged on muster roll on daily basis.

He was engaged temporarily for specific period. The order

passed by CAT in original Application No. 79/97 , 196/90

pertains to the respective applicants. Management’s

witness was not cross-examined. The ordersheet dated

13-12-2011 shows that management’s witness could not

be cross-examined. His evidence will not be looked into in

the case. Thus evidence of management’s witness cannot

be considered. For failure of management witness’s cross-

examination, the evidence of Ist party workman therefore

deserves to be accepted. From evidence of workman, it is

established that he was continuously working from 1986

to 1991. His services were terminated without notice in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.l in Negative.

8. Point No. 2- in view of my finding in Point No.l

that termination of ervices of workman is illegal, question

arises whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement

with backwages. The evidence in cross-examination of

workman shows his name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange, appointment letter was not given

to him. Workman was engaged on daily wages therefore

reinstatement of workman is not justified. Considering

period of work from 1986 to 1991, reasonable compensation

would be appropriate relief. Considering working period,

compensation Rs. 75,000 would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5395

9. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The action of the management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in

terminating the services of Shri Dukhu, Ex

Mazdoor is not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs.75,000 to workman within 30 days from the

date of publication of award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2076-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnfo'kuy

bathfu;j] VsyhdkWe izkstsDV] jk;iqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

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

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@211@98) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@16@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O.

2076.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/211/98) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project, Raipur and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-40012/16/98-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/211/98

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Bhim Nand,

S/o Shri Dingro,

Vill Ghatkachhar,

PO Sighora, Tehsil Saraipali,

Raipur.

. . . Workman

Versus

Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II, Choubey Colony,

Raipur (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 10-9-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

16/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

the service of Shri Bhim Nand, S/o Shri Dingro Ex-

Mazdoor is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

appointed as mazdoor against permanent post in 1986.

His services were discontinued from 16-2-88. Despite he

worked more than 240 days during 1986-87. He raised

dispute before ALC, Raipur challenging illegal termination.

The settlement was arrived in conciliation proceeding on

27-12-89. Ist party workman was reinstated immediately

without back wages. On 1-1-91, his services were

discontinued for the reasons that work was not available

with IInd party. That workman was working with IInd party

continuously without any break. He completed 240 days

service every year. His services were terminated as a

measure of punishment without disciplinary action. That

he was not served with notice. He was not paid pay in lieu

of notice. His services were terminated under Section 25-F

(a,b) of I.D. Act. That termination of his services is arbitrary

and illegal. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 8/1 to

8/2. IInd party denied that workman was appointed by its

management. There was no vacant post lying with

management of IInd party. It is submitted that workman

was not appointed by management, he was engaged by

DE Co-axial project, Raipur. Said project was wound up on

3-5-91. Workman was engaged on muster roll on daily wage

basis. He retention period of muster roll is 5 years. The

dispute is raised by workman after gap of 12 years. It is

difficult to state whether he was reinstated by management.

5396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman was engaged purely on temporary basis on

muster roll. There was no question of termination of his

services. Above contentions are reiterated by IInd party.

There was no question of issuing one month’s notice of

pay in lieu of notice. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

That order in Original Application No. 71/91, 196/90 pertains

to applicant who approached CAT. Workman approached

this Tribunal in 1991. It is prayed that reference be answered

in favour of management.

4. Workman filed rejoinder at Pages 9/1 to 9/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim and prays

for reinstatement with back wages.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below :

(i)

“Whether the action of the

Evidence in

management of divisional

record shows

Engineer, Telecom Project,

that workman

Raipur (MP) in terminating

was not working

the service of Shri Bhim

with II party

Nand, S/o Shri Dingro Ex-

and his services

Mazdoor is legal and

were not termina-

justified ?

ted by IInd

party.

(ii)

If not, what relief

Workman is not

the workman is entitled

entitled to relief

to?”

claimed by him.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service

contending that his services were terminated by IInd party

in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. IInd party denied

contentions of workman. IInd party has pleaded that

workman was not engaged by management rather workman

was engaged by DE Coaxial project, Raipur. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence. He has stated that he was

appointed by management of IInd party as against

permanent post in 1986. No appointment letter was issued

to him. He was continuously working till 16-2-88. His

services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of

I.D. Act. He worked for more than 240 days. His services

were terminated in violation of Section 25-F without notice.

In his cross-examination, workman says that co-axial cable

project is different project. He worked in co-axial cable

project. He claims ignorance about De project. That he

has stated in his affidavit about working in DE project but

he was working in co-axial project. Thus evidence of

workman is not consistent with his claim that he was

appointed by workman as employee against vacant post

and he worked more than 240 days with IInd party.

Evidence in cross-examination of workman shows that he

was working with co-axial project. Therefore, claim of

workman against IInd party management cannot be

accepted.

7. The management filed affidavit of evidence of

R.R.Yadav, Office incharge. The witness of the management

has stated that workman was engaged by co-axial cable

project. His evidence on above point is not shattered in

his cross-examination. For above reasons, I record my

finding on Point No.1 that workman was not working with

IInd party neither his services were terminated by IInd

party.

8. Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1 as

workman was not working with IInd party management

rather he was working with co-axial cable project. Workman

is not entitled to relief claimed by him. Accordingly, I

record my finding in Point No.2.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Workman was not appointed or terminated by

IInd party management.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2077-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

VsyhdkWe fMfLVªDV eSustj] lkxj (e-iz-) ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@6@03)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@130@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O.

2077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/6/03) 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 Telecom District Manager, Sagar

(MP) and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-40012/130/2002-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5397

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/6/03

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.

Shrisudama Prasad Choudhary,

S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Choudhary,

Nr. Lata Wankhede (Serpanch

Narsinghpur Road, New Market,

Sagar (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

Telecom District Manager,

Sagar (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of June 2014

1. As per letter dated 8-1-2003 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

130/2002-IR(DU).The dispute under reference relates to :

“ Whether the action of the management of Telecom

District Manager, Sagar (MP) Deptt. of Telecom now

converted into Telecom District Manager, Sagar

(MP) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Sudama Prasad Choudhary S/o

Shri Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary w.e.f. 28-5-88 and not

regularizing as regular employee is justified? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/2. Case of workman is that he was working as

casual employee on muster roll from March 1986 with IInd

party No.3,4. His performance was satisfactory. That he

was entitled for grant of temporary status as per

regularization scheme of 1989. That he was orally

terminated from May 1988. He was not served with notice

neither paid pay in lieu of notice. Retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him. Termination of his

service is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. On above

contentions, workman prays for reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to

8/3 denying claim of workman. IInd party submits that for

development of Telecom facilities ambitious plans were

undertaken. New telephone exchanges in rural areas were

opened. Cable lines were to be laid. For installation of

above work, casual workers were engaged on daily

payment basis. The employees were not engaged for

regular work. After completion of project, casual workers

were not required to be continued. Ist party workman was

not appointed by Telecommunication Department, he was

engaged as casual employee. The details of his working

days are shown 256 days in 1986, 40 days in 1987. That

workman doesnot fulfill the conditions of regularisation

scheme as he was not engaged prior to 30-3-85. He was

not continued as casual worker after 7-11-1989. Workman

had not completed 240 days continuous service. That

workman is also not entitled to the extended scheme as he

was not fulfilling conditions of working during 31-3-85 to

22-6-88. Workman was not continuing on work on 25-6-93

that workman was working till February 1987. There was

gap more than 365 days. Scheme of 1981 cannot be applied

to him. All other adverse allegations of workman are denied.

Termination in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D.Act are

denied. Workman was engaged purely on temporary basis

for project work. Provisions of I.D.Act are not applicable.

On such grounds, IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

Partly negative

management of Telecom

District Manager, Sagar

(MP) Deptt. Of Telecom

now

converted

into

Telecom District Manager,

Sagar (MP) Bharat Sanchar

Nigam

Limited

terminating the services of

Shri

Sudama

Prasad

Choudhary

S/o

Shri

Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary

w.e.f. 28-5-88 and not

regularizing as regular

employee is justified ?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman As per final

is entitled to?”

order

REASONS

5. Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act claiming that he

worked more than 240 days. His services were terminated

without notice. IInd party denied all material contentions

of workman. Affidavit of workman is filed. Workman has

stated that he was working with IInd party from March

1985 to May88. He completed 256 days in 1986, 40 days in

1987 & 57 days in 1988. His services were terminated

without notice. He was not given benefit of regularization

of 1989. In his cross-examination workman says that he

was orally engaged by department as casual labor on daily

wages. He worked continuously for more than 1 year

5398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

without break. He worked from March ‘1986 to May 88.

Management’s witness Shri R.G. Gohe filed affidavit of

his evidence. Witness of management has stated that

recruitment on permanent basis is made as per rules. There

must be clear vacancy sanctioned by Competent

Authority. The vacancies to be filled notified to the

Employment Exchange after name sponsored from

Employment Exchange, the candidate is selected on merit.

In his cross-examination, management’s witness says as

per record, workman worked for 256 days in 1986, 40 days

in 1987.he was unable to tell working days of workman

in1988. That he has stated about working days as per the

pleadings in Written Statement. No document is proved.

Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. He

was not served notice. Considering workman had worked

more than 240 days in 1986, his services are terminated

without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid

to him. The termination of service of workman is in violation

of section 25-F of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

6. Point No.2- workman is claiming reinstatement/

regularization in service. workman in his evidence says

that he was denying benefit of regularization scheme in

1989. Scheme is not produced on record. In Written

Statement filed by IInd party, conditions required for

claiming benefit of said regularization scheme are denied.

The working days of workman donot comply those

conditions therefore workman is not entitled for benefit of

regularization scheme. In view of my fining in Point No.1,

termination of service of workman is in violation of Section

25-F. learned counsel for workman Shri Rajesh Chand

submits that workman be reinstated with back wages. In

support of his claim, learned counsel relies on ratio held in

Case of Sunita Gupta versus Nagar Palika Parishad

Sabalgarh and another reported in 2010(3) M.P.H.T 243-

Division Bench of MP High Court at Gwalior. Their

Lordship considered petitioner was engaged as daily wager

employee w.e.f. 1-9-98. Her services were terminated w.e.f.

13-3-2000. Labur Court answered the reference against

petitioner employee. Writ Petition was filed. Their Lordship

held petitioner has established that she has worked

continuously for about 300 days i.e. more than 240 days in

12 months and termination of service without following

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. she is entitled to reinstatement

without back wages.

In present case, Ist party workman has worked for

256 days in 1986. His services are terminated in violation

of Section 25-F.

In recent judgment in case of Raj Kumar versus

Jalagaon Municipal Corporation reported in 2013(2)

Supreme Court Cases 751. Their Lordship considering facts

held payment of Rs.10,000 each to the appellants will not

adequately compensate them. Hence appellants who

approached for conciliation after 8 to 10 years from date of

termination are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000 each whereas

appellant who approached Conciliation Officer within 2-3

years shall be entitled to get a sum of

Rs. 1 Lakh.

In present case, workman hardly worked for about 2

years. Termination of service is in violation of Section 25-F.

Considering workman was engaged casually on daily

wages, compensation Rs. 50,000 would be appropriate.

The reinstatement of workman is not justified. Accordingly

I record my finding in Point No.2.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management in terminating the

services of Shri Sudama Prasad Choudhary S/o

Shri KanhaiyaLal Choudharyw.e.f. 28-5-88 and

not regularizing as regular employee is not legal

and proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 50,000.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2078-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

bathfu;j] VsyhdkWe izkstsDV] jk;iqj 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;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@15@99) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@38@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O.

2078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/15/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Divsional Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-40012/38/98-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5399

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/15/99

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Dhaneshwar,

S/o Shri Baisakhu Gada,

Vill Ghatkachhar,

PO Signora,

Tehsil Saraipali,

Raipur

...Workman

Versus

Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg II,

Choubey Colony,

Raipur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 30-11-1998 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

38/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to :

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

the service of Shri Dhaneshwar S/o Shri Baisakhu

Gada, Ex-Mazdoor is legal and justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/4. Case of workman is that workman was appointed as

mazdoor against permanent post in 1986. His services were

discontinued on 17-2-88. That he worked more than 240

days in 1986-87. His services were illegally terminated

without notice. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation. Termination of his service is in violation of

Section 25-F (a,b) of I.D.Act. IInd party adopted policy of

Hire and Fire. The termination of service is by way of

victimization. Some other employees had filed Petition No.

196/90 claiming regularization. Tribunal set-aside order of

termination. On such ground, workman is praying for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. Management filed Written Statement at page 5/1

to 5/2. IInd party submits that workman was purely

engaged on temporary basis on daily wages. It is denied

that workman was appointed against vacant post.

Workman was not engaged by DE Telecom Project, Raipur.

He was engaged by DE Coaxial Cable Project which was

wound up on 31-3-91. That dispute was raised after gap of

12 years is not tenable. It is reiterated that workman was

engaged on temporary basis on muster roll for specific

job. There was no question of termination of his service

issuing notice or paying one months salary. IInd party

prays for rejection of his claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur (MP) in terminating

the service of shri

Dhaneshwar S/o Shri

Baisakhu

Gada,

Ex-

Mazdoor is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

claimed by him.

REASONS

5. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence

contending that he was working continuously from

22-12-86 till 31-12-90. He had continuously worked for more

than 240 days. However workman was not present for his

cross-examination. Evidence of workman was closed on

12-3-07. Evidence of workman cannot be read for want of

his cross-examination. Management filed affidavit of

witness Shri R.R.Yadav supporting contentions of IInd

party in Written Statement. Workman failed to cross-

examine the management’s witness. I find no reason to

disbelieve evidence of management’s witness. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The action of the management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in

terminating the service of Shri Dhaneshwar S/o

Shri Baisakhu Gada, Ex-Mazdoor is proper and

legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

5400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2079-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

viQlj (VsyhxzkiQ)] VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] dksjck ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@194@93)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@82@92&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O.

2079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/194/93) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Sub Divisional Officer

(Telegraph), Telecommunication, Korba and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

14/07/2014.

[No. L-40012/82/92-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/194/93

SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Ganga Prasad Yadav

S/o Shri Surajmal Yadav,

Post Tilai, Tehsil Janjgir,

Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (Telegraph),

Telecommunication, Korba,

PO Korba, Distt. Bilaspur

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of June, 2014

As per letter dated 17-9-93 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

82/92-IR(DU).The dispute under reference relates to :

“Whether the action of the management of Sub

Divisional Officer(Telegraph) Korba, Bilaspur in

retrenching Shri Ganga Prasad Yadav S/o Shri

Surajmal Yadav w.e.f. 9-10-90 is justified? If not, what

relief he is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/3. Case of workman is that he was employed as casual

labour from May, 1985 to 9-10-90 by IInd party. He was

continuously working from 1987 to 1990. He worked more

than 240 days and acquired status of ordinary labour. His

services were terminated from 9-10-90. He was reinstated

in service by Ilnd party. That termination of his services

was only with a view to deny benefit of regularization.

That he worked several years with Ilnd party. The

termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-H of

I.D. Act. On such grounds, workman is praying for his

reinstatement.

3. IInd party filed Written statement at Page 11/1 to

11/3. IInd party has pleaded that workman was engaged

as casual labour from May, 1985. His services were

terminated giving one months notice dated 12-6-87. It is

denied that workman was continuously working. Workman

was not doing job of permanent nature. It is denied that in

order to accommodate contract labours, workman was

terminated from service. The services of workman were

terminated giving one month’s notice.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below :

(i)

Wether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Sub

Divisional Officer (Telegraph)

Korba, Bilaspur in retrenching

Shri Ganga Prasad Yadav

S/o Shri Surajmal Yadav

w.e.f. 9-10-90 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is

workman is entitled to ?

not entitled to

to relief claimed

by him.

REASONS

5. Workman has filed affidavit of evidence. He has

stated that he was employed by Ilnd party form May, 1985

to 9-10-90. He was appointed as casual labour. On 12-6-87,

his services were terminated. The dispute was referred.

Thereafter he was given work. He was continuously

working since 1987 to 1990. He was paid amount Rs. 2843

by Sub Divisional officer, korba. In his cross-examination,

workman says that he is educated upto 10th standard. He

understands English to some extent. Affidavit was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5401

prepared by his Advocate and read over to him. His name

was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. At

the time of termination of his service, order in writing was

not given to him. IInd time order in writing was given for

his reinstatement. He was engaged as per requirement. He

was paid wages Rs. l0 per day. He has produced zerox

copy of circular Exhibit P-1. He claims ignorance whether

his appointment was against sanctioned post. Document

Exhibit W-1 is order of termination. The services of

workman alongwith other 16 persons were terminated.

Exhibit W-2 shows that Ist party workman alongwith other

3 employees were terminated. They were entitled to one

months pay in lieu of notice. Exhibit W-3 shows that amount

Rs. 2843 was paid to the workman. Exhibit W-4 shows that

compensation under Section 25-F one months pay and

retrenchment compensation Rs. 2843 was paid to the

workman. Exhibit W-5 is copy of failure report. Workman

is paid retrenchment compensation, one months pay in lie

of notice in compliance of Section 25-F, as such termination

of services of workman cannot be said illegal. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The action of the management of Sub Divisional

Officer (Telegraph) Korba, Bilaspur in retrenching

Shri Ganga Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Surajmal Yadav

w.e.f. 9-10-90 is legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed

by him.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presidng Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2080-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

eSustj] fMikVZesaV vkWiQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku ,aM vksBslZ eiz lfdZy]

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

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@171@00) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@298@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O. 2080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/171/00) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication and Others, MP Circle,

Bhopal and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-40012/298/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/171/00

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Chamanlal Sahu

S/o Deen Dayal Sahu,

Vill Asoga, PO Rani Tarai,

Tehsil Patan,

Durg (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. Of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road,

MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

General Manager,

Telecom District Durg

Junior Telecom Officer,

Incharge Telegraph Office,

Durg

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 25-9-2000 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

298/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the termination of services of Shri

Chamamlal Sahu S/o Shri Deen Dayal Sahu, Ex-

Chowkidar w.e.f. 11-11-95 by the management of

Telecom Department is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed exhaustive statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/11. Case of workman is that he was

appointed by IInd party as Chowkidar in 1967. His date of

birth is 12-8-66. He has received education upto 10th

5402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

standard. He was working on day to day basis such as 215

days in 1987, 295 days in 1988, 254 days in 1989, 218 days

in1990, 298days in 1991, 212 days in 1992, 222 days in

1993, 299 days in 1994 and 264 days upto 10-11-95. That

he is covered as workman under Section 2(s) of I.D.Act.

IInd party is an industry under Section 2(j) of I.D.Act. IInd

party is working under control of Telecom, Government

of India. That he was orally appointed by IInd party

No. III as watchman in April, 1987. Ist party workman has

reiterated about his working days from 1987 to 1994. That

IInd party has framed scheme for regularization of service

of casual labours in 1989. Due to lack of proper

implementation of said scheme, number of employees who

completed 240 days were not regularized. That IInd party

terminated his services in violation of Section 25-F, N of

I.D.Act. Some employees had filed proceeding before CAT,

Jabalpur. The directions were issued by CAT, Jabalpur. It

was challenged in SLP before Hon’ble Apex Court. Some

employees were regularized in implementation of the order

passed by CAT, Jabalpur dated 16-10-96. Workman further

submits that he was appointed in 1987. He had not

participated in proceeding before CAT. He was not

considered for regularization as per Scheme formulated in

1989. IInd party management disallowed claim for

regularization and suddenly he was terminated from

11-11-95. Ist party workman raised dispute. Working days

of workman are reiterated and it is submitted that service

of workman are terminated illegally. It is also submitted

that workman alongwith 6 co-workers filed Original

Application 720/95 before CAT, Jabalpur. The reply was

filed by IInd party No. 3 Shri Poddar. It was submitted that

Court be pleased to pass the order in his favour as per the

scheme framed by the department for regularization.

Workman has reiterated that his services were not

regularized. His services were terminated in violation of

Section 25-F, N of I.D.Act. the termination of his service is

illegal. Workman prays for his reinstatement with

backwages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to

4/3. Claim of workman is denied. It is submitted that

management is involved in providing telecom facilities in

MP, expansion of telephone services was initiated.

Workman was one of the casual labour engaged by the

management. His engagement was subject to availability

of work on day to day basis. Pursuant to directions of

Hon’ble Supreme Court, scheme known as Casual

Labour(Grant of temporary status and regularization)

Scheme of Department of Telecom was found. As per said

scheme, the casual worker seeking benefit of the scheme

was required to be in service on 22-6-88 and should have

rendered 240 days service in a calendar year prior to the

cut off date of 22-6-88. He was entitled to benefit of the

scheme. That the management was not in need for causal

labour. Workman of his own accord failed to appear for

work and due to the non-availability of work. The

discontinuation of work doesnot amount to retrenchment.

On all such contentions, IInd party claims for rejection of

claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the termination of

In Negative

services of Shri Chamamlal

Sahu S/o Shri Deen Dayal

Sahu, Ex-Chowkidar w.e.f.

11-11-95

the

management of Telecom

Department is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

As per final

man is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

5. Workman has challenged termination of his service.

He has also pleaded about the scheme for regularization

of casual employees. However the terms of reference

doesnot cover the point of regularization as per the alleged

scheme. The reference covers only point of termination of

services of workman. Workman has filed affidavit of his

evidence supporting his contentions that he was engaged

as watchman from April, 1987. He has stated working

days during 1987 to 1995. His services were terminated by

IInd party without notice. In his cross-examination

workman says the post on which he was working was not

advertised, no written or oral examination was conducted.

He was paid wages for actual working days. First he had

worked in Telephone office Durg form April, 1987. He

denies that he did not worked continuously from 1987 to

1995. The document Exhibit W-4 shows working days of

workman. He had worked more than 265 days in 1987-88.

Evidence of workman shows that he worked continuously

from 1987 to 1995 and it is not shattered in his cross-

examination. Document Exhibit W-1 is his representation.

The working days of workman are mentioned. IInd party

filed affidavit of witness Shri R.P. Srivastava. He was not

made available for his cross-examination. No evidence of

any other witness is adduced by IInd party. Evidence of

management is closed on 26-11-2012. Considering

evidence of workman, corroborated by Document Exhibit

W-1, W-2, it is proved that workman was continuously

working for more than 240 days preceding termination of

his service. The services are terminated without notice ,

retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. The

termination of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5403

6. Point No. 2- in view of my finding in Point No.1

the termination of services of workman is illegal, question

arises whether workman is entitled for reinstatement. As

per evidence in cross-examination of Ist party workman,

he was not appointed following recruitment process. He

was engaged on daily wages. The terms of reference donot

include claim for regularization as per scheme. Considering

above facts in my considered view, reasonable

compensation would be appropriate. Considering the

length of working on daily wages of workman,

compensation Rs. 1,50,000/- would be reasonable.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

7. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The Whether the termination of services of

Shri Chamamlal Sahu S/o Shri Deen Dayal Sahu,

Ex-Chowkidar w.e.f. 11-11-95 by the management

of Telecom Department is illegal.

(2)

IInd party management is directed to pay

compensation Rs. 1,50,000/- to workman within

30 days from the date of publication of award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2081-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

VsyhdkWe fMfLVªDV eSustj] lkxj (ei) ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@5@03)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@129@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O. 2081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/5/03) 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 Telecom District Manager, Sagar

(MP) and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-40012/129/2002-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/5/2003

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Naushad Ali,

S/o Shri Ikrar Ali,

R/o Near of Cantt. Post Office,

Sagar (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

Telecom District Manager,

Sagar (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of May, 2014

1. As per letter dated 6-8/1/2003 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

129/2002-IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to :

“ Whether the action of the management of Telecom

District Manager, Sagar (MP), Deptt. of Telecom now

converted into Telecom District Manager, Sadar

(MP), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Naushad Ali S/o Shri Ikrar Ali

w.e.f. 16-7-90 and not regularizing as regular

employed is justified? If not, what relief the workman

is entitled to ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

parties. 1st party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/2. Case of 1st party workman is that he was

engaged as casual labour by IInd party No.3,4 in May

1986. He was continuously working till July 1990. There

was no grievance about his work. That Hon’ble Apex Court

has issued directions to evolve scheme for regularizing of

casual employees. The scheme for regularization of casual

temporary employees was framed in 1989. However his

services are terminated without notice by oral order in

July 1990. He was not paid retrenchment compensation.

Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F.N

of I.D.Act denying him benefit of scheme for regularizing

of casual employees. On such ground, workman is praying

for his reinstatement with back wages.

5404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to

8/3. IInd party raised preliminary objection that

M.P.Telecom Circle is having largest area in country. That

Telephone facilities are less in comparison to other states.

For development of telephone facilities, ambitious planning

was done to increase the telecom facilities like open of

new telephone exchanges in rural area, laying of cable and

other related work of installation work. Workman was not

engaged for regular work as and when the work was

completed casual workers were not required. Their

services were discontinued. It is submitted that workman

was purely engaged on casual labour for specific work on

completion of casual work were retrenched. Workman had

worked 185 days in 1988, 215 days in 1989, 170 days in

1990. Workman is not entitled for reinstatement.

4. IInd party further submits that workman doesnot

fulfil conditions for regularization as per scheme. That

casual labours are eligible for status of scheme 1989 and

as such labour is engaged prior to 30-3-85 continued as

casual labours on 7-11-89. He has completed 240 days in

the year. Workman had not complied those conditions

therefore he is not entitled for regularization. He has not

completed 240 days continuous service therefore there is

no question of compliance of Section 25-F, G of I.D.Act.

on such contentions, IInd party prays for rejection of

claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Telecom

District Manager, Sagar (MP),

Deptt. of Telecom now

converted into Telecom

District Manager, Sadar

(MP), Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited in terminating

the services of Shri Naushad

Ali S/o Shri Ikrar Ali w.e.f.

16-7-90 and not regularizing

as regular employed is

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

prayed by him.

REASONS

6. The terms of reference relates to whether

termination of services of workman Naushad Ali w.e.f.

16-7-90 and not regularizing him is justified? Workman in

his statement of claim has pleaded that he was

continuously working from May 1986 to July 1990 as casual

labour. He has not pleaded that he had completed 240

days continuous service during any of the year. However

in his affidavit of evidence, he has stated that he was

working from May 1980 to May 1990 under IInd party

No.3,4. That in 1988, he completed 185 days, in 1989-205

days, in 1990-107 days. His affidavit is silent that he

completed 240 days continuous service in any of the year.

Workman in his cross-examination, says his name was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was paid

wages for all his working days. He was not paid wages for

holidays. He worked from 1988 to 1990.

7. Management’s witness Shri R.G.Gohe in his

evidence has stated that workman was engaged for laying

down telephone cable project. His name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. the evidence of

management’s witness is also silent about working days

of workman. In his cross-examination management’s

witness says workman did not work under him. Muster

roll is not produced. Suggestion was given to the

management’s witness that workman had completed 240

days continuous service. His suggestion is denied.

Suggestion given to the management’s witness is that

such pleadings in statement of claim of workman or his

evidence on affidavit. Thus the evidence on record shows

that workman had not completed 240 days continuous

service. There was no question of compliance of Section

25-F of LD. Act. Workman was working from 1988 to 1990.

The scheme for regularization, the details are pleaded at

Page 2 of the written statement. The casual labours are

entitled to temporary status if he is engaged prior to 30-3-

85 continued as casual workers as on 7-11-89. He has

completed 240 days in any year. Above requirements are

not complied by the workman as per evidence discussed

above. Therefore workman is not entitled for regularization

as per scheme neither he completed 240 days continuous

service, therefore his termination cannot be said in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. for above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No. l in Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The action of the management of Telecom District

Manager, Sagar (MP), Deptt. of Telecom now

converted into Telecom District Manager, Sadar

(MP), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in

terminating the services of Shri Naushad Ali S/o

Shri Ikrar Ali w.e.f. 16-7-90 and not regularizing as

regular employed is legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5405

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2082-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

Mk;jsDVj us'kuy fjlpZ lsaVj iQkWj lks;kchu] bankSj ds izcaèkra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@

vkj@216@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@14@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O.

2082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/216/98) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Director, National

Research Centre for Soyabean, Indore and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

14/07/2014.

[No. L-42011/14/98-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/216/98

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

General Secretary,

National Soyabean Research Centre,

Kamgar Union (CITU),

20, Mevati Mohalla, Jail Road,

Indore

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

Director,

National Research Centre

for Soyabean,

Khandwa Road,

Indore

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 10-9-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-42011/

14/98/1R(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Director,

National Research Centre for Soyabean in not

regularizing the casual labourers ( as per list

enclosed Annexure “E”) who have been working

since 1988, 1990 & 1992 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the workmen are entitled for ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party Union submitted statement of claim

through secretary at Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of Union is that

it is registered under Trade Union Act. IInd party is

engaged in systematic activities and is an industry covered

under Section 2(j) of I.D. Act. that the workman shown in

the list with reference are working with IInd party for

considerable long time. Most of them rendered service

more than a decade. Work performed by them is of

permanent nature. That IInd party has engaged practices

by extracting work of regular nature and continued them

on daily wages. That the workers are eligible for regular

appointment. Management is still paying daily wages to

them. IInd party has violated principles of equal pay for

equal work contemplated under Article 39(d) of the

Constitution of India. Management framed scheme for

grant of temporary status and regularization of casual

workers. However those workmen were not given said

benefit. Despite fulfilling the conditions prescribed under

scheme.

3. Union submits that employees are deprived benefit

of temporary status giving artificial breaks so that the

employees donot complete 240 days service in a calendar

year. That IInd party has extended temporary status of 7

employees namely Shri Deepak, Rayadabai, Ratan Singh,

Smt. Kamla Bai, Fulki Bai, Rami Bai & Shri Mangilal.

Workman under reference are much senior to those 7

workmen. They are denied temporary status. Ist party

submits that act committed by IInd party is arbitrary,

unfair. The employees continuously engaged on daily

wages for years together and not regularizing their services

amounts to exploitation. On such ground, workman prays

for regularization of service of workman shown in the list

with reference. Management be directed to pay wages as

paid to the regular employees.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Pages 11/1

to 11/6. IInd party submits that it is not covered as industry

under Section-2 of I.D. Act. the reference is not tenable.

The contentions of Union about working of employees

5406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for 2 years together is denied. Ilnd party is established for

research about soyabean crop by the scientist of various

disciplines, soyabean is cultivated in Kharif (Rainy) season

only i.e. from second fortnight of June to end of October.

Labours are required for about six months for taking said

crop. Work is of seasonal nature. The labours are required

for sowing, weeding, spraying, harvesting work. The

labors shown in the list were not continuously working,

were not completed 240 days continuous service any of

the year. That scheme of temporary status has not been

framed by IInd party. The scheme was awarded by principle

bench of CAT, New Delhi on 16-2-90 in Writ petition filed

by Rajkamal and others versus union of India. As per the

terms and conditions stipulated, 7 casual labours who

fulfilled requirements were accorded temporary status on

adverse allegation of discrimination of supersession of

workman under reference have been denied. It is further

submitted that 15 casual workers are granted benefit of

pay scale with DA. As per the letter of ICAR dated 16-12-

88, the benefit is granted following seniority criteria. It is

denied that pick and choose policy was adopted by Ilnd

party. It is reiterated that the workman did not completed

240 days continuous service. They did not fulfill criteria

or benefit of temporary status to them. Ilnd party prayed

for rejection of claim.

5. Union filed rejoinder at pages 12/1 to 12/2. Ist

party Union submits that Ilnd party is covered as an

industry. Ilnd party produces seed and used to sell it in

the open market. The Government has policy for grant of

temporary status to the employees. One such scheme

framed by Deptt. Of personnel and Training is annexed.

Pursuant to this scheme 7 employees mentioned in

statement of claim were granted temporary status. Ist party

employees should have been granted temporary status as

they were fulfilling the eligibility conditions.

6. Considering evidence by parties, my learned

predecessor passed award dated 10-8-2010 against Union.

Said award was challenged by 1st party Union in Writ

petition No. 3081/2011 before Hon’ble High Court. Their

Lordship of the division bench set aside impugned award

and remitted the matter to this Tribunal for fresh

adjudication keeping in view the circulars, as referred to

above, issued by the Respondent and the petitioners

contention that other similarly placed employees have been

extended the benefit of temporary status. Appropriate

decision be taken by Tribunal as expeditiously as possible.

7. Considering pleadings between parties and the

directions by Hon’ble High Court while remanding the

matter, 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

Partly in Negative

management of Director,

National Research Centre

for Soyabean in not

regularizing the casual

labourers ( as per list

enclosed Annexure “E”)

who have been working

since 1988, 1990 & 1992 is

legal and justified ?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?”

REASONS

8. The reference relates to denial of regularization

to casual labours by IInd party. While remanding the matter,

directions are given to decide the matter considering the

circulars issued by respondent and petitioners contentions

that similar employees have been extended for temporary

status. After remand of matter, no fresh evidence is

adduced. Counsel for Union Smt. Vinita Phaye has

submitted written notes of argument referring circulars at

Page 37 and directions given by Hon’ble High Court in

Writ petition No. 3081/2011. Affidavit of evidence of

workman is submitted by Shri Kailash Limbodia, General

Secretary of Union. He has stated that as per directions of

this Tribunal, he visited office of Non-applicant and

perused record. After perusal of record, he has collected

information from muster roll. As per muster roll, he

prepared chart W-1, indicates initial month and year of

engagement of the workmen whose names have been

mentioned in the reference order. Names of junior workers

have also mentioned in part 2 of the chart of W-1 who

have been given temporary status by management. The

names of concerned workmen in Annexure W-1 after

perusing the muster roll are also mentioned. In his cross-

examination, said witness says he is not employed in

Research Centre. Witness No. 2 Jabbar Singh, S/o Bhuwan

Singh, Witness No. 3 Jangaliya S/o Hameer Singh, Witness

No. 4 Bheru Singh S/o Ganpat filed identical affidavit of

evidence that they are working with IInd party from 1990.

They are not granted temporary status, In their cross-

examination, it is not challenged that they were working

with IInd party from 1990. Their cross-examination is

devoted on other points whether working as casual

labours about their education, qualification, payment of

contribution of the Union. 7 labours were granted

temporary status. Those labours were denied temporary

status. Management’s witness Anil Goswami filed affidavit

of his evidence. He has stated 7 workers were given

temporary status as per scheme of NRCs. Labours who

fulfilled employment of circular dated 10-9-93 were given

benefit of temporary status. Evidence on above point is

not shattered in his cross-examination. In his cross-

examination, management’s witness says the benefit of

payment of wages is given by 1/30 scheme to labours

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5407

working whole of the year. The circular is produced at

Page 12/6 relating to grant of temporary status and

regularization of casual labours. Appendix is also enclosed

along with said letter. Clause 4 of the scheme provides

temporary status would be conferred on all casual labours

who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM

and who have rendered a continuous service of atleast

one year which means that they must have been engaged

for a period of atleast 240 days (206 days in the case of

offices observing 5 days week). The evidence of witness

of Ist party union and IInd party do not clearly show actual

working days of the labours. Name shown in the list

forwarded along with reference. As per Clause 4.1 of the

scheme, the employee working for 240 days in a year is

entitled to the permanent status. Benefit of temporary

status are given in para-5 of the scheme. The payment of

wages corresponding to regular Group D official including

DA, HRA and CCA. Benefits of increments at the same

rate as applicable to Group D employees. Benefit of Casual

Leave, Maternity Leave, encashment of leave, Paternity

Leave are entitled. 50 % of service rendered under

temporary status would be counted for the purpose of

retirement benefits etc. After rendering 3 years continuous

service after conferment of temporary status, the casual

labours would be treated on par with temporary Group D

employees, Until they are regularized, they would be

entitled to Productivity Linked Bonus/Adhoc Bonus only

at the rates as applicable to casual labours. That as per

evidence of Kailash General Secretary of the Union, he

has submitted chart of working days of those employees

in 1992 & 1993. As per said chart, working days of Sarita

Bai, W/o Mangu Singh are shown 244 days in 1992. Union

has pleaded that holidays and Sundays should be

considered for continuous service under Section 25-B of

I.D. Act. The evidence of witness Jabbar Singh S/o Bhuwan

Singh, Jangaliya S/o Hameer Singh, Bheru Singh, S/o

Ganpat is on the point that weekly holiday was not counted

in their working days in 1996 remained unchallenged. If

weekly holidays i.e. Sunday are counted in working days

of those workmen, workmen who completed 188 days

service would be eligible for grant of temporary status as

provided under Clause 4 of the scheme discussed above.

If said criteria is applied, the employees S/Shri Bhairu

Singh S/o Ganpat, Jangalia S/o Hamir Singh, Jani Bai/Bairu

Singh, Chunki Bai/Keram Singh, Sagri Bai/Surla, Roomli

Bai/Inder Singh, Balu Singh/Nar Singh, Meera Bai/Bhoor

Singh, Shanti Bai/Bhav Singh, Romu Bai/Shankar, Rekha

Bai/Somla, Teju Bai/Inder Singh Laxmi Bai/Jabbar Singh,

Sarita Bai/Mangu Singh, Parvati Bai/Basant, Sangita Bai/

Jangalia, Surja Bai/Bhuvan Singh, Kamli Bai/Balu Singh,

Bhuri Bai/Shankar, Phulki Bai/Phattu Singh have completed

more than 188 days in an year are entitled to temporary

status. All those labours were denied temporary status by

IInd party. Therefore, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Director,

National Research Centre for Soyabean in not

regularizing the casual labourers namely S/Shri

Bhairu Singh S/o Ganpat, Jangalia S/o Hamir

Singh, Jani Bai/Bairu Singh, Chunki Bai/Keram

Singh, Sagri Bai/Surla, Roomli Bai/Inder Singh,

Balu Singh/Nar Singh, Meera Bai/Bhoor Singh,

Shanti Bai/Bhav Singh, Romu Bai/Shankar, Rekha

Bai/Somla, Teju Bai/Inder Singh Laxmi Bai/Jabbar

Singh, Sarita Bai/Mangu Singh, Parvati Bai/

Basant, Sangita Bai/Jangalia, Surja Bai/Bhuvan

Singh, Kamli Bai/Balu Singh, Bhuri Bai/Shankar,

Phulki Bai/Phattu Singh is not legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to give temporary status to

all those employees. Difference of wages may

also be paid within 30 days from the date of

publication of award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2083-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vnlZ] uoksn; fon~;ky; lfefr ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

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

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@46@00) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@194@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O.

2083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/46/2000) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Director and Others,

5408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-42012/194/99-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/46/2000

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Hem Singh Kushwah,

Vill Jabalpur,

PO Motijhil,

Gwalior

. . . Workman

Versus

Director,

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,

Deptt. Of Education, A-3,

Kailash Colony,

New Delhi.

The Principal,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,

Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Govt. of India,

Pichore, Gwalior

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 27-1-00 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42012/

194/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti in terminating the

services of Shri Hem Singh Kushwah w.e.f. October

98 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed Statement of claim at Pages 2/1

to 2/3. Case of workman is that he was appointed as Mess

Helper by IInd party No.1 from 20-8-94. He worked with

devotion. He was terminated from October 1998. He was

not issued notice, retrenchment compensation was not

paid. Termination of his service is in violation of Section

25-F,G, Y of I.D.Act. On such grounds, he prays for

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written statement at Pages 15/1

to 15/3. Claim of workman is denied. That for effective

working of Navodaya Vidyalaya, non-teaching staff were

divided. There were sanctioned posts as per requirement

depending upon number of students. The service matters

relating to Navodaya Vidyalaya false within jurisdiction

of CAT and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. That workman

was appointed on casual basis. He was not regularly

appointed. The Appointing Committee selected other

candidate after interview. Workman was also interviewed

by Committee but he was not found fit as such was not

selected. That provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable. It

is denied that IInd party is covered as an Industry. On

such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

“Whether the IInd party is

In Affirmative

covered as Industry under

Section 2(j) of I.D. Act ?

(ii)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Navodaya

Vidyalaya Samiti in terminat-

ing the services of Shri Hem

singh Kushwah w.e.f.

October 98 is legal?

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

As per final

man is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

5. Point No.1—IInd party has denied that it is not

covered as Industry under Section 2(j) of I.D. Act. IInd

party is Navodaya School. No evidence is adduced by

IInd party about the activities carried by it. In case of

Suresh Chandra Mathe vrs. Jiwaji University and Others

reported in 1994-JLJ 215. Their Lordship held Education is

a kind of service and University is an Industry as defined

in Section 2(j) – clerk working in University is workman. In

present case, IInd party is school engaged in educational

activities and therefore covered as Industry under Section

2(j) of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Affirmative.

6. Issues No. 2, 3—Workman is challenging its

termination for violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D. Act. In

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5409

his affidavit of evidence, workman says that he was

working as Mess Helper with IInd party from 28-8-94. His

services were terminated on 30-10-98. He was not served

with notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to

him. In his cross-examination, workman says that he passed

12th standard. He was working as Mess Helper,

appointment letter was not given to him. He was orally

appointed. 4-5 other persons were working with him. In

cross-examination of workman, it is not challenged that he

had not worked for more than 220 days. No suggestion is

given to the workman about interrupted service by

workman. The evidence of workman is sufficient to hold

that he was continuously working from 1994 to 1998. IInd

party has produced documents.

7. The affidavit of evidence is filed by witness Shri

Sisodiya. However he failed to appear for his cross-

examination. His evidence cannot be considered. In

evidence prescribed above, it is clear that workman was

continuously working from 1994 to 1998. His services are

terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation is

not paid to him. As such termination of services of

workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.

For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Negative.

8. Question arises whether workman is entitled for

reinstatement with back wages. Workman was not been

selected by the Committee. Considering period of his

working from 1994 to 1998 about 4 years, relief of

reinstatement is not justified. In my considered view,

compensation Rs.75,000 would be adequate. Accordingly

I record my finding.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Navodaya

Vidhyalaya Samiti in terminating the services of

Shri Hem singh Kushwah w.e.f. October 98 is

illegal.

(2)

Management is directed to pay Rs. 75,000 as

compensation to the workman within 30 days from

the date of publication of award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2084-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

tujy eSustj] vkWMZusUl iQSDVªh] tcyiqj 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;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@89@90)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@4@89&Mh&2 (ch)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2014

S.O.

2084.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

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

LC/R/89/90) 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 General Manager, Ordnance Factory,

Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-14012/4/89-D-2 (B)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/89/90

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Tikaram Kol,

S/o Shri Gayadia Kol,

Gram Richhai,

PO Vehicle Factory,

Jabalpur.

. . . Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria, Jabalpur

. . . Management

5410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of June 2014

1. As per letter dated 29-3-90 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-14012/

4/89-D-2(B). The dispute under reference relates to :

“Whether the action of the management of Ordnance

Factory, Khamaria (MP) in terminating the services

of Shri Tikaram Kol S/o Shri Gayadeen Kol w.e.f.

3-10-66 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled for?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 3/1 to 3/2. Case of workman is that he was working

as messenger boy in Ordnance Factory, Khamaria. He

was appointed in 1984 in S-7 Section of Ordnance Factory.

He was appointed after death of his father working in the

factory. After death of his father, the workman was mentally

sick. He was receiving medical advice. His services were

terminated on 3-10-86 without issuing notice, chargesheet

for calling any explanation. Workman submits that he had

completed one year service required under Section 25 B of

I.D. Act. He is entitled to protection of Section 25-F, G. H.N

of I.D. Act. Termination of his service amounts to illegal

retrenchment. On such grounds, workman prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed written Statement at Page 7/1 to

7/2. IInd party opposed reliefs claimed by workman. IInd

party submits that workman was appointed as messenger

boy on 11-1-1984. Appointment order clearly provided

about probationary period for 2 years which may be

extended if deemed necessary. That during probation

period, his services were terminated without notice. That

performance of workman during probation period was

below average. He was irregular in attendance. His

probation period was extended for a period of six months

w.e.f. 11-1-1986. Workman was allowed to improve his

performance vide letter dated 2-4-86. That workman failed

to show improvement. Therefore it was decided to extend

his probation period for another six moths. Despite of

extension of probation period, no improvement was found

in performance of workman. He was found fit to be

maintained in Govt. service. It was decided to terminate

his services. The services of workman were terminated

from 3-10-1986 as per terms and conditions of appointment

order. On such ground IInd party prayed for rejection of

the claim.

4. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at 8/1 to 8/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. He denies

that his performance in service was not satisfactory.

Management should have issued show cause notice and

opportunity of hearing should have been given to him.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Ordnance

Factory, Khamaria (MP) in

terminating the services of

Shri Tikaram Kol S/o Shri

Gayadeen Kol w.e.f. 3-10-66

is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

Workman is

man is entitled to?”

not entitled to

relief claimed

by him.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F, G, H,N of I.D.Act. He filed

affidavit in support of his claim. However workman failed

to appear for his cross-examination. The evidence of

workman cannot be considered as he did not make himself

available for cross-examination. The evidence of workman

was closed on 8-4-2010. Management filed affidavit of

evidence of witness Shri B.B.Singh. Witness of

management supported contentions in Written Statement

filed by IInd party. That performance of workman during

probation period was not satisfactory despite of warnings

and extension of probation period, no improvement was

shown in behavior and conduct of workman. Workman

failed to cross-examine management’s witness. Evidence

of management’s witness remained unchallenged. I find

no reason to disbelieve evidence of management’s

witness. It appears service book is produced on record by

IInd party. For absence of evidence in support of claim of

workman, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

Action of the management of Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria (MP) in terminating the services of

Shri Tikaram Kol S/o Shri Gayadeen Kol w.e.f.

3-10-66 is proper and legal.

(2)

Ist party workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5411

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2085-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj U;w bafM;k

,';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 200@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@12@98&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2014

S.O.

2085.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 200/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of New

India Assurance Co. Ltd. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-17012/12/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, the 23rd May, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-200/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No-119/1999(old)

The Assistant Manager,

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Opp. Nehru Bridge,

Ahemdabad (Gujarat) 380001

. . .First Party

AND

Their Workman

Shri H.K. Rathod

Gujarat Rajya Ardgsarjaru Audhyogik

Karmachari Sangh

C/o Sh. P.H. Pathak,

F/2 Alap Flats,

Opp. Anjalee Cinema, Vasana Road,

Ahemdabad (Gujarat)

. . . Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Kishor V. Gadhia,

Advocate

For the Second Party :

Shri R.C. Pathak,

Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 17012/12/98/IR(B-II) dated

14.05.1999, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. is justified in terminating/

discontinuing the services of Sh. H.K Rathod w.e.f.

09.01.1998 and payment @ Rs. 25 per day only? If

not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to ?”

2. The case of the 2nd party workman Harshad K.

Rathod as per statement of claim (Ext.6) is that he worked

as class IV staff in the organisation of the 1st party for one

and half year continuously and when asked for

permanency in service then he was terminated w.e.f.

09.01.1998 illegally whereas he was class (iv) staff. He was

doing all works of class (iv) sub-staff but was being paid

daily meagre amount of Rs. 25 per day. He completed 240

days’ work in calendar year but he was not given notice or

one month notice pay and retrenchment compensation

and thus the 1st party has violated the provision of

section 25F of the I.D. Act and the 1st party kept new

person for the job performed by him and they have also

violated the provision of section 25G and 25H of I.D. Act.

He was not given payment slip, his attendance was not

taken on muster roll and thus the management of 1st party

adopted unfair labour practice. On these grounds, prayer

is for reinstatement with full back wages with cost of the

litigation.

3. As against this the case of the 1st party inter alia

as per written statement (Ext.8) is that the reference is not

maintainable, the workman (2nd party) has no valid cause

of action, the 2nd party is not a workman u/s. 2 (S) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 and the 1st party organisation is not an

industry u/s. 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The averment in the

statement of claim is not admitted and the 2nd party is to

strict proof of the averment. It has been denied that the

2nd party was absorbed as group ‘D’ employee and it is

denied that he ever claimed for permanency and has been

removed/terminated. It has been denied that the 1st party

has violated the provision of section 25F and 25G, H of the

I.D. Act. It has been denied that new workers have been

engaged in place of the 2nd party. It has been denied that

the 2nd party was exploited and the 1st party adopted

unfair labour practice. It is the case of the 1st party that

5412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

whenever the services of Shri H.K. Rathod were required,

he was engaged for specified period for specific job and

when permanent employee remained on leave, he was

engaged for leave period. The 2nd party was never

engaged as per recruitment rules of the 1st party

organisation. The 2nd party Shri H.K. Rathod worked

intermittently for 36 days in November and December 1996

and for 216 days from January to December 1997 and he

never completed 240 days in any calendar year and so he

was not entitled to get benefit under section 25F of the

I.D. Act. He was engaged on daily rated basis and he has

no right to the post and so not entitled for reinstatement

with back wages. On these scores prayer is to dismiss the

reference.

4. In view of the rival contention of the parties the

following issues are taken for consideration:

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable ?

(ii)

Whether the 2nd party Shri H.K. Rathod has any

valid cause of action ?

(iii)

Whether the 2nd party Shri H.K. Rathod has

completed 240 days’ work in calendar year

preceding his oral termination on 09.01.1998 ?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of the 1st

party (New India Assurance C. Ltd.) is justified

in terminating/discontinuing the services of

Sh. H. K. Rathod w.e.f. 09/01/1998 ?

(v)

Whether the 2nd party is entitled to any relief in

this case?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO. (iii) : The first party has produced 20

vouchers Ext. 12 Series) which are dated 22.04.1997,

09.05.1997, 23.05.1997, 06.06.1997, 26.07.1997, 14.08.1997,

21.08.1997, 05.09.1997, 03.10.1997, 17.10.1997, 30.10.1997,

03.11.1997, 07.11.1998, 12.12.1997, 26.12.1997, 18.02.197,

21.02.1997, 03.03.1997, 10.03.1997 and 21.03.1997 regarding

payment of wages @ Rs. 25 per day for the period of

works by the 2nd party H.K. Rathod in absence of regular

sub-staff for intermittent periods that go to connect and

corroborate the version of the 1st party as per W.S. that

the 2nd party worked for 216 days from January to

December 1997 only and not completed 240 days’ work

and in the year 1996 November and December he worked

for 36 days. The 2nd party has produced 3 vouchers for

the date 16.05.1997 towards charges of printing and 2

vouchers for the date 23.05.1997 and one voucher for the

date 29.05.1997 for cleaning and up keeping of premises

by H.K. Rathod and payment of charges. These are

produced with list Ext.22 on 04.03.2010. Ext.13 is the

seniority list of the regular sub-staff (class iv employee) in

which name of H.K. Rathod (2nd party) is not mentioned

naturally because he was not regularly appointed, rather

worked intermittently in leave period of sub-staff as per

Ext.12 series (20 Vouchers.

6. The 2nd party H.K. Rathod in his oral evidence

(Ext. 13) has supported the statement of claim that he

worked continuously for one and half year but the

documents above do not support that he worked

continuously rather go to show that he had not completed

240 days work in the year 1996 or 1997. He in cross-

examination admitted that he was not given appointment

letter and his service has been terminated orally on

09.01.1998. He also stated that there was no advertisement

in the newspaper, his written test was not taken and he

was being paid on daily rated basis. He does not know

who are junior employees to him and who are continued in

the company.

7. On the other hand, 1st party has examined Shri

Girish Sombhai Madhu vide Ext.19. He was working with

the 1st party since 13 years as an administrative officer

and that there are recruitment Rules in case of class IV

employees too, the names are being called for from

employment exchange and their interviews were taken and

appointments were given to successful candidates. The

2nd party H.K. Rathod admittedly has not under gone the

said procedure. The 1st party witness has supported the

W.S. that the 2nd party H.K. Rathod has worked for 36

days in November and December 1996 and 216 days in the

year 1997. He also stated that since after disengagement

of H.K. Rathod, no other person has been engaged by the

1st party as daily ratted worker. Nothing could have been

gained by the 1st party in cross-examination to discredit

his testimony. The 1st party has produced Recruitment

Rules of the 1st party organisation vide Ext.18 and it go to

show the method of recruitment in the cadre of class (iii)

and class (iv).

8. On behalf of the 1st party case law of Ayurvedic

Officer Vs. Jarambhai Kavabhia Vala [2006 (108) FLR. 699

(Gujarat H.C)] has been relied upon that temporary

employee on daily wages and his engagement on need of

work-his engagement was not retrenchment and so not

required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act.

Another case law of Hesenabibi Ahmadbhai Maniar Vs.

Sales Tax Commissioner [2008 (CLR 612) Gujarat H.C.] has

been relied. On the other hand the learned lawyer of the

2nd party has not filed any case law in support of stand.

9. As per discussion and consideration made above

I am of the considered view and therefore, find and hold

that the 2nd party Shri H.K. Rathod has not completed

240 days’ work in calendar year preceding alleged oral

termination/discontinuation w.e.f. 09.01.1998. This issue

is answered in negative and decided against the 2nd party.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5413

10. ISSUE NO. (iv): -As per findings to issue No.

(iii) in the foregoing paras and also in view of case law

reported in 2006 (108) FLR 699 and 2008 I CLR 612 (Supra)

the action of the management of the 1st party (New India

Assurance Co. Ltd.) is justified in terminating/

discontinuing the services of Sh. H.K. Rathod w.e.f.

09.01.1998. This issue is answered in affirmative.

11. ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii) :- The reference is not

maintainable and the 2nd party has no cause of action to

raise dispute.

12. ISSUE NO.(v) :- In view of the findings to issue

No. (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, the 2nd party

Shri H.K. Rathod is not entitled to any relief in this case.

The reference is accordingly dismissed. No order of

cost.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2086-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vksojfll cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 909@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@291@99&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2014

S.O. 2086.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 909/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-12012/291/99-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-

Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 6th January, 2014

Ajudication Order No. L-12012/291/99-IR(B-II)

New Delhi, dated: 29/02/2000

Reference (C.G.I.T.A.)No. 909/04

Reference (I.T.C) No. 42/2000 (old)

Reference (I.T.C) No. 01/2000 (old)

Indian Overseas Bank

The Regional Manager

Indian Overseas Bank

6th Floor, Manubhai Tower,

Sayajigunj, Baroda-390005

. . . First Party

AND

Their Workman

Sh. Tarunkumar R. Rawal

11, Kheda Jilla Bank Society

B/11 Kidney Hospital, Petlad Road,

Nadiad (Gujarat)-387001

. . . Second Party

Counsel for the First Party

: Shri Bhushan K. Oza,

Advocate

Counsel for the Second Party

: Shri Yusufkhan

S. Pathan, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi, vide its order No. L- 12012/291/99-IR(B-II) dated

29.02.2000 initially referred the Industrial Disputes specified

in the Schedule for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad which was subsequently by order in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 7-A read with sub-section

(1) of Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

recalled the said dispute pending before the Industrial

Tribunal, Ahmedabad and transferred it to Industrial

Tribunal, Nadiad for adjudication on the terms of reference

specified the Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Indian

Overseas Bank in orally terminating/discontinuing

the service w.e.f. 01.01.1999 of Shri Tarun Kumar

R. Rawal engaged as peon in station Road Branch,

Nadiad is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the

disputant entitled to ?”

2. The case of the 2nd party/workman as per

statement of claim (Ext.3) dated 08.07.2000 is that he was

engaged as daily rated peon at Nadiad branch of Indian

Overseas Bank on 03.09.1992 and he worked in that

capacity for 6 years till 31.12.1998 continuously without

any break, honestly and diligently. But he was verbally

terminated/discontinued w.e.f. 01.01.1999 without giving

one moth notice or notice pay in lieu of notice and

retrenchment compensation, contravening the provision

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

5414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

action of the 1st Party (management of Indian Overseas

Bank) is illegal, improper and unjustified and against the

principles of natural justice. The 2nd party has sought for

relief for reinstatement with fullback wages and to any

relief to which he is found entitled.

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

(Indian Overseas Bank) as per written statement (Ext.10)

is that the claims of the 2nd party as per statement of

claims are all false having no legs to stand, the reference is

not maintainable, the 2nd party has no cause of action.

The allegation as per Para 1 to 3 of claim statement are

untrue and are denied. It has been denied that the 2nd

party continuously worked as peon at Nadiad branch of

bank. The case of the of the 1st party is that the mother of

the 2nd party Bhanuben Rameshbhai Rawal was working

as sweeper in the Nadiad branch of Bank and so on her

recommendation the 2nd party was engaged as (Hungami)

temporary/daily rated wager in leave vacancy of the regular

class (iv) staff of the Bank intermittently whenever regular

messenger remained not present or in exigency of works.

The 2nd party has tried to get appointment through back

door entry which is not permissible in law. The 2nd party

never completed 240 days working days in calendar year

and so there is no reason to follow the provision of Section

25F of the I.D Act for notice or notice pay or to pay

retrenchment compensation. It has been denied that the

2nd party ever worked as regular class (iv) staff/peon. On

these scores, prayer is to dismiss the reference since the

2nd party is not entitled to get any relief.

4. In view of the rival contention of the parties, the

following issues are taken for discussion and

consideration:

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable ?

(ii)

Has the 2nd party valid cause of action in this

case ?

(iii)

Whether the 2nd party Tarun Kumar Rawal

completed 240 working days in Calendar year

preceding his verbal termination on 31.12.1998 ?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of Indian

Overseas Bank (1st party) is legal and justified in

orally terminating/discontinuing the services of

Tarun Kumar Rawal (2nd party) w.e.f. 01.01.1999 ?

(v)

Whether the 2nd party is entitled to relief in this

case? If so, to what extent and what direction are

to be given ?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO. iii:- the 2nd party Tarun Kumar

deposed in oral evidence Ext.19 that he continuously

without break work as peon in the Nadiad branch of Bank.

He admitted that her mother Smt. Bhanuben is working in

the Bank as sweeper but denied that that on her

recommendation, the branch manager has employed him

as a daily wager. He deposed that Dineshbhai Makwana

had been promoted as clerk and transferred to other branch

of bank and nobody had come as regular peon and he was

doing job of peon in absence of any regular peon. However

he admitted in cross-examination that he was not appointed

as peon, he was not appointed by employment exchange

program, he did not have an interview call letter from Bank’s

Head Office or Regional Office, the regular employee are

paid at the end of the month and their salary deposed in

their Bank A/c whereas he was being paid by voucher he

has not submitted any application before Bank for

absorption as per permanent employee. The mother of the

2nd party Bhanuben vide Ext.25 also deposed in support

of her son that he alalong worked uninteruptly in Nadiad

branch of the Bank. However she admitted that the Bank

manger had asked her that if she knows someone who can

work in exigencies on temporary basis in the bank then

she suggested her son’s name and that her son Tarun was

engaged for work.

6. The 1st party (Bank) has not examined any

witness to substantiate such contention that 2nd party

TarunKumar Rawal had been engaged as daily wager

intermittently and in exigencies of work and he never work

continuously from 1992 to 1998. Whereas per oral evidence

of Tarun (2nd party) and her mother Smt. Bhanuben, he

(Tarun) continuously worked in the Nadiad branch of Bank

from 03.09.1992 to 31.12.1998 for 6 years and about 4

months.

7. Now coming to examine the documentary

evidence of the parties. The 2nd party has produced 65

documents as per list Ext.18 which were given pucca

exhibits 22 series. Ext.22/1 to 22/63 are zerox copy of

vouchers for the year 1993 till July 1995. The vouchers are

made under different heads like wages and misc. works for

which Tarun was paid towards his wages. Most of

Vouchers are regarding wages of the 2nd party for the

works on monthly basis. Ext. 22/64 and 22/65 are letters of

the Indian Overseas Bank, Nadiad branch addressed to

the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Nadiad branch dated

25.11.1997 and addressed to the Treasury Officer Nadiad

dated 13.05.1998 respectively through which the 2nd party

had been authorized to receive the proceed from Bank of

Baroda and had also been authorized to collect stamp on

behalf of the Bank from Treasury Nadiad. These all speaks

a volume that the 2nd party was performing the duty of

peon/messenger also because the branch of Indian

Overseas bank, Nadiad was expressing faith in the works

of the 2nd party Tarun Rawal.

8. On behalf of the 1st party 43 and 72 vouchers as

per list Ext. 16 and 17 respectively have been produced

but none of these vouchers are regarding wages of the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5415

days of works monthly have been produced rather these

vouchers are for the year 1994 and 1995 regarding payment

of miscellaneous charge to the 2nd party Tarun Kumar

Rawal viz Napkin washing charge, water filling charges,

washing charges etc. These vouchers have been given

pucca Exhibit Ext.20 series and Ext.21 series. The 2nd party

had demanded from the 1st party for production of

vouchers regarding payment of wages monthly according

to days of work of the 2nd party right from the year 1992

up to 31.12.1999 as per Ext.12 but the 1st party did not

produce such vouchers. Instead the 1st party has produced

vouchers of misc. works done by the 2nd party during the

year 1994 and 1995 regarding payment of charges of water

filling, washing etc. on the other hand, the 63 zerox copies

of vouchers (Ext. 22 series) are for the year 1992 and onward

up to the year 1995 which includes payment of misc.

charges and also wages for the days of works indicated in

the vouchers @ Rs. 30 per day. Several vouchers go to

show 2nd party as daily rated wager on order to conceal

the true facts and on the contrary to show only part of the

factum of work done by the 2nd party like water filling,

washing etc. But that only status of the 2nd party is

discarded through Ext.22 series (Ext.22/1 to 22/63) and

Ext.22/64 and 22/65 already discussed at Para No.7 above.

Ext.22/64 and 22/65 go to reveal that the work of the 2nd

party Tarun Rawal was not only of water filling and napkin

washing work etc. only trying to be shown by the 1st

party through Ext.20 and 21 series rather speaks a volume

that the 2nd party was also working a like a peon/messenger

in the Nadiad branch of Bank and branch manager showing

faith in his work in absence of regular peon who had been

promoted to class III post and had been transferred to

other branch.

9. The documentary evidence of the 2nd party go

to show works of the 2nd party as daily worker/casual

worker in continuity from the year 1992 to 1998 which are

prevailing upon the documentary evidence produced by

the 1st party trying to minimize the period of work by the

2nd party for the year 1994 and 1995. More so, the oral

evidence of the 2nd party Tarun kumar (Ext.19) and also

the oral evidence of her mother Smt. Bhanuben

Rameshbhai Rawal (Ext.25) who was working as sweeper

in the branch for the last 23 years clearly prove that the

2nd party Tarun Kumar Rawal completed 240 working days

in every calendar year. The 2nd party has successfully

discharged his such initial onus that he continuously

worked as daily wager/casual worker right from 1992 to1998

and had worked 240 days in calendar year. The onus shifted

to the 1st party to disprove such position but the

1st party has failed to dismiss the position by not

producing voucher as demanded vide Ext.12 and by not

producing attendance register, muster roll etc. as demanded

by the 2nd party. Only denial as per pleadings (w.s.) is not

substantive piece of evidence. More so, the 1st party did

not adduce oral evidence. The written argument on behalf

of the 1st party, ext.35 is not convincing and tenable in

comparison to the written arguments on behalf of the

2nd party (Ext.34) which is supported by oral and

documentary evidence discussed above in the foregoing

para as No.5,6,7,8, and 9 above.

10. Thus as per discussion and consideration made

in the fore goings the Issue No. iii is answered in favour of

the 2nd party that he (Tarun Kumar) completed 240 working

days in calendar year preceding his verbal termination on

31.12.1998.

11. ISSUE NO. iv:- Since the 2nd party workman

had completed 240 working days in calendar year preceding

his oral termination so there was requirement by the

1st party for issuing one month notice before retrenchment

or to pay notice pay and retrenchment compensation to

the 2nd party Shri Tarun Kumar R. Rawal under the

provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes act,

1947. But the management of the 1st party has failed to

comply with such mandatory provision of I.D. Act and

has thus render itself liable for contravention of such

mandatory provisions of law. So this issue is decided

against the 1st party holding that the action of the

management of Indian Overseas Bank is illegal and justified

in orally terminating/discontinuing the services of Tarun

Kumar R. Rawal w.e.f. 01.01.1999.

12. ISSUE NO.v: It has been argued on behalf of

the 2nd party that since the 1st party has violated the

provision of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, so the 2nd party (workman) is entitled for

reinstatement to the status on which he was working prior

to his termination with back wages and continuity of

service. In this connection, reliance has been pleased upon

a case law reported in 2010 lab I.C.(Noc) 435 Bombay and

lab IC 1105 Himachal Pradesh. On the other hand it has

been argued on behalf of the 1st party that even if the

workman is found to have completed 240 days of work in

some calendar years , he as a matter of right cannot claim

for reinstatement because the status of the 2nd party

(workman) is of daily rated worker who was getting wages

on calculation of days of work in a month and that there is

no proof that the 2nd party was getting other benefits

other than daily rated wages at par with the permanent

employee like bonus, increment etc. It has been also argued

that at best the workman Tarun can get compensation due

to noncompliance of provision of Section 25F of the I.D

Act, 1947 by the 1st party. He also placed reliance on the

case law of Hon’ble Apex Court- Senior Superintendent,

Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal vs. Santoshkumar Seal & others

[2010 (6) SCC 773=2010 111 CLR 17].

13. Prior to decision of the Division Bench of the

Apex Court (2010 111 CLR17) and in the case law of Jagbir

Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and

another (2009) 15 SCC 377 and also catena of decision of

5416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, earlier view was that if

termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the

relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily

follows. Now in the recent past there has been change of

view and that instead of reinstatement appropriate

compensation should be awarded to the workman.

14. So the 2nd party workman Tarun Kumar Rawal

who was a daily rated worker cannot claim as a matter of

right for reinstatement with back wages because he was

not holding a post as that of regular employee considering

his continuity of service as daily rated works for more

than 6 years during which the management of bank had

clearly expressed faith in him for the work of messenger as

per Ext.22/64 and 22/65, a lump sum amount of

compensation of Rs. One lakh only (Rs. 1 lakh) will be just

and proper that would sub serve the ends of justice.

15. Accordingly this issue is answered that the

2nd party is entitled to the relief of compensation of

Rs. One lakh from the 1st party.

16. ISSUE NO. i and ii : in view of the findings to

Issue No iii, iv and v in the foregoing, I further find and

hold that the reference is maintainable and the 2nd party

has valid cause of action.

The reference is accordingly allowed. No order to

any cost.

The 1st party is directed to pay the compensation of

Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. One lakh only) in one lump sum through

cheque or draft in the name of the 2nd party workman

Shri Tarun Kumar R. Rawal within 60 days of the receipt of

copy of award, failing which the amount of compensation

will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2087-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@87@98&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2014

S.O.

2087.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/99)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/07/2014.

[No. L-12012/87/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/52/99

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Shivnarayan Chouhan,

S/o Gannulal Chouhan,

H.No.412,

Rameshwar Nagar,

Opp.Shri Balli Mishra,

Khandwa

. . . Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Bank of India, Regional Office,

Pandhana Road,

Khandwa (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of June 2014

1. As per letter dated 31-12-98 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

87/98-IR(B-II) The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India in terminating the services of Shri Shivnarayan

Chouhan w.e.f. 3-4-97 is legal and justified? If not to

what relief the said workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the partis. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that is continuously

working in establishment of IInd party from 3-10-91. His

service rendered was satisfactory. He was working with

devotion. IInd party is covered as an Industry under

Section 2(j) of I.D.Act. He was orally engaged on 3-10-91.

He was continuously working till 3-4-97. He worked more

than 240 days during each of the year. Despite of

completing 240 days continuous service, he was not given

benefit of bipartite settlement. His services were not

regularized. He was not given benefit of Provident Fund,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5417

Gratuity, Bonus, Overtime. His services were terminated

without notice. Workman was told on 3-4-97 that his

services were no more required as employees were

recruited, he should go back. His services were terminated

in violation of section 25-F of I.D.Act. the discontinuation

of workman amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)

of I.D.Act. he was not paid retrenchment compensation.

The principles of last come first go were not followed.

Termination of his services is no in violation of Section

25-F, G, of I.D.Act. He was not provided re-employment as

such IInd party violated Section 25-H of I.D.Act. On such

grounds, workman prays for his reinstatement with back

wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to

8/3. IInd party submits that workman was not permanent

employee of IInd party. There was no question of his

retrenchment. It is denied that workman was engaged on

3-10-91. It is denied that he was continuously working

with IInd party. There is no evidence to support above

contentions of workman. It is denied that workman was

orally engaged. It is denied that workman had completed

240 days continuous service. It is denied that workman

was illegally denied benefit of Provident Fund, Gratuity,

Insurance, overtime wages . According to IInd party,

workman was not its employee. There was no question

of giving all those benefits to him. Workman was engaged

as per exigencies. Bonus was paid considering eligibility.

As workman was not appointed as regular employee, there

was no question of his retrenchment and paying

compensation. Workman is not entitled to reliefs claimed

by him. It is denied that services of workmen are terminated

in violation of Section 25-F, G. H of I.D.Act. IInd party

prays for rejection of claim. Ist party workman filed

rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/4 reiterating its contentions in

statement of claim. Workman has reiterated that he

completed 240 days continuous service during the period

October 1991 to April 1997. He is employee defined under

I.D.Act. His services are terminated without following

statutory provisions. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

“(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Bank of

India in terminating the

services

Shri

Shivnarayan Chouhan

w.e.f. 3-4-97 is legal and

justified ?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

5. Workman is challenging termination of his

services for violation of Section 25-F, G,H of I.D.Act.

Material contentions of workman are denied. Workman

filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman has stated that

he was engaged as Daftary on 3-10-91in Bombay Market

Branch, Khandwa. He was paid Rs. 2000/- per month. He

says that he was distributing dak, he was working at

different counters, he was arranging notes in bundles etc.

his services were discontinued from 3-4-97. After

discontinuing workman, IInd party engaged other person.

He had completed 240 days continuous service in 1996. In

his cross-examination, workman says he had not received

appointment letter, he was engaged by Branch Manager

R.R.Jain, the post was not advertised, his name was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange, he was not

interviewed. Mr. R.R.Jain was not acquainted with

workman. Senior most peon was working as Daftary. He

was paid wages on monthly basis. The wages for working

days as per monthly basis were paid to him. Sometimes

payment were made directly. He was unable to tell how

many vouchers were signed by him. He was unable to tell

how many days he worked in 1994. He was maintaining

diary during 1994 to 1997. He claims ignorance whether

he was engaged on daily wages on basis of reimbursement

by Branch Manager. He also claims ignorance whether he

was working 12-15 days in a month. No other witness is

examined by workman.

6. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri

Charanjeet Singh Saluja. The witness of the management

says that Branch Manager is not Appointing Authority.

Appointments can be made with prior approval of Regional

Manager. That Branch Manager in order to ensure smooth

customer service, have to engage persons whenever there

is a temporary increase in the casual nature of work. That

the workman was never appointed against any permanent

vacancy. There was no question of his termination on

3-4-97. Management’s witness denies that workman was

engaged from 3-10-91 to April 1997. Management’s witness

was not cross-examined on behalf of workman. His

evidence become unchallenged. Management filed

affidavit of evidence of witness Omprakash Nema. Witness

of management says that Branch Manager was not

competent to appoint any staff in the Bank with prior

approval of the Ministry of Finance. That Regional

Manager/Zonal Manager with prior approval of Ministry

of Finance is competent to appoint sub-staff after fulfilling

Central Govt. directions. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness says that the vouchers are to be

taken form one table to other in the Bank. Sweeping work

was also required to be done. When regular employee

was absent, such work was done from other employees.

The wages were paid by voucher. The witness was unable

5418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to tell whether any register about voucher was maintained,

he was unable to tell that more than 200 vouchers were

entered in said register. Workman was not paid

retrenchment compensation. The evidence of workman is

not corroborated about his working for more than 240 days

preceding his discontinuation of his services. Any co-

employee is not examined by workman. Even zerox copies

of documents with list at Page 12, no care is taken to

prove the documents.

7. Learned counsel for Ist party workman submits

that workman had completed 240 days continuous service.

His services are illegally terminated without notice. No

retrenchment compensation is paid. In support of his

argument, learned counsel Shri Ashok Shrivastava relies

on ratio held in

Case of Officer Incharge Defence Standardization

Cell versus Mukesh Kumar reported in 2013-LAB.I.C.3329.

Their Lordship of Delhi High Court considering practice

of giving appointment to workman on monthly basis and

renewing it every month for a period of 3 years to defeat

rights of workman amounts to unfair labour practice.

Reliance is also placed on ratio held in case of

Hariram Sen and M.P.Housing Board and another reported

in 2013/139/FLR-517. Their Lordship considering the

services of Petitioner dispensed with on 29-2-2000. He

was employed as chowkidar continuously w.e.f. 2-4-92 .

Provisions under section 25-F were not followed and not

complied before retrenching workman. Their Lordship set-

aside the impugned award.

The facts of present case are not comparable. There

is no cogent evidence to corroborate evidence of workman

that he was continuously working for more than 240 days

from 1991 to 1997. Therefore ratio held in this case cannot

be applied to the case at hand. For the same reasons, ratio

held in case of Chaudhary Baldevbhai Hiralal and Kheralu

Municipal Borough reported in 2013-139-FLR-388 cannot

be applied to case at hand. There is no cogent evidence

about continuous working of workman from October 1991

to April 1997.

In case of Shri Devinder Singh versus Municipal

Council Sanaur reported in 2011(4)MPLJ relied by learned

counsel for workman. Their Lordship held definition of

term retrenchment is quite comprehensive. It covers every

type of termination of service of a workman by the employer

for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment

inflicted by way of disciplinary action. The cases of

voluntary retirement of the workman, retirement on

reaching the age of superannuation, termination of service

as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment

or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation

contained therein or termination of the service of a workman

on the ground of continued ill health also donot fall within

the ambit of retrenchment.

Their Lordship upheld award for reinstatement. The

interference by High Court on ground of delay was

confirmed not justified. The facts of present case are not

comparable. That workman has failed to adduce cogent

evidence about completed 240 days continuous service.

The termination of service of workman cannot be said

illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding on Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

8. Point No.2 : In view of my finding in Point No.1 as

workman has failed to adduce cogent evidence about 240

days continuous service, termination of his service cannot

be said illegal for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D.Act.

There is no question of his reinstatement, leaving apart

the back wages.

9. Learned counsel for IInd party on point of

reinstatement with full back wages relies on ratio held in

case of Jagbir Singh versus Haryana State Agriculture

Marketing Board and another reported in 2009(150

Supreme court Cases 327. Reliance is also placed in case

of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development

Corporation and another versus Gitam Singh reported in

2013(5) Supreme Curt Cases 136. As workman has failed to

establish 240 days continuous service and violation of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act, there is no question of

reinstatement with back wages. Principle laid down in those

cases therefore needs no detail discussion. Workman is

not entitled to any of the relief claimed by him. Accordingly

I record my finding in Point No.2.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Bank of India in

terminating the services of Shri Shivnarayan

Chouhan w.e.f. 3-4-97 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2088-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v- 100@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&31011@5@2005&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2014

S.O.

2088.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5419

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 100/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Mumbai Port Trust and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-31011/5/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/100 of 2005

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman,

Mumbai Port Trust,

Port Bhavan,

Ballard Estate,

Mumbai 400 038.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary

Mumbai Port Trust Dock and General Employees

Union,

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Road

Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 100.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Mr. Umesh Nabar,

Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. J. H. Sawant,

Advocate.

Mumbai, the 6th June, 2014

AWARD PART-II

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-31011/5/2005-IR (B-II), dated

22.08.2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the

following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Mumbai

Port Trust by imposing the punishment of reducing

the pay by five stages in respect of Shri M.KI.

Raghuvansh, Security Guard is justified? If not,

what relief the workman, Shri M.K. Raghuvansh is

entitled to?”

2. The workman in this reference is a permanent

employee of the first party serving as a Security Guard. It

was alleged that he was involved in a theft and thereafter

he remained wilfully absent in order to avoid his arrest.

The first party served him with a charge sheet and domestic

inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry

Officer held the workman guilty and on his report the

management terminated the services of the second party

workman. A criminal case was also filed against the

workman in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. In that

case Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the workman. The

workman preferred appeal against the order of termination

passed by the management. The Appellate Authority in

the light of acquittal by Criminal Court thought it proper

to take lenient view. He set aside the order of termination.

Instead of that the punishment of reducing the pay by

five stages was imposed upon the workman. The workman

has raised industrial dispute. In Award Part-I this Tribunal

held that inquiry was fair and proper. The Tribunal also

held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse

and parties were directed to lead their evidence or submit

their argument on the point whether the punishment is

shockingly disproportionate. Now in this Part-II Award

issues before me are (1) Whether the punishment is

disproportionate? Meaning thereby whether the

punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved

misconduct? (2) What relief concerned workman can get?

3. In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the

second party that the workman has not committed any

mischief as has been alleged and due consideration should

be given to the judgement of acquittal given by the

Metropolitan Magistrate. Therefore it is prayed that the

punishment awarded by the management be set aside. As

against this it was submitted on behalf of the first party

that the acquittal recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate

need not be taken into account as standard of proof

required in criminal cases is very high. Whereas in the

domestic inquiry mere preponderance of probability

suffices the purpose and the said point was elaborately

discussed in deciding the issue of perversity of findings

in Part-I Award. Therefore it is rightly submitted on behalf

of the first party that the second party workman cannot

rely upon the judgement of acquittal given by the

Metropolitan Magistrate while considering the

punishment whether it is shockingly disproportionate to

the proved misconduct.

4. In this respect the ld. adv. for the first party

further submitted that, under Section 11 A of Industrial

Disputes Act, the Industrial Tribunal has limited

jurisdiction and can give appropriate relief in case of

5420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

discharge and dismissal of a workman. In the case at hand

the punishment awarded to the workman is not discharge

or dismissal. His pay was reduced to five stages. Therefore

under Section 11-A the Tribunal cannot interfere in the

punishment of reduction of pay. In this case further I

would like to point out that the workman herein was held

guilty for theft and for remaining wilfully absent to avoid

the arrest by the Inquiry Officer. For the said misconduct,

initially the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment

of termination. The workman preferred appeal and the

Appellate Authority has given due consideration to the

judgement of acquittal given by Metropolitan Magistrate

and set aside the order of dismissal. Instead of that he

awarded punishment of reducing pay of the workman by

five stages. Such a punishment cannot be called

disproportionate or shockingly disproportionate to

interfere with. In the circumstances I come to the

conclusion that the judgement of acquittal by Metropolitan

Magistrate cannot extend any help to the workman in

interfering with the punishment as has been argued. On

the other hand the punishment of reducing pay by five

stages needs no interference as the same is quite adequate

to the proved misconduct. Accordingly I decide this issue

no.3 in the negative. Consequently I hold that the workman

is not entitled to any relief and thus decide this issue no.4

also in the negative and proceed to pass the following

order:

ORDER

The reference stands rejected with no order as to

cost.

Date: 06.06.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2089-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ Mh ch

vkbZ cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2009)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@109@2007&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2014

S.O.

2089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 20/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of IDBI Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/07/2014.

[No. L-12012/109/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/20 of 2009

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

BANK OF INDIA LTD.

The Deputy General Manager (ER),

IDBI Bank, HR Deptt. IDBI Ltd.

21st floor, D-Wing

IDBI Tower, WTC Complex

Cuffe Parade

Mumbai-400 005.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Smt. Vaidhehi S. Pathak,

10, Pitruchaya,

Society Road,

Above Indian Overseas Bank,

Jogeshwari (E),

Mumbai 400 060.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. R. S Pai, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. Vinod T. Mirajkar,

Advocate

Mumbai, the 30th May, 2014.

AWARD PART-I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-12012 / 109 /2007-IR (B-II),

dated 02.03.2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Industrial

Development Bank of India (IDBI) in imposing the

penalty of ‘Dismissal from service” on Smt. Vaidehi

S. Pathak is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workmen is entitled to?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5421

2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice second

party workman filed her statement of claim at Ex-6.

According to the second party workman she was

employee of the first party and was working as

Receptionist. Her pay was Rs.19,000/-p.m. While she was

working as Receptionist the first party issued a charge-

sheet dt. 15/7/2005. The charges were levelled against her

of habitual absence without leave, wilful insubordination

and habitual breach of law etc. The charges levelled

against her were totally false, vague and baseless.

According to her, she was on leave and requested for

extension of leave on medical ground. However as the

first party had planned for victimising her, they decided

to hold a domestic inquiry of the aforesaid charges. They

appointed Mr. Gogia, rank Outsider as an Inquiry Officer.

The appointment of Mr. Gogia and his findings and report

against the second party was given for enabling the first

party to terminate the services of second party. The I.O.

violated the principles of natural justice while conducting

the domestic inquiry. He did not give fair and proper

opportunity to the second party to defend herself against

the charges levelled against her. There was no oral or

documentary evidence against the second party. In spite

of that I.O. held her guilty. She was not given a fair

opportunity to defend herself and to examine her

witnesses. The I.O. used to shout and rush towards the

second party. The second party was in the advanced

stage of pregnancy. She was demoralised and depressed

and could not defend herself in the domestic inquiry. The

domestic inquiry is not fair and proper and the findings of

the I.O. are perverse.

3. On the basis of report and findings of Inquiry

Officer management has illegally terminated her services.

Therefore the second party raised industrial dispute. As

conciliation failed, on the report of ALC (C), the Central

Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal. The

second party workman prays that the order of termination

passed by the first party be quashed and set aside and the

first party be directed to reinstate the second party with

full back-wages and continuity of service alongwith all

consequential benefits w.e.f. 12/12/2006 and also prays

for cost and compensatory cost.

4. The first party resisted the claim vide its written

statement at Ex-8. According to them the reference is not

tenable as the second party was not a workman. On the

other hand she was recruited as Trainee Officer and at the

time of termination she was Grade-III Officer in the position

of Secretary. Therefore she being an officer cannot raise

this dispute. According to them the second party workman

was served with the charge-sheet. She has replied the

charge sheet. Mr. Gogia was appointed as Inquiry Officer.

He conducted the inquiry. Sufficient opportunity was

given to the second party to defend herself. Mr. Prakash

Shinde, Secretary of the Union was her defence

representative. Copies of all the documents were given to

the second party workman. Second party was also allowed

to lead her evidence. The I.O. on the strength of documents

on record and after hearing both the parties recorded the

findings and submitted his report. Copy of the report was

sent to the workman. After giving hearing to the workman,

the punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the

workman. The I.O. followed the principles of natural

justice. The contention of violation thereof is false. The

charges are proved on the strength of documentary

evidence on record for which punishment of dismissal is

appropriate. The inquiry was fair and proper. The findings

of the I.O. are not perverse. Therefore they pray that the

reference be dismissed with cost.

5. Following are issues for my determination. I record

my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the inquiry is fair

Yes

and proper?

Whether the findings of the

I.O. are perverse?

REASONS

Issue No. 1 :

6. According to the second party workman the

Inquiry Officer has not conducted the inquiry as per the

Model Standing Orders. According to the ld. adv. for the

second party the standing orders have over riding effect

over other provisions of law. In support of his argument,

the ld. adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling U.P. State

Electricity Board & Ors. V/s. Hari Shankar Jain and Ors

1978 (37) FLR 280 wherein the Apex Court observed that;

“We are clearly of the view that the provisions of

Standing Orders Act must prevail over Section 79 C

of Electricity Supply Act in regard to matters to

which the Standing Orders Act applies.”

7. On the point the ld. adv. also cited Mumbai High

Court ruling in Sitaram Tukaram Valunj V/s. Municipal

Corporation Mumbai in Writ Petiton no. 8711 of 2007

wherein Hon’ble High Court observed that;

“Model Standing Orders are part of every contract

of employment. A breach of Model Standing Orders

will therefore amount to breach of item 9 of Schedule

IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union

and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971.”

8. The ld. adv. also cited another Bombay High

Court ruling in Municipal Corporation V/s. Laxman Saidoo

Timmanapyati & Ors. 1991 (I) CLR 653 wherein the Hon’ble

Court observed that;

“Model Standing Orders will prevail over the

Municipal Rules.”

5422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9. The Ld. Adv. also cited another Madras High

Court ruling in Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Water Board

& Anr. V/s. M.D. Vijaykumar & Ors. 1991 (I) CLR 677

Hon’ble Court held that;

“Standing Order Act is special law and it will prevail

over regulations framed by respondent under Tamil

Nadu Act IV of 1971.”

10. The ld. adv. also cited another Bombay High

Court ruling in Pyarelal V/s Municpal Council Ramtek &

Anr. 1992 (I) CLR 327 wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court

held that;

“It is the industrial law which has to be treated as a

special law and therefore must prevail over the

general law.”

11. In this respect the ld. adv. for the first party

submitted that the inquiry officer has followed the

provisions of the Model Standing Orders and conducted

the inquiry by following the Model Standing Orders and

the Principles of Natural Justice. In this respect it was

pointed out on behalf of the second party that the inquiry

officer has not recorded the evidence in Marathi.

According to him it was gross error on the part of the

Inquiry Officer. In this respect I would like to point out

that the I.O. has not recorded statement of any witnesses.

His report is based on documentary evidence on record.

Therefore question of recording evidence in Marathi does

not arise. Therefore the contention of the workman is

devoid of merit that the I.O. has not followed the provisions

of Model Standing Order and has not conducted the

inquiry in Marathi language. In this respect I would like to

point out that though inquiry is conducted in Marathi it

can be recorded in English and such a procedure is not in

violation of Model Standing Order.

12. On the point Bombay High Court ruling can be

referred in National Organic Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. V/s.

Pandit Ladaku Patil 2008 III CLR 716 wherein the inquiry

was conducted in Marathi and the evidence was recorded

in English. The Hon’ble Court held that, the inquiry cannot

be quashed for following such a procedure of recording

evidence in English. There is no other instance pointed

out on behalf of the workman in respect of violating the

Model Standing Order. It was pointed out that the Inquiry

Officer has not recorded any oral evidence. However when

there is sufficient documentary evidence on record, and

facts are admitted, it is not always necessary to examine

witness in the inquiry proceeding.

13. In this respect I would like to point out that the

charges against the workman was habitual absenteeism.

Workman has also admitted in her pleading that she was

on leave and she had sought for extension of leave on

medical ground which was rejected and the inquiry was

initiated against her for habitual absenteeism. It was based

on record and documents as well as admission of the

workman. Therefore there was no need to examine any

witness.

14. In this respect the ld. adv. for the first party

submitted that when inquiry is challenged as not fair and

proper the burden to prove the same is always on the

person who challenges the fairness of the inquiry. In the

case at hand the according to the ld. adv. for the first party

the workman failed to lead any evidence to show that the

inquiry was not fair and proper. In support of his argument

the ld. adv. resorted to Division Bench ruling of Hon’ble

Bombay High Court in Narang Latex & Dispersions Pvt.

Ltd. V/s. S. V. Suvarna (Mrs.) & Anr. 1994 (ii) CLR 51 Bom.

Wherein the Hon’ble Court observed that;

“…..on the principle that the burden would lie on

the party who would fail if no evidence is led by

either of the parties, it would be for the workman to

lead evidence first in order to show that the domestic

inquiry is not fair and proper and therefore the order

of dismissal is wrongful.”

15. The ld. adv for the first party in respect of

fairness of inquiry pointed out that the Apex Court has

laid down the five conditions for fair and proper inquiry in

Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. V/s. Their Workmen

1963 II LLJ 367. They are :

(1)

The employee proceeded against has been

informed clearly of the charges levelled against

him.

(2)

The witnesses are examined-ordinarily in the

presence of the employee in respect of the charges.

(3)

The employee is given a fair opportunity to cross

examine witnesses.

(4)

He is given a fair opportunity to examine

witnesses including himself in his defence if he

so wishes on any relevant matter and

(5)

The inquiry officer records his findings with

reasons for the same in his report.

16. In the case at hand the ld. adv. pointed out that

the workman was served with the charge sheet. She was

served with copies of the documents on which

management relied upon. She was given opportunity to

defend herself. She was also given an opportunity to

examine witness including herself. The inquiry Officer

has recorded his findings with reasons for the same. In

the circumstances no fault can be found in the inquiry

proceeding. Thus I hold that the inquiry was fair and

proper.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5423

Issue No. 2 :

17. In respect of findings of the Inquiry Officer the

ld. adv. for the second party submitted that the inquiry

officer has not given findings that the workman was wilfully

absent from duty. Mere absence does not amount to

misconduct. In support of his argument, ld. adv. for the

second party cited Apex Court ruling in Krishnakant

B. Parmar V/s. Union of India & Anr. 2012 I CLR 753

wherein the Hon’ble Court held that disciplinary authority

failed to establish that appellant’s absence from duty was

wilful. In the absence of such finding, the absence from

duty will not amount to misconduct. The facts of that case

are altogether different. The workman therein was not

allowed to sign the attendance register and allowed to

join his duties. Therefore he was shown absent. In such

circumstances where officer of the management had

restrained the workman from attending his duty or where

due to accident or serious illness, if workman is prevented

from attending duty, in such circumstances the absence

cannot be called wilful absence. In the case at hand the

workman was already on leave. She had applied for

extension of her leave which was refused. It is not the

case of the workman that she was seriously ill or admitted

in a hospital or totally unable to attend her duties. In the

circumstances the ruling referred on behalf of the workman

is not applicable to the set of facts of the present case.

The findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on the

documentary evidence on record. Though documents

were not formally proved by the management, they are the

documents maintained during the course of business.

They are not challenged by the second party workman as

false or fabricated documents. On the other hand in her

reply before the Inquiry Officer the workman has admitted

certain facts. In the circumstances it was not necessary to

prove the documents by examining any witness. It is a

sheer formality and wastage of time. The findings of the

inquiry officer are based on the record of the office

maintained by the first party during the course of its

business. Therefore such entries can be very well read in

evidence. In the circumstances conclusion can be arrived

at that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are consistent to

the documentary evidence before him and cannot be called

perverse. Accordingly I decide this issue no.2 in the

negative and proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

(i)

The inquiry held against the workman is found

to be fair and proper.

(ii)

The findings of the Inquiry Officer are not

perverse.

(iii)

Both parties to argue /lead evidence on the point

of quantum of punishment.

Date: 30/05/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2090-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 5@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&31011@20@2007&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2014

S.O.

2090.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Mormugao

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-31011/20/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/5 of 2008

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF MORMUGAO PORT TRUST

The Chairman,

Mormugao Port Trust,

Headland Sada,

Goa 403 804.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

The President,

Mormugao Port & Railway Workers Union,

Main Administrative Office Building,

Mormugao Port Trust,

Headland Sada,

Goa 403 804.

5424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. M. B. Anchan,

Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN :

Mr. P. Gaonkar,

Advocate

Mumbai, the 12th May, 2014.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-31011 / 20 /2007-IR (B-II),

dated 20.12.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of

Mormugao Port Trust in dismissing (Late) Shri

Yellappa Chalwadi, Sweeper from employment is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief Smt. Parvati Y.

Chalwadi, w/o. Late Shri Yellappa Chalwadi is entitled

for?”

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice second

party union has filed its statement of claim at Ex-10.

According to them (Late) Shri Yellappa Chalwadi, husband

of the second party Smt. Parvati Chelvadi was employee

of the first party since 25/09/1992. He was taken ill and

was admitted in the Hospital of the first party and he

expired on 16/04/2006 in the Hospital of first party. After

his death she approached the first party for settlement of

her legal dues and requested for employment on

compassionate ground. The first party refused to settle

her legal dues and refused to pay the pension and other

benefits. They also refused to give appointment on

compassionate ground. Therefore she approached the ALC

(C), Vasco-da-Gama. However conciliation failed and on

the report of ALC (C), Goa the Labour Ministry sent the

reference to this Tribunal.

3. According to the second party on the day of

death the workman was on the muster roll of the first party.

His name was removed from muster roll since April 2006.

He was given gold coin in the year 2007. The gold coin is

given to the employees who were on roll of the company

on October, 2004. It indicates that the plea of the first

party is false that the workman was dismissed from service

prior to September, 2004. The deceased husband of the

second party was under treatment in the hospital of the

first party from January, 2003 to April, 2006. His name was

also on roll of the employer. Therefore he was given

treatment in the hospital. The plea of the employer that he

was dismissed from service is after thought only to avoid

the pension and other legal dues payable to the heirs of

the deceased. It is further contended that no proper inquiry

was conducted and the workman was not allowed to take

help of defence representative of his choice. Her husband

was continuously ill and was under treatment in the

hospital of first party. The said fact was not considered

by the Inquiry Officer and management. The wife of the

workman therefore prays that the dismissal of workman,

Yellappa Chalwadi be declared as illegal, improper and

unjustified. She also prays to direct the employer to pay

all legal dues of the workman. She also prays that first

party be directed to release pension of the workman from

the date of death of her husband. She also prays for

direction to the first party to consider her name for

appointment on compassionate ground.

4. The first party resisted the statement of claim

vide its written statement at Ex-14. According to the first

party (Late) Shri Yellappa Chalwadi, the Sweeper of the

company habitually and unauthorisedly remained absent

from duty w.e.f. 15/10/2003 without any intimation.

Therefore he was served with charge sheet dated 17/12/

2003. Subsequently departmental inquiry was held against

him. In the inquiry he was found guilty of the alleged

misconduct. After giving him show-cause notice dated

27/07/2004 he was awarded the punishment of removal

from service. He received the said order on 28/09/2004.

However he did not prefer any appeal against the order of

removal. Fair and proper opportunity was given to the

workman in accordance with the principles of natural

justice. The findings of the IO are based on oral and

documentary evidence on record. As the workman was

removed from service before his death, his wife and heirs

are not entitled to receive the pensionary and other

benefits. So also for the same reason name of his wife

cannot be considered for Compassionate appointment as

on the date of death, workman was not in service of the

first party. For GPF and salary dues, Smt. Parvati Chelwadi

was advised for some formalities which she is yet to

comply. The said amount would be paid to her after

deducting the amount recoverable from the workman. In

the circumstances the first party submitted that the wife

of the deceased workman is not entitled to the benefits of

arrears, gratuity and pension as workman was not in service

of the first party on the date of his death. Therefore the

first party prays that the reference be dismissed with cost.

5. Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow :

Sr. no.

Issues

Findings

(1)

(2)

(3)

Whether the inquiry was

Yes

legal and proper?

Whether the findings are

perverse?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5425

Whether the punishment is

Yes.

shockingly disproportionate

to the proved misconduct ?

What relief the legal heirs

As per

of deceased workman are

order

entitled to?

below.

What order?

As per final

order.

REASONS

Issue No.1 :

6. In this case the fact is not disputed that the

workman was absent from duty for long period. Therefore

memorandum was sent to him by post on his last known

address at Karnataka State in Bijapur District as well as on

his local address of Rajiv Hotel at Mormugoa. The envelop

sent at his local address returned with postal endorsement

“Hotel collapsed, returned to the sender”. The R.P.A.D.

letter sent to his native place the receipt there of did not

return back. Therefore the first party, i.e the disciplinary

authority thereof, had given public notices in various

newspapers. They were English Newspapers: The

Navhind Times and Herald as well as in Marathi Gomantak

and Tarun Bharat published from Goa. The first party also

published the notice in two Kannada papers they are

Karnataka and Vijay Karnataka. In spite of it the workman

did not appear. Therefore the Inquiry officer proceeded

ex-parte and concluded the inquiry. In this respect the

version of the second party is unacceptable that no notice

was served on workman and that the inquiry was held ex-

parte.

7. From the above referred record it is clear that the

first party has made every attempt to serve the workman

with notice of inquiry. They sent notices at his residential

address given by him as well as at his native address.

They have also published notice in English, Marathi and

Kannad newspapers. Inspite of that neither workman

appeared in the inquiry proceedings nor put his defence.

The first party left no stone unturned in making every

effort to serve the workman. Inspite of that workman

remained absent and the inquiry proceeded ex-parte. In

this backdrop the version of the workman is devoid of

merit that there was violation of Principles of Natural

Justice. Furthermore the fact is also not disputed that the

workman was absent throughout for the period alleged by

the first party. Only defence of the workman is that he was

taken ill. Therefore he could not attend the inquiry

proceeding. However neither workman had intimated his

superior or the concerned department nor had applied for

any type of leave. It was submitted on behalf of the

workman that the workman was under treatment in the

hospital of the first party and they were well aware about

the ill health of the workman.

8. In this respect it was pointed out on behalf of the

first party that the workman died in their hospital. However

he was not under treatment for a long period. He died on

the same day when he was taken to the hospital. He was

admitted in the hospital in a critical condition. As the

condition of the patient was critical, they admitted him

and started treatment. There is absolutely no record to

show that the workman was taken ill since 15/10/2003

continuously till the date of his death i.e. on 16/04/2006.

In the circumstances it is clear that inspite of notices and

public notices the workman did not appear before the

inquiry committee nor sent any intimation in respect of his

illness. The first party management has taken every effort

to serve the workman with notice. Inspite of that the

workman did not appear before the Inquiry Officer.

Therefore he was constrained to proceed exparte and

recorded his findings. In the circumstances I hold that the

inquiry was quite fair and proper.

Issue No. 2 :

9. In respect of findings of the I.O. it was pointed

out on behalf of the first party that the fact is not disputed

that the workman was absent throughout since 15/10/2003.

There is no evidence on record that either the workman

had given intimation to the management that he was taken

ill and unable to attend his duties or had applied for leave.

In the circumstances workman cannot justify his absence

by saying that he was taken ill, therefore he could not

attend his duties and the inquiry proceeding as well. His

absence from duty was no doubt unauthorised and without

any intimation or permission. Therefore I hold that the

findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on evidence on

record that the workman was unauthorisedly absent from

duty. Thus I also hold that the findings of the Inquiry

officer cannot be called perverse.

Issue No.3 & 4 :

10. Now the last but most important point is whether

the punishment of termination from services is shockingly

disproportionate to the proved misconduct of absenteeism.

In the case at hand from the fact and circumstances on

record it is revealed that the workman was absent from

duty since 15/10/2003 and in spite of notices sent and

published by inquiry officer, he remained absent.

Therefore inquiry proceeded and concluded ex-parte. The

I.O. held the workman guilty for misconduct of remaining

continuous absent for more than two years. Punishment

of termination of services for such continuous absenteeism

generally cannot be found fault with. However in the case

at hand I would like to point out that according to the

second party the workman was continuously ill. Therefore

he could not attend his duties. In this respect it was

pointed out on behalf of the first party that the second

(1)

(2)

(3)

5426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

party has not led any evidence in respect of illness of the

deceased worker. In this respect I would like to point out

that the deceased workman died in the hospital of the first

party on 16/04/2006. Furthermore, as workman expired,

his poor illiterate widow is not expected to get the papers

and documents. As workman expired who was the main

person and the sole earning member in the family, in his

absence the widow may not be in a position to obtain the

necessary documents. In this respect the fact is not

disputed that when the workman was admitted in the

hospital of the first party his condition was critical. This

fact indicates the possibility of illness of workman. In the

circumstances whatever little evidence and circumstances

are on record indicates possibility of illness of workman

during the period of his absence. Furthermore management

witness has admitted in his cross at Ex-39 that, in 2006

they have given gold coin to the workers who were on

their roll. He has not denied that the wife of the deceased

workman was also given a gold coin. He has admitted in

his cross that, name of the second party workman was on

muster roll till December 2005. In this backdrop I hold that

though the workman was found guilty for the misconduct

of continuous absenteeism, a sympathetic view is required

to be taken. In the interest of justice I think it would not be

proper to impose the punishment of termination

mechanically. During the period of his absence the

possibility of workman being taken ill and under treatment

cannot be ruled out. The workman and his widow are from

poor, illiterate background and they may not have informed

the authority about the illness of the workman. Their

ignorance and illiteracy should not come in their way. In

such circumstances punishment of termination from

service, for continuous absenteeism is found to be

shockingly disproportionate. Instead of that in the above

circumstances and to meet the end of justice a sympathetic

view is required to be taken. Thus instead of termination

of services, punishment of compulsory retirement with all

retirement and pensionary benefits would serve the

purpose. The period of his absence from 15/3/2003 to

16/04/2006 can be treated as extra ordinary leave without

pay. In the circumstances I decide this issue no.3 in the

affirmative. I also answer issue no.4 accordingly and

proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

(i)

The reference is partly allowed with no order as

to cost.

(ii)

The inquiry is declared as fair and proper.

(iii)

Findings of the Inquiry Officer are found not

perverse.

(iv)

The punishment of termination of services is held

shockingly disproportionate.

(v)

Punishment of compulsory retirement w.e.f.

16/04/2006 with all retirement and pensionary

benefits be substituted.

(vi)

The period of his absence from 15/10/2003 to

16/04/2006 be treated as extra ordinary leave

without pay.

(vi)

The legal heirs are entitled to get all the arrears,

retirement and pensionary benefits as per the

rules.

Date: 12/05/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2091-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-bZ-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 72@2005

,oa ,@1@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@284@2004&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O. 2091.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 72/05

and A/1/2010) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 18/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/284/2004-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/72/2005 & A/1/2010

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

The President,

Koyla Mazdoor Sabha,

Charcha colliery,

Distt. Korea,

Chhattisgarh

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5427

Chief General Manager,

Bainkuntpur Area,

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,

PO Baikuntpur,

Distt. Korea,

Chhattisgarh

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of June 2014

1. As per letter dated 8-7-05 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

284/2004-IR(CM-II).The dispute under reference relates

to :

Jh izHkqn;ky 'kqDyk firk Jh jksg.kh izlkn 'kqDyk] eSdsfudy

gSYij dk fyfid ds in ij fu;fefrdj.k ,ao lqlaxr

inksUufr u djds] ,ao muds dfu"d deZpkfj;ksa dks inksUufr

nsrs gq;s deZdkj dh lsokvksa dk vf/Øe.k dj D;k eq[;

egkizca/d] cSdqM.Biqj {ks=k ,l- bZ- lh- ,y- us U;k;ksfpr]

O;ogkj ,ao fofo/ dk;Zokgh dh gS \ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj

dks D;k vuqrks"k@jkgr feyuh pkfg;s \

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 7/1 to 7/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

appointed as General Mazdoor Category-I on 1-5-79. He

was working at E&M deptt. He was promoted to the post

of General Mazdoor Cat-II in 1983. He was working as

Attendance clerk and performing various clerical jobs. He

was maintaining attendance. Presently he is working in

office of Suptd. Engineer. In 1994-95, junior co-employees

were regularized as clerk. His name is figured in said list

but he was not considered for regularization. He was

performing duties of clerk. He had submitted several

representations for regularization on the post of clerk.

However he was not promoted or regularized on the post

of clerk. Rather he was promoted in General Mazdoor

Cadre. On such ground, he prays for his regularization on

the post of clerk and consequential benefits with seniority.

He prays for cost of Rs.10,000/-.

3. IInd party has filed Written Statement at Page 8/

1 to 8/8. IInd party submits that workman Prabhudayal

Shukla was initially appointed as General Mazdoor

Category I on 1-5-1979. He is working at E&M department.

The service conditions are covered by NCWA and

standing orders. Cadre scheme have been formulated for

each category of employees. Workman was promoted to

the post of mechanical helper Grade II on 4-12-1984 on

recommendation of DPC. Workman was upgraded to post

of Mechaical Fitter Helper Cat-III SLU on 1-7-95 and

again to the post of Mechanical Fitter Helper Cat-IV SLU

on 1-1-2004. Workman was never engaged as clerk. He

was not promoted to work on the post of clerk therefore

his claim for regularization cannot be accepted.

4. In para-wise remarks, IInd party submits that

workman has not submitted authentic record about his

educational qualification. Workman was promoted in

General Mazdoor Category II in E&M Department. Token

clerk is statutory post under Mines legislation. It is denied

that workman was not granted any promotion in General

Mazdoor Category. As per cadre scheme, for post of clerk

Grade II, the eligibility is prescribed under cadre scheme.

Workman was never selected therefore he is not entitled

for regularization. It is reiterated that workman was never

engaged for clerical job. On such ground, IInd party prays

for rejection of claim.

5. Workman has filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/4.

Workman has pleaded that contentions of management

are misleading. Workman has passed H.Sc in 1979 his

date of birth is 15-11-1958 but he was promoted to the

post of Mechanical Helper Grade-II. However since 1983,

he was performing work of clerk. That Ramcharan, Ritlal

Rajwade, A.K.Guha, Jitendra Kumar Singh working in Cat-

I, II as General Mazdoor were promoted to the post of

Clerk Grade-III on 24-3-98. Ist party workman is superseded.

6. Application 1/2010 is filed under Section 33-A

by workman praying directions not to transfer or

discontinue from work. The application is opposed by

management denying valuations. That applicant is not

tenable. Application is filed against Non-applicant in

personal capacity with intention to cause harassment.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management

denying

regularization in post of

clerk to Shri Prabhudayal

Shukla, S/o Rohni Prasad

Shukla Mechanical Helper

and promoting junior

employees superseding

him by General Manager,

Baikunthpur of SECL is

justified and legal.

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

As per final

man is entitled to?”

order.

(iii)

In A/1/2010, whether the IInd

In Negative

party has violated provisions

of Section 33 of I.D.Act ?

(iv)

If so, to what relief ?

Application

under Section

33-A rejected.

5428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

8. Terms of reference relates to denial of

regularization to workman on the post of clerk. Employees

junior to him were promoted and he was superseded.

Material contentions of workman are denied by IInd party.

Ist party workman has filed affidavit of his evidence. He

has stated in his affidavit that he was appointed as General

Mazdoor on 1-5-1979. He was promoted as General

Mazdoor Category II in 1982. He was working as clerk. He

was not regularized on post of clerk despite of several

representations. That he was not promoted in cadre of

clerk neither in General Mazdoor Category. He suffered

loss. That Shri Devendralal S/o Shri Banwari Lal General

Mazdoor was promoted but he has been superseded. In

his cross-examination workman says he was appointed

as General Mazdoor Category I. He was working in E&M

Department. There are separate cadre schemes for

promotion of different categories of employees. That DPC

was not constituted. That he was benefitted for post of

Category IV from 1-1-2004. That Ramcharan, Ritlal

Rajwade, A.K.Guha, Jitendra Kumar Singh working in Cat-

I, II as General Mazdoor were promoted to the post of

Clerk Grade-III for want of recommendation. Evidence of

workman is clear that he was appointed as General

Mazdoor Category. He was given SLU benefit to the post

of General Mazdoor Category IV. The evidence of

management’s witness Shri G.K.Srivastava is by way of

denial consistent with contentions raised in Written

Statement filed by IInd party. That promotion for the post

of clerk III as per cadre scheme is Clerk Grade-II having

passed matriculate or equivalent examination, promoted

by selection/test etc. in his cross-examination, witness

says that Shri Dharmendra Singh was appointed in time

rated category-I in 1989. He was promoted as clerk in 2005

by selection. That error is committed that workman was

given SLU benefit in 1975. The documents Exhibit W-1 to

W-7 are proved from evidence in cross-examination of

management’s witness. The evidence of management’s

witness Shri R.N.Singh is also consistent with contentions

in Written Statement of IInd party. Documents Exhibit

W-8(a to e), W-9(a), 10/6 are proved from his evidence.

The document Exhibit W-1 is letter given by ALC to Central

govt. finds grievance of workman about denial of

regularization on post of clerk. In Exhibit W-2 information

was submitted by workman that he was working as clerk.

Exhibit w-3 is letter given by Dy.Chief Personnel Manager

to Sub Area Manager calling information about grievances

to workman. In Exhibit W-4, letter given by Personnel

Manager to Sub Area Manager, there is clear reference

that workman was working as clerk since 1983 to 1995 for

12 years. He was claiming regularization on the post of

clerk. Name of workman is appearing in document Exhibit

W-7/5. Document Exhibit 8 (a to e) are references submitted

by workman time to time claiming that he was working as

clerk. Document Exhibit 7/9 a finds name of workman in

the list. Documents W-4 clearly shows that workman was

working as clerk for more than 12 years. As per W-1,

workman was promoted to General Mazdoor Cat-II in 14-

12-1984. The evidence of workman that he passed HSc is

not challenged in his cross-examination. The zerox copy

of marksheet is produced on record. Zerox copy of order

dated 13-2-2001 and 13-12-2005 promoting Shri Brijendra

Prasad Shukla and office order of regularizing Dharmendra

Singh are produced on record. Order dated 13-12-05 is

clear that on representation of Shri Dharmendra singh, he

was regularized from Category-II to the post of Clerk Grade-

III. The order is not disclosing that he was selected by

any Committee. Workman was appointed as General

Mazdoor Category I in 1979. Both Brijendra Prasad Shukla

and Dharmendra Singh junior to workman are regularized

in clerk Grade-III on 13-2-2001, 13-12-2005. Workman is

superseded. Therefore the action of the management

cannot be said proper and legal. For above reasons. I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

9. Point Nos. 2,3&4- so far as application submitted

under section 33-A, no independent evidence is adduced

by parties. The legal position is shattered that complaint

under Section 33-A is required to be decided as dispute.

The evidence is adduced in the reference and evidence

discussed above is clear that workman was not regularized

in the post of clerk despite he was working as clerk in

1983, Jr. employees shri Brijendra Prasad Shukla and

Dharmendar Singh General Mazdoor Category II were

regularized. The orders about regularization doesnot find

reference about their selection. Rather the competent

authority had proved their regularization. For above

reasons, Ist party workman is entitled to the regularization

on the post of clerk from the date employees junior to him

were regularized. Workman is entitled to regularization on

the post of clerk from 13-2-2001 when Brijendra Singh was

regularized and Dharmendra Singh General Mazdoor Cat-

II was regularized on 13-12-05. Workman is entitled to

benefit of regularization from earlier date when Shri

Brijendra Shukla ws regularized i.e. on 13-2-2001. The

complaint under Section 33-A is merged in the reference

and no separate order is required to be passed. As no

evidence is adduced separately, I record my finding in

Point No. 3, 4 in Negative.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management denying regularization

to workman Shri Prabhudayal Shukla, S/o Rohni

Prasad Shukla on the post of clerk is not just and

proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to consider Ist party

workman for regularization on the post of clerk

from the date 13-2-2001 when Shri Brijendra

Shukla was regularized on the post of Clerk

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5429

Grade-III. The difference of monetary benefits

also be paid to workman within 30 days from the

date of publication of award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2092-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2007) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@31@2006&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O.

2092.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 34/07)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Nigani Project of

NCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/31/2006-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/34/07

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

The President,

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),

Qr. N. B-10,

Amlohari Project, NCL,

Sidhi (MP)

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

Nigani Project of NCL,

PO Nigahi,

Sidhi (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of June 2014

1. As per letter dated 28-2-07 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-22012/31/2006-IR(CM-II).The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of NCL in

not regularizing/ promoting Smt. Sandhya Gupta,

Clerk to the post of clerk is legal and justified ? If

not, to what relief is she entitled ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Statement of claim is filed by Union. The case

of workman is that she was appointed on the post of

General Mazdoor. That she was engaged for clerical job

on 28-4-98. That her services were not regularized. It is

alleged that as per order dated 14-9-04, she was kept away

from clerical job. Her service conditions were changed. He

was working in capacity of Clerk Grade-III. She was

discriminated by IInd party. On such grounds, she prayed

for regularization on the post of clerk.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement. Preliminary

objection is raised that reference is vague. It is not tenable.

That Ist party workman was given appointment on

compassionate ground as General Mazdoor Category-I

vide order dated 28-4-98. Qualified persons from General

Mazdoor Category I were given preference. Rest of the

allegations are denied. That the post of Clerk Grade III is

selection post. Unless selection is made, General Mazdoor

Cat-I,II cannot be given the post of Clerk Grade-III. On

such ground, IInd prayed for rejection of claim. Workman

has filed rejoinder reiterating her contentions in statement

of claim.

4. Workman filed affidavit of her evidence. She has

stated that IInd party has issued order of appointment of

Data Entry Operator- Documents W-1, W-2. Therefore she

is not desiring to prosecute her claim. In view of evidence

of workman, award is passed as under :

“As IInd party has appointed workman as Data

Entry Operator as per order dated 20-4-2014, claim

of workman stands satisfied.”

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2093-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-

5430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 210@89)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@126@1989&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O. 2093.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 210/89)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/126/1989-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/210/89

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Lakhan,S/o Nattoo,

Through Shri D.N.Tripathi,

Mining Sirdar, Damua Colliery,

Post Damua,

Distt. Chhindwara

. . . Workman

Versus

Manager,

Rakhikol Colliery of WCL,

Post Rakhikol,

Distt. Chhindwara

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 18-10-89 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-22012(126)/89-IR(Coal-II). The dispute under reference

relates to :

“Whether the action of the management of Rakhikol

Colliery of M/s. WCL in dismissing Shri Lakhan S/o

Nattoo w.e.f. 13-4-85 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman concerned is entitled ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/4 to 2/8. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

working on post of Wagon loader in Hirdya Garh Siding.

Since many years, he was transferred to Damua Colliery

and thereafter Rakhikol colliery in 1983. That he was doing

job of wagon loader. He was performing work at surface.

He was appointed as Wagon loader in WCL After his

transfer, he was ordered to work as tub loader in

underground. He was designated in Group V-A in job

description. Chargesheet was issued by Manager on

25-9-84 alleging unauthorized absence more than 10 days.

Mr. A.Sarkar Dy.Colliery Manager was appointed Enquiry

Officer. No notice was issued to workman by Enquiry

Officer. His services were terminated by order dated

13-5-85. That he was appointed in Hirday Garh siding in

1973. He rendered continuous service in WCL for more

than 10 years. He was transferred to Damua and Rakhikol

Colliery. Management denied the status of regular

workman. He was stated as causal mazdoor. Thus right of

workman were violated by management. Workman further

submits that he was treated as causal tub loader and badly

tub loader contrary to the classification of workman in

standing orders. The casual and badly mazdoor are not

liable for transfer to other places. That his services were

terminated without following principles of natural justice.

After completion of six months continuous service, he

was not accorded status of temporary employees. He

also submitted that he was working more than 10 years.

Said period was not calculated. His services are terminated

in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. he claims to be

workman under Section 25 B of I.D.Act. his services were

not regularized. On such ground, workman is praying for

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to

4/3. IInd party submits that workman was casual wagon

loader. He joined at Rakhikol Colliery during December

1982. Since his joining at Rakhikol Colliery, he was irregular

in attendance. He was in habit of remaining absent without

permission of Competent Authority. In 1983, he worked

for 98 days, in 1984 for 96 days and in 1985 for 14 days.

Workman was not interested in working. His attendance

was poor. As workman was casual badly tub loader, he

was paid wages for work performed by him. The contract

of appointment came to end every day. Workman was

irregular in attendance, he was repeatedly warned to be

punctual in attendance. Casual/ badli is not regular

employee. The appointment is casual in nature. In absence

of regular employee, casual employees are allowed to work.

That there is no termination of service contemplated under

reference. The name of workman was removed from list

as he was regular employee. The name of employee not

required in attendance cannot be continued in the list.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5431

Workman was not permanent employee. There was no

necessity of issuing chargesheet or holding enquiry. That

workman had not completed one year continuous service

therefore issuing chargesheet and holding enquiry was

not necessary. IInd party prayed for permission to prove

allegations leading evidence. IInd party prayed for

rejection of the claim.

4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim that his

services were terminated in violation of principles of natural

justice. His services were not transferrable.

5. Vide order dated 20-6-2012, my predecessor held

that it was essential to prove misconduct before taking

any action by management. Management was directed to

lead evidence to prove misconduct before Tribunal

accordingly findings were recorded on issues.

6. Considering above findings and pleadings

between parties, the points which arise for my

consideration and determination are as under. My findings

are recorded against each of them for the reasons as

below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Rakhikol

Colliery of M/S WCL in

dismissing Shri Lakhan S/o

Nattoo w.e.f. 13-4-85 is

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

As per

man is entitled to ?”

final order.

REASONS

7. As per order dated 20-6-2012, my predecessor

has found that the enquiry was essential to prove

misconduct before taking any action by management.

Management was directed to lead evidence to prove

misconduct before Tribunal. However the management

did not adduce any evidence rather as per application

dated 30-10-13, management of IInd party has sought

permission to adopt evidence already on record. However

attendance of workman was 98 days in1983, 96 days in

1984 and 14 days in 1985. In view of directions vide order

dated 20-6-12. In view of directions vide order dated 20-6-12

by my predecessor, no fresh evidence is adduced to prove

misconduct part of workman. No chargesheet was issued

to workman though enquiry is conducted against him.

The documents produced by workman Exhibit W-1 shows

his name was recorded in Form B Register. Date of joining

service was shown 13-5-78 and date of termination is 13-

5-85. Document Exhibit W-2 shows intimation was given

to workman about appointment of Enquiry officer in respect

of chargesheet issued on 25-9-84. Document Exhibit W-3

is the office order dated 13-5-84. That certain employees

including workmen were irregular in service. The

attendance of workman was 96 days in 1984. Document

Exhibit W-4 shows attendance of workman was 98 days

in1983, 96 days in 1984 and 14 days in 1985. Evidence

earlier adduced by IInd party management of witness Shri

Rajaram Yadav, Attendance clerk is on the point of

attendance of workman in 1983,84 & 85. In his cross-

examination management witness says Lalchand was badli

casual labour. That when regular employee remains

absence, other labour is engaged in his place as casual

worker. The evidence of above witness of management

doesnot speak about unauthorized absence of workman.

The evidence of other management’s witness K.Raja

Prabhakaran is on the point of Ist party workman filing

application for production of documents, transfer order

from Hirday Siding to Rakhikol colliery etc. in his cross-

examination said witness of management says casual

labour is not liable for transfer. Temporary worker is not

shown in standing orders. The casual workers can do the

work of permanent nature in absence of permanent

workman.

8. Workman had filed affidavit of his evidence

stating that he was working as wagon loader in WCL,

Hirday Garh Siding from 1973. From 13-5-98, he was

working as permanent employee. On 20-2-82, he was

transferred to Hirday Garh siding. From 13-4-85, he was

not allowed to work. Workman remained absent and was

not available for his cross-examination. As per directions

in order dated 20-6-12, management was directed to lead

evidence 6 to prove misconduct alleged against workman.

However IInd party has not adduced any fresh evidence.

The earlier evidence is adopted. The earlier evidence

discussed above doesnot spell out any kind of

unauthorised absence on conduct of workman. Therefore

action of discontinuing workman from work without

issuing chargesheet or holding enquiry is illegal. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

9. Point No. 2- in view of my finding in Point No.1

that action of the management not allowing workman to

work from April 1985 amounts to termination of his services

without issuing chargesheet or holding enquiry is illegal,

question arises whether the workman is entitled for

reinstatement with back wages.

10. The workman not appeared for his cross-

examination. Affidavit of his evidence shows that he was

not allowed to work form 13-4-85. He was not granted

leave during January and February 85. The evidence of

management’s witness is silent about the workman is in

any kind of gainful employment the dispute is pending

since long period. The age of workman is shown 45 years

in affidavit of his evidence filed in the year 2001. In Form B

termination of workman from service is illegal. Considering

the facts appearing from evidence, workman deserves to

5432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

be reinstated with 30 % wages from date of termination

i.e. from 13-4-85 till date of superannuation. Accordingly

I record my finding in Point No.2.

11. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The action of the management of Rakhikol Colliery

of M/S WCL in dismissing Shri Lakhan S/o Nattoo

w.e.f. 13-4-85 is illegal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service with 30 % wages.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2094-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@91)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@295@1990&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O.

2094.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 32/91)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/295/1990-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/32/91

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

General Secretary,

Laljhanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU),

Damua, Po Damua,

Distt. Chhindwara

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

Manager,

Rakhikol Colliery of WCL,

PO Rakhikol via Damua,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 20-2-91 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-

22012(295)/90-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates

to :

“ Whether the action of the management of Rakhikol

Colliery of WCL in stopping/ dismissing Shri Premlal,

S/o Garjan, Clipman of Rakhikol Colliery from the

services w.e.f. 12-6-89 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union filed statement of claim at page

2/1 to 2/6. Case of Ist party workman is that chargesheet

was issued to him on 5-4-89 for habitual absence. Enquiry

was vitiated on various grounds. Chargesheet was vague.

Enquiry proceedings recorded were illegible. Workman was

not given opportunity to cross-examine. Chargesheet was

vague. Workman had suffered injuries. He had approached

Medical Officer of Rakhikol Colliery. The charge of

absenteeism was not established. The punishment of

removal was illegal.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to

6/8. IInd party submitted that Union was not registered. It

has no locus to represent the employee. The order of

reference is not legal. The chargesheet was issued to

Premlal, Durjan enumerating details of absence.

Chargesheet was clear about absence for more than 10

days. Enquiry was conducted as per rules. Both the sides

tendered evidence. Then enquiry was closed. Principles

of natural justice were followed. Habitual absenteeism of

workman was proved. Punishment was imposed. It is

denied that chargesheet was vague and Enquiry

Proceedings were not legible. IInd party prayed for

rejection of claim.

4. Union filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/4 reiterating

its contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5433

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Rakhikol

Colliery of WCL in

stopping/dismissing Shri

Premlal, S/o Garjan, Clipman

of Rakhikol colliery from the

services w.e.f. 12-6-89 is

legal and justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

Workman is

man is entitled to?”

not entitled to

relief claimed.

REASONS

6. As per order dated 12-2-2014, enquiry conducted

against workman is found legal and proper. Workman has

not participated in reference proceeding. No evidence is

adduced on other issues. The record of Enquiry Proceeding

is produced. There is evidence that workman was absent

from duties. He was present 9 days during January to

March 1987, 16 days in April to June 87, 14 days from July

to Sept-87, 51 days up to December 1987 his attendance

in 1988 is also shown in Ist quarter- 30 days, in 2nd quarter-

23 days, in 3rd quarter- 43 days, in last quarter-19 days.

Statement of workman was also recorded. Considering the

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, charges of unauthorized

absence are supported by evidence. The workman did not

participated in reference proceedings. No evidence is

adduced. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under-

(1)

The action of the management of Rakhikol Colliery

of WCL in stopping/ dismissing Shri Premlal, S/o

Garjan, Clipman of Rakhikol Colliery from the

services w.e.f. 12-6-89 is legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2095-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ-lh-vkbZ- ds

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

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

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 311@97) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@50@1995&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O.

2095.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 311/

97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of FCI and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

18/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/50/1995-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/311/97

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Anil Kumar Dhopte,

C/o Shri Mahesh Prasad Gorakh,

Ramdas Nagar,

Shivji MargTikrapara,

Distt.Bilaspur (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Near CMD College.

Bilaspur

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 12-11-97 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-22012/

50/95-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the demand of Shri Anil Kumar Dhopte

and 19 other casual workers (list enclosed) of FSD/

FCI Bilaspur for regularisation of their services in

FCI is legal and justified? If so, to what relief are the

workmen entitled and from which date ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/14. Ist party workman submits that IInd party

is running godown over 15.25 acre and 5.57 acres area.

The total capacity of godown is 37000MTs. The FCI is

engaging different regular employees for managing the

godowns. The employees included Khalasi, watchman,

Dusting Operator, Shifter, Sweeper, Picker etc. it is

submitted that those 20 workmen were engaged for various

5434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

kinds of jobs of stickers, dusting operators, shifters,

sweepers and peon-cum-messengers. The work is of

perennial nature. The details of work performed by them

are given extensively in Para-8 of statement of claim. The

workman used to carry fumigation covers, cap covers and

put them on the good grain stacks and vice versa. That

they were working with Shri Suresh Chand Contractor

from 1976 to 78, PrabhudayalAgrawal contractor from 1979

to 1981, Deepak Chand Garg contractor from 10-9-81 to 30-

9-83, FCI directly from 1-10-83 to 22-3-84, Pramodchand

Khandelwal contractor from 23-3-84 to 8-8-84, FCI directly

from 9-8-84 to 12-3-85, Roopchand and Sunilchand & Co.

contractor from 13-3-85 to 17-3-87 & Vijay Kumar contractor

from 18-3-87 to 18-2-89. These workmen were working under

mate system from Sept.89 to December 1994 and working

under Direct Payment system from January 1994 onwards.

That the volume of regular work in the depot godowns 10

giant size godowns handling about 4 lac bags, the depot

is enjoying railway siding. The Headquarter having no

rail head, FCI had obtained services of those workers

regularly through contractor, mate system, direct payment

system etc. that the engagement of those workers against

perennial work, the contract system, mate system are to

deny regularization.

3. Workmen have referred to judgment is

Miscellaneous Petition No. 3275/86 by MP High Court

Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 2327 of 1981 by Bombay High

Court, Nagpur bench. All the workmen submits that they

were performing duty with FCI. The work is of perennial

nature. That they are claiming regularization contending

that the regularization means that fixing these workmen in

the Grade IV posts of General Administrative cadre as the

FCI Staff Regulation 1971. That those workmen were

getting wages between 21 to 66 Rs. Per day during 1989 to

1996 whereas Grade IV workers of FCI were getting pay

Rs.1827 to Rs.5064/- during 1989 to 1996.

4. It is submitted that management’s agreement with

Union have no shelter for FCI to violate fabric of labour

laws. Such agreements violate the laws of the land as well

as judgments of Apex Court and High Courts. That the

made system, direct payment systems were invented to

deny benefit of regularization by IInd party. On such

contentions, Ist party workman prays for regularization as

Grade-IV employees.

5. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to

6/15. It is submitted that FCI is established under Act of

parliament. FCI is performing handling operations and

workers in depot at Bilaspur. The handling and transport

contractors were appointed time to time. Ist party workman

were not appointed by IInd party. They were engaged by

contractor. There is no relationship of employer employee

with Ist party workman as per demand of labours Union

agreement dated 26-9-89 with FCI, made system was

introduced since 27-9-89. The applicant workers and Union

demanded departmentalization of labours and made

system. As per notification dated 1-11-90, employment of

contract labour was prohibited. The agreement dated 12-

4-91 signed between management and Union in direct

employment of labours was introduced. IInd party submits

that Ist party are not workman under Section 2(s) of I.D.Act.

The demand of Union about the departmentalization was

referred to National Industrial Tribunal Bombay recorded

over by Justice Khatri. Said dispute pertains to denial of

wages and other benefits on par with departmental workers

in 65 depots in India.IInd party submits that settlement

out of court was reached and it was agreed to withdraw

said reference. Said dispute is no more in existence. That

as per agreement dated 1-11-94, mate system workers were

upgraded. Reference was disposed off. IInd party submits

that it amounts to resjudicata. Ist party workman has no

locus to raise present dispute.

6. IInd party further contented that the employees

stated in statement of claim were not engaged. The number

and categories of employees engaged by IInd party are

given in Para-4. That the contractors were engaging

labours from open market. Ist party are not appointed by

IInd party. Mate system was introduced at Bilaspur depot

from 27-9-89. Mate system was continued till 31-12-93.

Direct payment system was introduced from 1-1-1994.

There was upgradation of labours engaged in direct

payment system. That Class-IV employees of FCI are

entirely different from labour section. Category IV

employees of FCI are covered under FCI Staff Regulation

1971. The labours are extended wages and fringe benefits

as per memorandum of settlement. There is no question of

comparing by Class-IV employees of FCOI. Workman

cannot be granted said pay scales. Ist party workmen are

presently working under direct payment system. Ancillary

labours Class IV employees are covered by staff

regulations 1979 and there is no direct payment system.

On such contentions IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

7. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/

7. In rejoinder Ist party has contended on representation

on review submitted on 28-2-96. That workman are

performing perennial jobs. That contract sysem was

introduced to exploit workers. FCI is engaging new

contractors for exploiting workers. Agreement dated 26-9-

89 has no locus as direct system has been abolished by

law. The work of Ist party workman was supervised by

staff of FCI. The wages were paid to him by FCI Staff.

They claimed to be regular working with FCI. They have

been discriminated by IInd party. Management in spite of

regularizing their services was introduced with mala fide

intention . on such ground, Ist party claims for

regularization.

8. Management filed reply to rejoinder at Page 9/1

to 9/10 reiterating its contentions in Written Statement.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5435

9. 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 demand of Shri

In Affirmative

Anil Kumar Dhopte and 19

other casual workers (list

enclosed) of FSD/FCI

Bilaspur for regularisation

of their services in FCI is

legal and justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

As per final

man is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

10. The substance of the claim of workman is that

they were working under contractors and sometimes

directly with FCI, Jabalpur. They were performing perennial

job. They were exploited. They have been discriminated

not regularizing their services by IInd party. Those

contentions of workmen are denied by IInd party

management. The affidavit of evidence are filed by Shri

Anil Kumar Dhopte and Harinarayan Thakur supporting

claim of workman. Affidavit filed by Shri Anil Kumar had

given details of period of working of workman in para-4.

Workmen were working in FCI Bilaspur depot since April

72 to 74, 77,78,79,80,82. They have also narrated detail of

working in Para-5. That in beginning they were doing jobs

as workers of contractors under direct supervision of staff

and officers. FCI used to directly make payments. The

period of different contractors given in para-6 of affidavit

that after abolition of contract system, few workers are

also leaders of Union discriminated as mate. After abolition

of contract system, normal course should have been

regularizing their services by departmentalization in FCI.

Again from January 1994 they were deprived regularization

status introducing direct payment system. They continued

to do some jobs under supervision of FCI officers and

staff. In cross-examination of Anil Kumar, it is not

challenged. In his cross-examination, witness says that

from 1977 he was working in FCI, he was working under

contractor Shri Sureshchand Contractor, Prabhudayal

Agrawal contractor & Deepak Chand Garg. Thereafter he

was working under FCI from October 83 to 22-3-84. Earlier

the payments were made by contractor. That he was

required to open and close shutters of the godowns. He

denies that he was working under contractors named in

his evidence. In cross-examination of witness Harinarayan

Thakur, he says from 1980, he was working under contract

Prabhudayal Agrawal. He was opening and closing shutter.

He was collecting and stiching the food grains. Recently

FCI is making monthly payments to me. He denis that he

was engaged only for 2-3 months. Evidence of witness

No. 2 Hari Narayan Thakur is on the point of his details of

his working of carrying fumigation covers, cap covers

and put them on food grains stacks etc. detailed evidence

about working under direct payment system is not

challenged in cross-examination.

11. The evidence of management’s witness Shri Dilip

Kumar Sethi supported contentions of management of

labours working under contractors, mate system, Direct

payment system. In evidence of management’s witness in

cross-examination shows that working hours of permanent

employee and those workmen is same from 10 AM to 5.30

PM. He was unable to tell since when workman was

working in FCI. Workmen are working under direct payment

system. Prior to 17-3-89, contract system was followed in

FCI. FCI did not verify labours engaged by contractors.

He claims ignorance about workmen working with

contractors in 1989 or after introduction of made system.

The evidence of management’s witness on rest of points

remained unshattered.

12. It is clear from evidence of both sides that all

workmen are working in FCI godowns at Jabalpur since

long time. Initially they were working under contractors.

Thereafter under mate system, direct payment system. The

evidence on record shows that the job workmen are doing

is of perennial nature. They are continuously working

since 1977, 78, 79 and so onwards.

13. The documents produced by parties needs to

be considered. Workman produced document Exhibit W-1

to W-21. Exhibti W-1 is copy of order of reference, W-2 is

copy of letter by Dy.District Manager to counsel of Ist

party Shri P.K. Moitra and S.K. Rao. those documents

have no bearing to the controversy between parties. Exhibit

W-3 is copy of notification about various kinds of posts

sanctioned for FCI godown. Documents Exhibit W-4 to

W-7 areciculars about working of Shri Anil Kumar Dhopte,

Harinarayan Thakur, Yadav with FCI depot during 1984 to

1985. Exhibit W-9 to 15 are copies of PF slips of Santosh

Pandey. Shankarlal, UttamManekar, Geetabai Rajak, Iqbal

Khan, Santosh Kumar, Firturamyadav. Exhibit W-16 is letter

sent by Asstt. Manager to District Manager of the depot

about handling work of casual employees under handling

and transport contractors. Those documents corroborate

that Ist party employees were working with IInd party.

Payment slips of Shri Anil Kumar Dhopte,

HarinarayanThakur G. Venkat Rao, Sadbai Satnami,

ManharanlalYadv are produced at Exhibit W-17 to 21.

14. Management of IInd party produced documents

Exhibit M-1 minutes of discussion with FCI workers Union.

M-2 copy of notification dated 1-11-90 prohibiting contract

labours in FCI godown. Exhibit M-3 provides for

introduction of direct payment system. The employees

5436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under direct payment system are entitled to benefit of

exgratia, bonus under Workmen Compensation Act,

weekly off, gratuity, 3 national paid holidays, first aid etc.

The documents Exhibit M-4 produced by management

provides management agreed to departmentalize on

Calcutta Complex pattern, the labourers working presently

under Direct system in such depots which were referred

by the Union in the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay

on the following terms and conditions. In addition,

management also agreed to departmentalize workers of

DDs depots at Ambala, Amritsar complex which are to be

deparmentalise are as per list attached as Annexure I. All

the workers covered under the NIT Bombay Award dated

1-4-91 shall be departmentalized w.e.f. 1-1-1994. Said

document also provides for payment of lumpsumamount

Rs. 25000/- to employees retiring during 1988 to 1994, 10,000/-

to employees retiring from January 95 to December 95 &

Rs.5000/- to employees retiring during January to

December 1996. Exhibit M-5 is circular dated 6-12-94 for

upgradation of the workers under direct payment system.

Exhibit M-6 is copy of circular dated 5-12-96 about

upgradation of workers under direct payment system. The

rates of wages are provided Rs.71/- to Sirdar, 67/- to

Mandal, 65/- to Handling labour and 55 to ancillary labour.

Jabalpur depot from MP is included in said document.

Exhibit M-7 is letter dated 15-12-89 about submission of

bio data form of 173 workers, the list is accompanied with

document. Exhibit M-8 is copy of letter given by Depot

Manager to employees. Document M-9 to M-20 relates to

different workmen issued to authorities. Exhibit M-21 is

copy of circular dated 5-12-94. Particularly document

Exhibit M-4 clearly provides for departmentalization of

workers covered under award by NIT, Bombay dated

1-4-1991. The said reference related to dispute of

employees working in 65 depots all over India. I find no

logical reason why such benefit of departmentalization

was not extended to the workmen. The employees working

in different depot cannot be discriminated.

15. One more point needs to be discussed .

Reference relates to claim of regularization of workmen.

However in their statement of claim, they are claiming pay

for grade for employees of IInd party. The reference

doesnot clearly includes said dispute. The claim for

regularization of workman is supported from documents

discussed above. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri

Praveen Yadav has produced copy of award passed in R/

16/94 by my predecessor. However the dispute under

reference was not identical. The dispute under said award

pertains to Whether the demand raised by Shri Dinanath

Dubey, Representative of workmen of the 15 gangs working

at Rampur Depot of FCI, Jabalpur in demanding their

services should be deemed with FCI and wages fixed at

the piece rate should be distributed only between the

workman working along with the gang including sardars

and their transfers should be made on the guidelines

prescribed for FCI and not on the recommendation of

FCI workers Union is justified? The reference is entirely

different under said award therefore it would not be wise

for me to rely said judgment for any purpose. To conclude

the evidence of workman about performing perennial job

in FCI working under contractor, mate system, direct

payment system. However they were performing jobs of

FCI Godowns, contract system has been abolished as per

notification of 1990. Workman therefore becomes

employees of FCI. As per Exhibit M-4, the FCI had

agreed to departmentalise employees in 16 depots. There

is no justification to deny such facilities to employees

working in other depots. Therefore the claim of Ist party

workman for regularization of their service is justified. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

16. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The demand of Shri Anil Kumar Dhopte and 19

other casual workers (list enclosed) of FSD/FCI

Bilaspur for regularisation of their services in

FCI is legal and justified.

(2)

IInd party is directed to consider regularization

of services of 20 casual workers namely Shri

Anil Kumar Dhopte, Hari Narayan Thakur,

Manharanlal Yadav, Saiyyad Iqbal, Ballaram sahu,

G. Venkat Rao, Santosh Kumar Pandey, Uttam

Manekar, Santosh Kumar Sharma, Bhagela Singh

Gond, Feruram Tiwari, Firtu Ram Yadav, Santosh

kumar Vaselian, Shankarlal Awasthi, Harishankar

Vishwakarma, Sadbai satnami, Kaushalyabai

Maravi, Geetabai Rajak, Lakshmibai Sahu &

Kumaribai Binkar from date of order of reference

i.e. 12-11-97. The consequential benefits also be

paid to the workmen within 30 days from the

date of notification of award.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2096-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-bZ-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 88@97)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@42@1996&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5437

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O.

2096.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 88/97)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 18/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/42/1996-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/88/97

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

President,

M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),

Chirimiri area, Post Haldibda,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,

Kumda sub Area,

Post Kumda colliery,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of June 2014

1. As per letter dated 14-3-97 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-22012/

42/96-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager,

Kumda Sub Area of Bisrampur Area of SECL in

retiring Shri Sudhairam S/o Shri Dhirsai Timber

Setter, category V Kumda 1 & 2 mines w.e.f. 31-5-93

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

concerned workman is entitled ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page

3/1 to 3/5. Case of workman is that he was initially

appointed on post of Mazdoor Cat-I on 1-6-63. At the time

of entering in service, his date of birth was recorded 1-6-

38 in form B register. The age of superannuation of

employees in industry is 60 years. As such his date of

birth was 1-6-38. He was falsely retired on 31-5-93 by IInd

party. He was retired prematurely 5 years before the date

of superanuation. He raised dispute before ALC. After

failure report, dispute has been referred. Workman submits

that he was prematurely retired before 5 years on 31-5-93.

His date of birth is 1-6-38. The date of his superannuation

did not come in 1998. The premature retirement amount to

retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F . On such ground

workman submits that his retirement is illegal and liable to

be set-aside. He prays for his reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 5/1 to

5/2. IInd party denies claim of workman. It is submitted

that as per form B register, date of birth of workman is

31-5-33. Workman was appointed on 1-6-63. The

superannuation in coal industry is 60 years. Accordingly

the workman was retired on 31-5-93. It is denied that the

date of birth of workman is 1-6-38. It is denied that workman

was prematurely retired before 5 years. IInd party prays

for rejection of claim.

4. Workman has filed rejoinder at Page 13/1 to 13/4

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. That his

date of birth was 31-5-33. At the time of joining servic3e

on 1-6-63, his age was 25 years. As per the service rules

prevailing persons below 26 years were given

appointments. As such age of workman was less than 26

years in 1963. If date of birth alleged by IInd party is

accepted, age of workman at the time of initial appointment

would be 30 years and he could not be appointed.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

Sub Area Manager, Kumda

Sub Area of Bisrampur

Area of SECL in retiring Shri

Sudhairam S/o Shri Dhirsai

Timber Setter, category V

Kumda 1 & 2 mines w.e.f.

31-5-93 is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

As per

man is entitled to?”

final order.

REASONS

6. Workman is contending that his date of birth is

1-6-38. He was prematurely retired before 5 years of age of

superannuation. His date of birth is 1-6-38 and not 31-5-

33. All those contentions of workman are denied by

management.

5438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. Workman has not adduced evidence. His

evidence is closed on 14-12-2011.Management filed

affidavit of evidence of Personnel Manager Shri B.C.Sethi

in support of contentions of management that date of birth

of workman is 31-5-33 recorded in Form B register. Workman

was retired after attaining age of 60 years. In his further

evidence, management’s witness has produced copy of

Form B Register Exhibit M-1 and notice of retirement Exhibit

M-2. The evidence of management witness remained

unchallenged. The document Exhibit M-1 copy of Form B

birth of workman was recorded 9-6-38. It is scoured and

new date of birth is recorded 31-5-33. The evidence of

management’s witness is silent about said scouring out of

his date of birth. There is no evidence to show what was

the document available with the management for recording

date of birth of workman as 31-5-93 in Form B Register. In

absence of such evidence date of birth recorded in Form

B Register as 31-5-33 cannot be accepted. The claim of

workman that his date of birth was 1-6-38 appears correct

as the date of birth in Form B register has been scoured

out without satisfactory evidence about the correction

made in Form B register Exhibit M-1. Therefore the

retirement of workman cannot be said legal. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

8. Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,

the retirement of workman from 31-5-93 accepting his date

of birth was 31-5-33 is not legal. The retirement of workman

deserves to be set-aside. Question arises to what relief

the workman is entitled. The workman has not entered in

witness box, no evidence is adduced that workman was in

gainful employment or unemployed. No evidence is also

adduced by management on above point. Considering both

parties have not adduced evidence that workman that

workman was in employment or unemployed after

retirement, in my considered view workman deserves to

be awarded 50 % wages as he has already crossed the age

of superannuation assuming his correct date of birth is

1-6-1938. Workman cannot be reinstated in service. 50 %

wages from 1-5-93 to 31-5-98 appears appropriate in the

circumstances. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No. 2.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Sub Area Manager, Kumda Sub

Area of Bisrampur Area of SECL in retiring Shri

Sudhairam S/o Shri Dhirsai Timber Setter,

category V Kumda 1 & 2 mines w.e.f. 31-5-93 is

not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay 50 % wages from

1-5-93 to 31-5-98.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2097-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-bZ-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 214@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@97@1999&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O.

2097.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 214/

99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 18/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/97/1999-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/214/99

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Working President,

Rashtriya Colliery workers Federation,

PO South Jhagrakhand Colliery,

Distt. Korea (MP)

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Duman Hill Sub Area of SECL,

PO Gethapani,

Distt. Korea (MP)

. . . Management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5439

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of June 2014

1. As per letter dated 20-5-99 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-22012/

97/99/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to :

“Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager,

Duman Hill Sub Area of SECL, North Chirimiri Colliery,

Post Gellapani, Distt. Koria (MP) in dismissing

Sh. Hirambho Prasad S/o Ramdhari, Underground

Munsi of clerical Grade-III at North Chirmiri Collieiry

w.e.f. 19-5-97 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

page 4/1 to 4/6. Case of workman is that he was employed

as underground Munshi clerical Grade III by management

of IInd party. Chargesheet was issued to him on 29-5-96

alleging certain misconduct. Enquiry Officer was appointed

and conducted enquiry against him and found guilty of

the charges. That services of workman were governed by

standing orders in respect of SECL, Bilaspur. That as per

standing orders competent authority means officers

separately nominated by Chairman/director. That such

orders were not put on notice board neither sent to Trade

Union. As such chargesheet was not issued by competent

authority. That Enquiry officer ignored letter given by Shri

A.K.Mishra, Sr. Overman dated 11-11-96 expressing that

workman did not abuse him. That he ignored his complaint.

Enquiry Officer continued to proceed with enquiry with

malafide intention. That Enquiry officer was interested to

complete enquiry hurriedly . Management presumed that

the workman is interested to prolong the enquiry inspite

of the fact that workman submitted sick certificate.

Management authorities continued to pressurize the

enquiry officer to necessarily hold the workman guilty of

charges. Workman submits that charges are not proved.

Findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Order of dismissal

is illegal. Management concocted story of the alleged

misconduct dated 18-6-86 whereas complaint submitted

by Shri A.K.Mishra on misconduct on 23-5-96. On such

ground, workman submits that punishment of dismissal is

harsh, principles of natural justice were violated. Workman

prays for reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to

5/9. IInd party submits that chargesheet was issued to

workman about misbehavior about abusing and assaulting

officer. Vide award dated 27-1-88, the reference was

answered in favour of management. Chargesheet was

issued to workman on 29-6-96. Workman abused and

threatened to murder Shri A.K.Mishra. On 28-6-96, he also

threatened and abused A.K.Mishra. enquiry was

conducted by Enquiry Officer Shri D.Haldar Personnel

Manager. Shri U.S.Singh,. Dy. Personnel Manager was

appointed as Management Representative. Workman

along with co-worker were given opportunity to cross-

examine management’s witness. The details of the enquiry

conducted against workman on various dates are given in

written Statement filed by management. Principles of

natural justice were followed. Enquiry was conducted as

per rules. The misconduct alleged against workman is

proved misconduct. IInd party prays for rejection of claim

of workman.

4. As per order dated 7-8-2013, enquiry conducted

against workman is found legal. Considering above facts

and pleadings between parties, 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

Sub Area Manager, Duman

Hill Sub Area of SECL,

North Chirimiri Colliery,

Post Gellapani, distt. Koria

(MP)

dismissing

Sh. Hirambho Prasad S/o

Ramdhari, Underground

Munsi of clerical Grade-III

at North Chirmiri Collieiry

w.e.f. 19-5-97 is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

Workman is

man is entitled to?”

not entitled to

relief prayed by

him.

REASONS

5. As discussed above, the enquiry conducted

against workman is found legal as per order dated 7-8-

2013, the question remains whether the charges against

workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings

and whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal. The record of Enquiry

Proceedings is produced at Exhibit M-1. Statement of

management’s witness Shri A.K.mishra was recorded. He

has stated before Enquiry Officer that he was abused and

threatened by workman. He was threatened to cut his arms

and legs into pieces and would leave him to beg. His

evidence in cross-examination is not shattered. His cross-

examination shows that he was pressurized to settle the

matter amicably. Workman had not accepted in writing his

mistake therefore he did not agree to withdraw his

complaint. The statements of witnesses of management

5440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri Ram Murthy shows that workman had jockingly said

it to throw out ofhis chair if his attendance was wrongly

marked. Management witness Ramgopal also stated in his

affidavit that he had threatened A.K.Mishra. He was saying

that A.K.Mishra and M.T.K. were thieves. They were

making money. Thus the findings of Enquiry Officer are

supported by evidence of all those witnesses. The findings

of Enquiry Officer that misconduct alleged against

workman are without evidence and as such evidence

cannot be accepted. There is sufficient evidence. The

statement of witness Trilok chand also supports the

alleged misconduct against workman therefore the

evidence of witnesses shown that workman had threatened

his superior officer with serious consequences to cause

their murder etc. therefore the punishment of dismissal

cannot be said disproportionate. So far as documents

produced by workman Exhibit M-1 to M-6 are not directly

related to the occurrence of the incident to shatter the

evidence of the witness of the management. Therefore the

action of the management in dismissing service of workman

cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Sub Area Manager, Duman Hill

Sub Area of SECL, North Chirimiri Colliery, Post

Gellapani, distt. Koria (MP) in dismissing Shr

Hirambho Prasad S/o Ramdhari, Underground

Munsi of clerical Grade-III at North Chirmiri

Collieiry w.e.f. 19-5-97 is legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2098-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-bZ-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 139@2000)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@482@1999&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O.

2098.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 139/

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of South

Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 18/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/482/1999-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/139/2000

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

The Vice President,

Madhya Pradesh Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU),

Qr. No.M/192, Pump house,

PPO Korba Colliery,

Korba (MP)

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

SECL, Kusmunda Project,

PO Kusmunda, Distt. Korba,

Korba (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of June 2014

1. As per letter dated 13-7-2000 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-22012/

482/99/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Kusmunda Area of SECL in denying the promotion

to Shri R.K.Kesharwani, V.N.Vishwakarma, V.K. Soni,

Ramchandar Rathod and R.K. Patel to the post of EP

Fitter Grade-I w.e.f. 1-5-95 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workmen are entitled ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Union submits that Shri R.K.

Keshwawani, V.K. Soni, V.N. Vishwakarma, Ramadhar

Rathore and 12 others were initially appointed as Category

I after completion of ITI Training and apprenticeship at

SECL Kusmunda Project in 1983, they were promoted from

Category I to Category II to EPGH. Meanwhile management

of SECL Kusmunda illegally appointed Shri Kamraj Patra,

A.K. Biswas and S.C.Sarangi directly in Category II from

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5441

4-2-84, 15-2-84. Those direct employees were promoted

from Cat-II to EPGH from 1-3-87 within 9 months 11 days.

They were promoted in Grade III w.e.f. 9-3-88. That Shri

R.K.Keshwawani, V.K.Soni, V.N.Vishwakarma, Ramadhar

Rathore and 12 others were superseded in promotion from

EPGH to Grade-III. The details about appointment and

promotion is given in Para-3 of statement of claim.

3. That MPKSS(CITU) Union has raised dispute

before ALC, Bilaspur on 9-3-91. The dispute was settled in

conciliation proceeding on 21-8-91. That as per notification

dated 12-3-92, reference was made to CGIT. During course

of discussion with SECL on 10-5-95, the dispute was

settled. Union agreed to withdraw R/95/91. It is submitted

that management accepted to give notional seniority w.e.f.

2-4-92 with notional fixation to the post of E.P.Fitter Grade-

II to Shri R.K.Keshwawani, V.K.Soni, V.N.Vishwakarma,

Ramadhar Rathore. Said settlement was not implemented

by management. He further submitted that management of

SECL promoted Kamraj Patra and S.C.Sarangee from Grade-

II to Grade I w.e.f. 1-5-95 giving benefits to difference of

wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to

6/2. IInd party did not dispute that Shri Kamraj Patra,

A.K.Biswas and S.C.Sarangi were appointed directly in

Category II after holding campus interview from

Malajkhand Copper project. However it is denied that those

direct employees were promoted illegally. It is submitted

that promotion were given as cadre scheme. It is denied

that Shri R.K.Keshwawani, V.K.Soni, V.N.Vishwakarma,

Ramadhar Rathore and 12 others were superseded. It is

submitted that they were promoted in Category II after

holding campus interview and in consideration of past

experience. That earlier dispute was referred to CGIT

Jabalpur for adjudication. Dispute was settled outside. It

is denied that workman involved in the case are not party

to the settlement. It is submitted that the claimants could

not be promoted to EP Fitter Grade by DPC in July 1995.

They are not eligible for promotion. It is further submitted

that Shri R.K.Keshwawani and others are not senior to

Shri Kamraj Patra and others. On such ground, IInd party

prays for rejection of claim.

5. Ist party Union filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim that feeder

post for promotion of EP Fitter Grade-III is EPGH. Workman

who were senior as DPGH ought to have been promoted

to EP Fitter Grade III before promotion of their juniors.

Management illegally superseded those workmen without

any reason. Workmen were successively superseded. Then

juniors were promoted to EP Fitter Grade II on 1-4-92.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below :

(i)

Whether the action of the

Action of denial

management of Kusmunda

of promotion to

Area of SECL in denying

DP Fitter Grade-I

the promotion to Shri R. K.

I to Shri V.K.Soni

Kesharwani, V. N.

is not legal.

Vishwakarma, V. K.Soni,

Ramchandar Rathod and

R. K. Patel to the post of

EP Fitter Grade-I w.e.f.

1-5-95 is justified ?

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

As per final

man is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

7. Present dispute relates to denial of promotion to

the post of EP Fitter Grade I to Shri R.K.Kesharwani,

V.N.Vishwakarma, V.K.Soni, Ramchandar Rathod and

R.K.Patel. However only Shri V.K.Soni has participated in

the reference proceeding. Other employees have not

participated. In his affidavit of evidence, Shri V.K.Soni has

stated that IInd party No.2 to 4 are junior to him. They

were promoted as E.P.Fitter Grade II on 2-4-92. Dispute is

raised in R/53/92. He was given promotion to EP Fitter

Grade-II from 2-4-92 as per settlement. He has stated about

the channel of promotion from Category II to EPGH. He

was promoted to post of EPGH on 2-12-1986. Shri Kamraj

Patra was promoted on 1-3-87. Mr. V.K.soni was promoted

on 9-3-88. The award passed in R/13/92 is produced.

Document Exhibit W-1 shows Shri R.K.Kesharwani,

V.N.Vishwakarma, V.K.Soni, Ramchandar Rathod and

R.K.Patel were give notional seniority from 2-4-92. The

award is produced at Exhibit W-2. All those employees

were given notional seniority from 2-4-92. Shri V.K.Soni

has produced certificates of completing apprentice

certificate Exhibit W-4, national trade certificate W-5.

Management’s witness Shri P.V.Satyanarayana in his cross

examination says that copy of rules regarding to the

promotion is not produced. He also says that he cannot

produce rules about recruitment promotion and seniority.

In Para-15 of his affidavit, date of promotion to DPGH is

not stated. Shri Patra was promoted as foreman. As per

order dated 31-3-10, he has retired from service. That direct

employees were concerned with irrigation project. The

evidence on record shows that management of IInd part

has shown favour to the direct recruitees and Shri V.K.Soni

has been superseded. Other employees have not

participated in reference proceeding therefore their

grievance could not be decided in the reference. For

reasons discussed above, it is proved that Shri V.K.Soni

has been superseded.

8. Learned counsel for workman Shri S.K.Mishra

relies on ratio held in

Case of National fertilizers Limited and another

versus Rajvendra Singh Chauhan and others reported in

5442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2011(1)M.P.H.T 256(DB). Heir Lordship of Divisional

Bench of Gwalior Bench of MP High Court considering

Respondents No.2,3 despite being junior to Respondent

No.1 were promoted as Senior Technician . Labour Court

directed petitioners to promote respondent No.1 from the

date prior to promotion of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and to

pay difference of wages. Their Lordship held direction for

promotion is justified in peculiar facts and circumstances

of the case. Respondent No.1 was victimized by promoting

respondent No. 2, 3 prior to respondent No.1.

In present case, management has superseded Shri

V.K.Soni and promoted direct employees Shri Kamraj Patra,

A.K.Biswas and S.C.Sarangi in Grade I from 1-5-95.

Therefore Ist party workman Shri V.K.Soni is entitled to

promotion to the post of Grade-I from the date his juniors

were promoted. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No.2.

9. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The action of the management of Kusmunda Area

of SECL in denying the promotion to Shri V.K.Soni

to the post of EP Fitter Grade-I w.e.f. 1-5-95 is not

justified.

(2)

IInd party is directed to consider Shri V.K.Soni

for promotion to the post of E.P. Fitter Grade-I

from 1-5-95 with payment of difference of

emoluments.

Action as per above directions be taken by IInd

party within two months form the date of publication of

award.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2099-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-bZ-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 170@98)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@152@1997&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O.

2099.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 170/

98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of South

Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 18/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/152/1997-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/170/98

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Secretary,

Chhattisgarh Swatantra Mazdoor Union,

Branch Gevra Pariyojna

Q. No. MD-395,

Dipika Colony, Post Gevra project,

Distt. Bilaspur.

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

SECL, Gevra Area,

Post Gevra project,

Distt. Bilaspur.

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of June, 2014

1. As per letter dated 30-7-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

152/97-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the demand of Chhattisgarh Swatantra

Mazdoor Union, Branch Gevra Project, distt.

Bilaspur for promotion/upgradation/ regularization

of Shri mahettar Das S/o Shri Ghasi Das from time to

time in Cat-II to Cat-V of Pump Khalasi/ Operator/

Driver (E&M) Personnel by the management of

SECL Gevra Project/ Gevra Area is justified? If so, to

what relief the workman is entitled and from which

date ?”

2. Workman submitted statement of claim at page

9/1 to 9/3. Case of workman is that he was employed as

Khalasi Cat-III with IInd party. He was appointed in

20-8-1973 as loader. He was designated as Category-I. he

was appointed in Cat-II before 22-9-77. He was not granted

promotion for 20 years. The dispute was raised on

17-11-88, he was transferred from Banki Colliery. He was

released on 15-11-88 and reported for duty at korba West

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5443

Area on 16-11-88. He further submitted that he was further

posted at Civil Section SECL, Gevra Project. After long

gap, he was promoted at Category III Pump Khalasi in

NCWA-V. Workman prays for his promotion in Category

V from 1998.

3. Written Statement filed by IInd party at Page 10/1

to 10/4. IInd party submits that workman was appointed

as labor on 22-10-73. He was re-designated as General

Mazdoor Cat-I on 12-2-76. The allegation of discrimination

are denied. It is denied that workman was re-designated

as General Mazdoor Cat-I from General Mazdoor Cat-II.

That Gevra Area was found on 1-9-92. The workman was

upgraded in Category II as per Cadre Scheme of NCWA

upgradation vide order No. 1678 dated 20-8-93. Workman

was promoted from Cat-II to III on 1-9-90. The allegation

of workman are denied . IInd party prayed for rejection of

claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the demand of

In Negative

Chhattisgarh Swatantra

Mazdoor Union, Branch

Gevra Project, distt.

Bilaspur for promotion/

upgradation/ regularization

of Shri Mahettar Das S/o

Shri Ghasi Das from time to

time in Cat-II to Cat-V of

Pump Khalasi/ Operator/

Driver (E&M) Personnel by

the management of SECL

Gevra Project/ Gevra Area

is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the work-

Workman is

man is entitled to?”

not entitled to

relief claimed

by him.

REASONS

5. The dispute is raised about denial of promotion

of workman to Category V. workman has filed affidavit of

his evidence but he failed to appear for cross-examination.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Iqbal Singh

but workman failed to cross-examine witness of

management. Workman has not participated in the

reference proceeding. The affidavit of workman cannot be

accepted as he failed to appear for cross-examination. Claim

of workman is not supported by cogent evidence. Therefore

I record my finding in Point No. in Negative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

The demand of Chhattisgarh Swatantra Mazdoor

Union, Branch Gevra Project, distt. Bilaspur for

promotion/upgradation/ regularization of Shri

Mahettar Das S/o Shri Ghasi Das from time to

time in Cat-II to Cat-V of Pump Khalasi/ Operator/

Driver (E&M) Personnel by the management of

SECL Gevra Project/ Gevra Area is not legal and

proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2100-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 120@90)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@350@1989&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2014

S.O.

2100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 120/

90) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 18/07/2014.

[No. L-22012/350/1989-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/120/90

SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Asstt. Secretary,

R.K.K.M.S(INTUC),

Chamdametta,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

. . . Workman/Union

Versus

5444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

General Manager,

WCL, Kanhan Area, Post Dungaria,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of June 2014

1. As per letter dated 24-25/4/90 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

350/89-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the General Manager,

W.C.Ltd. Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria, Distt.

Chhindwara in terminating services of S/Shri Billoo

and 59 other workmen of Nandan colliery as per the

dates shown against the name of each workman in

the attached list as annexure-I is justified? If not, to

what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim

at Page 28 to 38. Case of Union is that employees Billoo

and 59 others were initially employed in Nandan Colliery

in permanent cadre of Cat-I Mazdoor. They were

discharging their duties as permanent employees. List of

all those 60 labours with their date of termination is given

in Para-6. The misconduct defined under standing orders

are also narrated. Union submits that all those employees

were never informed about their absence from duties. No

chargesheet or showcause notice was issued to them

before terminating their services. That those workmen

worked 5-10 years with IInd party. Their services were

terminated without compliance of Section 25-F of I.D.Act.

Termination of their service is illegal. On such grounds

Union prays for reinstatement of those 61 employees. It is

submitted that those employees were not employed.

Therefore they are entitled to full back wages.

3. IInd party management filed Written Statement

at Page 21 to 24. Preliminary objection is raised that

termination of each employee is on independent facts

nothing is common. There could not be common reference.

The combined reference is impermissible. That reference

is bad as there was no termination of those employees.

That out of 59 persons named, 40 employees were engaged

on casual basis and when required. Their services came to

end at end of the day. That Shri Andhilal Biroo not shown

interest to continue in work despite of repeated warnings,

he did not performed the job effectively. Chargesheet was

issued on 29-9-84, 15-5-85. Departmental enquiry was

conducted. Workman accepted allegations against him.

His services were terminated after receiving report of the

Enquiry Officer. Workman is not entitled to be reinstated

with back wages. Identical Written Statement are separately

filed w.r.f. other employees namely Dasharath Dayaram,

Chhoottoo. It is contented that the workmen were

unauthorisely absent, chargesheet issued to him was

replied admitting the absence. Enquiry was conducted as

per rules. IInd party prayed for rejection of the claim.

4. Considering affidavits filed by management,

enquiry conducted against workman was found legal and

proper vide order dated 14-8-2013. 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 misconduct

In Affirmative

alleged against workman by

management is proved from

evidence

Enquiry

Proceedings?

(ii)

Whether punishment of termi- In Affirmative

nation of employee is legal

and proper ?

REASONS

5. Affidavit is filed by Shri P.K.Tripathi, Personnel

Manager and stated that Bhoju was employed as casual

worker. He was in habit of remaining absent. Warnings

issued to him did not improve his conduct. His attendance

was 16 days in 1984, 1 day in 1985. In separate affidavit,

P.K.Tripathi stated that Shri Ramdayal was employed as

casual labour. He was remaining absent without permission.

His attendance was 131 days in 1982, Nil in 1983, 24 days

in 1984 & 31 days in 1985. Attendance of Patlu Chudaman

was 28 days in 1984 & nil in 1985, attendance of Shri Pitru

Mangal was 13 days in 1983, 20 days in 1984 & 4 days in

1985, attendance of Shri Hirachand Bhikari was 68 days in

1983, 34 days in 1984 and Nil in 1985. Similarly said witness

has stated working days of Jethu Jogi, Bhadulal Sukhram,

Bhetusingh Langdu, Bhaggan Gorksha, Ajju Bhaglo

Tikaram Mangloo, Khushlal Mangria, Kishanlal

Sumarsingh, Shyamoo Ujjan, Shankar chokhey, Manglu

Jhamak, Fulbhansa Chhote, Heeralal Ramchand,Gyan

Kisnoo, Jhalkoo Jhilpoo, Prabhu Lal Hajjan, Fulsing Dama,

Sudelal Pirmoo, Sukhman Kowa, Shyamlal Mangal,

Ghansoo Fadali, Jiwanoo Karu, Sammal Hajjan, Gunaram

Jangi, Mangal Budal,Baisakhoo Mangloo, Jugarsha

Shyamlal, Bishnoo Dorjee, Bbulal Bhaiyalal, Chaitu

Fulchand & Lalloo Sobhey. Shri P.K.Tripathi was cross-

examined. In his cross-examination he says that the

Enquiry Proceedings is produced at Exhibit M-1 to M-

1(H). that the delinquent had admitted charges against

them. There is no need to cross-examine. The record of

Enquiry Proceedings is produced. Enquiry was conducted

about unauthorised absence. Any witness is not examined

by the Union. Individual employees are also not examined.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5445

I donot find reason to disbelieve evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings about unauthorized absence of those

employees. Therefore I record my finding on Point No.1 in

Affirmative. Considering long unauthorized absence,

punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said

improper. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.2 in

Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the General Manager, W.C.Ltd.

Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria, Distt. Chhindwara in

terminating services of S/Shri Billoo and 59 other

workmen of Nandan Colliery is legal.

(2)

Union is not entitled to relief of reinstatement in

respect of any of the employees.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2101-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

,vjykbZUl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUUkbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 36 dk 2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@31@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 36/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Dispute between the management of M/s. Singapore

Airlines Limited and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-11012/31/2012-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 27th June, 2014

PRESENT :

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 36/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of M/s. Singapore Airlines Ltd. and their

workman)

BETWEEN

The Singapore Airlines

: 1st Party/Petitioner

Limited Staff &

Officers Union,

12, Visweswarapuram Street

Mylapore, Chennai-600004

AND

The Managing Director

: 2nd Party/Respondent

M/s. Singapore Airlines Ltd.

West Minister,

108, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore Chennai-600074

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner: M/s. BFS Legal, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s. Fox Mandal &

Respondent

Associates, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-11012/31/2012-IR

(CM-I) dated 18.03.2013 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

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

Singapore Airlines Ltd. regarding non-arrival of

wage settlement with Singapore Airlines Ltd. Staff

and Officers Union, Chennai is legal and justified?

To what relief the workmen of the Petitioner Union

are entitled to ?”

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 36/2013 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel.

3. The Singapore Airlines Ltd., the Management

had approached the High Court of Madras under Article-

226 of Constitution of India praying to quash the reference

order. Even before Claim Statement was filed, the

proceedings before this Tribunal has been stayed by the

High Court. The Airlines had sought permission before

the High Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and by order

5446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 18.06.2014 the High Court had dismissed the Writ

Petition as withdrawn.

4. The Airlines and the Petitioner Union had settled

the dispute and had entered into a Memorandum of

Settlement on 31.05.2014.

5. A copy of the Memorandum of Settlement entered

into between the parties has been produced before this

Tribunal. The counsel for the petitioner as well as the

Management had endorsed stating that an award may be

passed on the basis of the Memorandum of Settlement.

Accordingly, an award is passed in terms of the

Memorandum of Settlement produced. The said

Memorandum of Settlement will be a part of the Award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 27th June, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

_________________N/A_______________________

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

_________________N/A_______________________

SINGAPOR E AIRLINES LTD.

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

NAMES OF PARTIES: 1. SINGAPORE AIRLINES

LIMITED.

THE WESTMINSTER, 1ST

FLOOR 108 DR:

RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI

MYLAPORE

CHENNAI- 600 004

2. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD.

STAFF & OFFICERS UNION

12, VISWESWARAPURAM

STREET MYLAPORE

CHENNAI 600 004

REPRESENTING

1. MR SEAH CHEE CHIAN

THE EMPLOYER

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD.

CHENNAI

REPRESENTING

2. MR P S SELVAKUMARAN

THE EMPLOYEES

GENERAL SECRETARY

SINGAPORE AIRLINES

STAFF & OFFICERS UNION

CHENNAI

SHORT RECITAL

That Singapore Airlines Limited (hereinafter referred

to as “the Company”) received the Charters of Demands

dated 03 June 2010 from Singapore Airlines Staff & Officers

Union Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the

Association”) for and on behalf its members, the

employees of Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore

Airlines Cargo Pvt. Ltd. The Company, after making a

detailed study of the said demands, invited the Association

for negotiations. After holding negotiations on several

occasions on the said Charters of Demands, the Company

and the Association have arrived at an amicable settlement

on the following terms and conditions :

PERIOD OF AGREEMENT

1.1

This Agreement shall come into effect on 01 April

2010 and remain in force till 31 March, 2015.

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE, SALARY,

ALLOWANCES AND OTHER BENEFITS

2.1

The general conditions of service, salary and

allowances, and other benefits shall be set out in

Parts One and Two of the Agreement.

PART ONE

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

EXCLUSIVE SERVICE

1.1

An employee shall not, without the prior written

permission of the Company, be engaged in any

outside business or be employed in any capacity

for any period by any person, government

department, statutory board, firm, company or

organisation other than the Company.

1.2

If an employee’s family member(s) is engaged in

any business which has dealings with the

Company or any of it’s subsidiaries that could have

the effect of putting the employee in a position of

conflict of interest in the discharge of his duties

towards the Company, he must inform the

Company in writing as soon as possible.

PUBLICATIONS, INTERVIEWS, BROADCASTS,

ETC.

2.1

The consent of the Company must be obtained

before any employee may:

2.1.1

publish, or cause to be published or submit for

publication any article, book, letter or photograph;

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5447

2.1.2

give any interview or disclose any information for

publication;

2.1.3

broadcast or appear in television programmes;

2.1.4

deliver any lecture or speech;

2.1.5

exhibit or cause to be exhibited any cinematograph

film; or any matter which concerns his duties or

the business of the Company.

2.2

In the case of publication under clauses 2.1.1 to

2.1.5 not concerned with the Company, no mention

may be made by the employee of his title or position

in the Company, or his connection with the

Company.

PRIVILEGE TRAVEL

3.1

Employees may apply for privilege travel on the

Company services in accordance with the

Company regulations in force from time to time.

UNIFORM

4.1

Employees who are required to wear uniform during

duty hours will do so.

4.2

Uniform will be issued according to the Company’s

Uniform Manual and will remain the property of

the Company.

4.3

Employees are responsible for keeping their

uniform clean, presentable and in good condition.

4.4

Uniform shall not be worn when staff are off duty.

Staff may, however, wear the uniform while

travelling between their home and their place of

duty and vice versa.

4.5

Employees leaving the services of the Company

must return all items of uniform or pay the value of

the unexpired life of any article which may have

been lost. Such items may be deducted from the

final payments due on termination of employment.

PROBATIONARY PERIOD

5.1

The period of probation will be six months subject

to extension by the Company at its sole discretion

for a period of further three months. The total

period of probation shall not exceed nine months.

NOTICE FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

6.1

Termination of employment may be effected by

either the Company or the employee in the

following manner:

6.1.1

During probation:

(i)

within the first three months of employment:

without notice;

(ii) after the first three months of employment: 14

days notice in writing or payment of 14 days

salary in lieu of notice; and

6.1.2

After confirmation:

(i)

one month’s notice in writing or by the

payment of one month’s salary in lieu of

notice.

MISCONDUCT/PUNISHMENT/DISMISSAL

7.1

Any of the following acts or omissions on the part

of any employee shall amount to misconduct;

7.1.1

wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether

or not in combination with another, of any lawful

and reasonable order of the superior;

7.1.2

going on illegal strike or abetting, inciting,

instigating or acting in furtherance thereof;

7.1.3

wilful slowing down in performance of work or

abetment or instigation thereof:

7.1.4

theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the

Company’s business or property;

7.1.5

taking or giving bribes or any illegal gratification;

7.1.6

habitual absence without leave or absence without

leave for more than 10 consecutive days or

overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient

grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation;

7.1.7

late attendance on not less than four occasions in

a month;

7.1.8

habitual breach of any law applicable to the

Company or any rules made there under;

7.1.9

collection without the permission of the Company

of any money within the premises of the Company

except sanctioned by any law for the time being in

force;

7.1.10 engaging in trade within the premises of the

Company;

7.1.11 drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent

behaviour in the Company premises;

7.1.12 commission of any act subversive to discipline or

good behaviour in the Company premises;

7.1.13 habitual neglect of work or gross or habitual

negligence;

7.1.14 habitual breach of any rules or instructions for the

maintenance and running of any department, or

the maintenance of the cleanliness of any portion

of the Company premises;

5448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7.1.15 habitual commission of any act or omission for

which a fine may be imposed under Payment of

Wages Act 1936.

7.1.16 canvassing for Union membership or the collection

of Union dues within the Company premises,

except in accordance with any law or with the

permission of the Company;

7.1.17 wilful damage to any Company property;

7.1.18 holding meetings in the Company premises,

without the prior permission of the Company or

except in accordance with any law for the time being

in force;

7.1.19 disclosing to any unauthorised person any

information in regard to the process of the

Company which may come to the possession of

the employee in the course of his work;

7.1.20 gambling within the Company premises;

7.1.21 smoking or spitting in the Company premises where

it is prohibited by the Company;

7.1.22 failure to observe safety instruction notified by

the Company or interference with any safety device

or equipment installed by the Company.

7.1.23 distributing or exhibiting within the Company

premises handbills, pamphlets and such other

things or causing to be displayed by means of

signs or writing or other visible representation on

any matter without prior sanction of the company;

7.1.24 refusal to accept a charge sheet, order or other

communication served in accordance with the

Standing Orders; and

7.1.25 unauthorised possession of any lethal weapon in

the Company premises.

Explanation: No act of misconduct, which is

committed on less than three occasions within the

space of one year. shall be treated as habitual.

7.2

An employee guilty of misconduct may be:

7.2.1

warned or censured; or

7.2.2

fined. subject to and in accordance with the

provision of the Payment of Wages Act 1936; or

7.2.3

suspended by an order in writing from the Company

for a period not exceeding four days; or

7.2.4

dismissed without notice.

7.3

No order under 7.2.3 shall be made unless the

employee concerned has been informed in writing

of the alleged misconduct or given an opportunity

to explain the circumstances alleged against him.

7.4

No order or dismissal under 7.2.4 shall be made

except holding an enquiry against the employee

concerned in respect of the alleged misconduct in

the manner set out in clause 7.5.

7.5

An employee against whom an enquiry is proposed

to be held shall be given a charge sheet. clearly

setting forth the circumstances appearing against

him and requiring his explanation. He shall be

permitted to defend himself or shall be permitted

to be defended by an employee working in the

same department as himself or by any office bearer

of the Association. Except for reasons to be

recorded in writing by the Enquiry Officer, the

employee shall be permitted to produce witness in

his defence and cross examine any witness on

whose evidence the charges rest. A concise

summary of the evidence from both sides and the

employee’s pleas shall be recorded.

7.6

All proceedings of the enquiry shall be conducted

in English.

7.7

The enquiry shall be completed within a period of

3 months. Provided that the period of 3 months

may for reasons to be recorded in writing, be

extended to such further period as may be deemed

necessary by the Enquiry Officer.

7.8

An employee against whom any action is proposed

to be taken under clauses 7.2.2 to 7.2.4 may be

suspended pending the enquiry or for the period,

if any, allowed to him for giving his explanation.

The order of suspension may take effect

immediately on its communication to the employee.

7.8.1

Subject to the provision of the Payment of Wages

Act 1936, an employee who is placed under

suspension shall, curing the period of suspension,

be paid a subsistence allowance at the following

rates:

(i)

for the first ninety days of the suspension

period, the employee will be paid on ½ of the

basic salary and allowances. However, the

Shift Allowance and Uniform Laundry

Allowance will not be paid;

(ii) If the enquiry gets prolonged and In case the

employee continues to be under suspension

for the period exceeding 90 days, he will be

paid ¾ basic pay and allowances. However,

the Shift Allowance and Uniform Laundry

Allowance will not be paid.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5449

(iii) If the enquiry is not completed within a period

of 180 days the employee will be paid full

basic pay and allowances. However, Shift

Allowance and the Uniform Laundry

Allowance will not be paid.

7.8.2

Provided that where the findings of the enquiry

officer show that such enquiry is prolonged beyond

a period of 90 days, or as the case be 180 days, for

reasons directly attributable to the employee, the

subsistence allowance to be paid per month shall

be for the period exceeding 90 days, or as the case

may be 180 days, be reduced to ½ basic pay and

allowances.

7.8.3

If, as a result of the enquiry held or explanations

tendered, it is decided not to take any action

against the employee under Clause 7.2 the

employee shall be deemed to have been on duty

and shall be entitled to full wages minus such

subsistence allowance as he may already have

drawn and to all other privileges for the full period

of suspension.

7.8.4

The payment of subsistence allowance under

Clause 7.8.1 shall be subject to the employee

concerned not taking up any employment during

the period of subsistence.

7.9

In awarding the punishment under this standing

order, the Company shall take into account the

gravity of the misconduct, previous record if any

of the employee, and any other extenuating or

aggravating circumstances that may exist.

7.10

If an employee refuses to accept a charge sheet

order or other communication served in

accordance with the Standing Order and provided

that he has been asked to accept the charge sheet

in the presence of at least 2 witnesses, he shall be

told verbally the time and place at which the enquiry

into his alleged misconduct is to be held, and if he

refuses or fails to attend at that time, the enquiry

shall be conducted ex-parte and the punishment

awarded shall take into account the misconduct

under Standing Order 22 thus committed.

7.11

An employee may be warned, censured or fined

for any of the following acts and omissions:

7.11.1 absence without leave without sufficient cause;

7.11.2 late attendance;

7.11.3 negligence in performance of duties;

7.11.4 neglect of work;

7.11.5 absence without leave or without sufficient cause

from the appointed place of work;

7.11.6 entering or leaving, or atternptinq to enter or leave

the Company premises except by a gate or entrance

appointed:

7.11.7 committing a nuisance on the Company premises:

7.11.8 breach of any rule or instruction for maintenance

or running of any department. Provided that no

employee shall be fined, except in accordance with

the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1936,

where the provisions of the said Act are applicable

to him.

WORKING HOURS

8.1

The normal hours of work will not exceed thirty-

eight hours and forty-five minutes per week

excluding meal breaks. These hours of work will be

distributed over five days a week with two days in

each week being days off. It shall be the absolute

discretion of the Company to specify the exact

working hours, depending upon operational

requirements. In the case of employees working

on shift basis, the length of each working week

may vary according to the particular shift roster,

but on an average; each employee will be required

to complete 38 hours and 45 minutes over the

course of the complete shift cycle.

8.2

No employee shall be eligible to receive wages if

he fails to report for duty for any reason other

than approved leave or paid holidays.

8.3

An employee will work in excess of the normal

working hours when required to do so by the

Company subject to the payment of overtime for

the extended hours worked.

8.4

Overtime will be calculated at twice the basic hourly

rate of work. The hourly rate will be calculated as

follows:

Basic Salary per month x 12 mooths

52 weeks x 38 hours and 45 minutes

8.5

Employees will be required to enter their starting

and finishing time of work, on each occasion, in

an attendance register kept for this purpose. Time

in excess of normal working hours has to be

certified in the register as being required for

company duty by the departmental nead

concerned.

8.6

Employees working in excess of half an hour from

their rostered time off, shall be entitled to overtime

payment from the rostered time off.

5450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

WORKING ON A WEEKLY DAY OFF

9.1

If an employee is required to work on his scheduled

day off, he will be given a day off in lieu within 21

days. If this is not possible, he will be paid overtime

at twice the basic hourly rate subject to a minimum

guaranteed four hours.

10.

WORKING ON PUBLIC/NATIONAL HOLIDAY

FALLING ON A OFF DAY

10.1

If an employee is required to work on his scheduled

off day which is also a Public/National holiday for

the station, he will be given two days off In lieu

within twenty-one days. If this is not possible, he

will be paid overtime at twice the basic hourly rate

for that day and be given a day off. Overtime will

be paid subject to a minimum guaranteed four

hours.

11.

WORKING ON PUBLIC/NATIONAL HOLIDAY

11.1

If an employee is required to work on a Public/

National holiday he will be given a day off in lieu

within twenty one days. If this is not possible he

will be paid overtime at twice the basic hourly rate,

subject to a minimum guaranteed four hours.

12.

ROSTERED DUTIES

12.1

The roster will be published two weeks in advance

for a period of four weeks. It can, however, be

changed by giving twenty-four hours notice. For

operational exigencies for e.g. aircraft diversions,

or return to base, no notice of change need be

given.

12.2

There will be a minimum of twelve hours break

between shifts. If an employee is required to report

for duty before he has had this break of twelve

hours, he will be entitled for overtime payment for

the hours that fall short of the full break.

12.3

An employee who is required to work continuously

for 17 hours or more will be paid overtime for the

extended hours worked, be given a break of 12

hours and a compensatory off within 21 days.

13.

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

13.1

Employees will be granted fifteen public holidays

in a calendar year. The list of public holidays will

be drawn up with the Association before the

commencement of the year. In case the

Government announces any additional holidays

under the Negotiable Instruments Act, employees

will be granted that holiday.

14.

ANNUAL LEAVE

14.1

Annual leave will be granted on the following basis

and will be taken in accordance with the following

regulations:

14.1.1 For employees with up to :

17 working days

5 years service

14.1.2 For employees with more

20 working days

than 5 years service

14.1.3 For employees with more

23 working days

than 15 years service

14.2

Annual leave must be taken in the calendar year in

which it is earned. Leave not utilised by the end of

the calendar year will lapse unless it was not taken

at the Company’s request. In such cases and

provided prior approval is obtained from the

General Manager or State Manager, the leave may

be carried forward to the following year to be

cleared by 31 March.

15.

CASUAL LEAVE

15.1

An employee will be entitled to paid Casual leave

up to 9 days in a calendar year, but not more than

2 days at a time.

15.2

Casual leave shall be non-cumulative and no leave

of any kind may be combined with Casual Leave.

15.3

Casual leave is intended to meet special or

unforeseen circumstances for which provision

cannot be made by exact rules.

15.4

The previous permission of the Department Head

must be taken in writing before Casual leave is

taken, but when this is not possible, information

should be given on the telephone.

16.

SICK LEAVE

16.1

An employee will be eligible for sick leave on full

salary up to a maximum of 12 working days in one

calendar year. Sick leave may be accumulated up

to a maximum of 90 working days.

16.2

Sick leave taken for two or more working days must

be supported by a certificate from the Company-

appointed doctor.

17.

MATERNITY LEAVE

17.1

All female employees will be entitled to maternity

leave as per the provisions of Maternity Benefit

Act - 1961 and the amendments made to it thereafter.

18.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (DOMICILIARY)

18.1

Employees can opt for one of two schemes:

18.1.1 Scheme 1 : Full reimbursement for the employee

only, for the cost of medical treatment received

from Company-appointed doctors.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5451

18.1.2 Scheme 2 : Reimbursement, for the employee,

spouse and dependent children, for the cost of

medical treatment received from Company-

appointed doctors subject to a maximum limit of

Rs. 8,500 per annum for staff, and Rs. 2,500 per

annum each for spouse and two dependent

children.

18.2

Medical treatment shall consist of consultation

fees, including specialist’s fees, the cost of any

tests/investigations required for the diagnosis of

the illness, and medicines prescribed by the

doctors. This will also include the Company-

appointed doctors’ visiting fees.

18.3

The employee shall exercise the option once a year.

Once exercised, the option cannot be changed for

a period of 12 months.

18.4

The Company shall not be responsible for the

payment of any expenses arising from:

18.4.1 all medical, surgical, optical and dental appliances

including spectacles and eye glasses, dentures

and similar appliances;

18.4.2 pregnancy, confinement or miscarriage;

18.4.3 illness or disablement arising from attempted

suicide, the performance of an unlawful act,

provoked assault, the use of drugs other than those

prescribed by the Company’s doctor;

18.4.4 treatment of medicines where these become

necessary as a result of the misconduct or

negligence on the part of an employee or in the

case of an employee who refuses to undergo

treatment as prescribed by the Company doctor.

19.

DENTAL TREATMENT

19.1

Employees shall be reimbursed the cost of dental

treatment which they may receive from Company-

appointed dentists. This consists of consultation

fees, including specialist’s fees, the cost of any

tests/investigations required for the diagnosis of

the illness, and medicines prescribed by the dentist.

19.2

Dental treatment includes cleaning, scaling, filling,

extraction, root canal treatment, gum surgery etc.

It excludes capping, bridging, dentures and other

dental appliances.

20.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (HOSPITALISATION)

20.1

All employees are covered for hospitalisation by

an insurance policy with the premium of which

will be paid for by the Company. In the case of

married employees, the Company will pay fifty

percent of the premium for the employees’ spouse

and dependent children. The balance fifty percent

will be paid by the employee himself.

20.2

For employees in Grades III, the maximum sum

insured will be Rs. 200,000. With effect from the

next date of renewal the sum insured will increase

to Rs. 300,000 (subject to renewal of the policy by

the insurance company).

20.3

For employees in Grades IV and V, the maximum

sum insured will be Rs. 250,000. With effect from

the next date of renewal of the said policies the

sum insured will be revised to Rs.350,000 (subject

to renewal of the policy by the Insurance company).

21.

PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE

21.1

All employees are covered for hospitalisation by a

Personal Accident Insurance Policy, the premium

of which will be paid by the Company.

21.2

The sum insured for each employee will be twice

the annual salary of each employee (at the time of

renewal).

22.

EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND

22.1

Employees who are members of the, Employees’

Provident Fund will be eligible for the benefits as

per the rules of the Fund.

23.

RETIREMENT

23.1

The retirement age is 58 years for both male and

female employees.

PART TWO

SALARY, ALLOWANCES & OTHER SERVICE

CONDITIONS

SALARY SCALES

1.1

Salaries for each position will be paid in accordance

with the salary scales set out in Annexure 1.

ANNUAL INCREMENTS

2.1

Employees will be granted annual increments on

01 April each year, amounting to 4% of their basic

salary as at 31 March.

BASIC SALARY REVISION

3.1

Employees will be granted a Cost of Living

Adjsutment (COLA) for the duration of this

agreement as per the table below:

5452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Date

COLA

(% of 31 March basic pay)

01 April, 10

9.85

01 April, 11

8.71

01 April, 12

8.31

01 April, 13

11.06

01 April, 14

9.95

3.2

The Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) will be

based on a weighted average of CPI of 05 on-line

metros (BOM, BLR. CCU, DEL & MAA), using

staff strength as variable.

TRANSPORT SUBSIDY

Transport subsidy will be paid as per the table

below:

01 April, 2010

01 April, 2011 onwards

Grade

Town

Traffic

Town

Traffic

3550

6250

4250

7500

3680

6370

4400

7640

3800

6500

4550

7800

3900

6600

4680

7900

HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE

5.1

All employees will be entitled to receive a House

Rent Allowance amounting to 10% of their basic

pay.

SHIFT ALLOWANCE:

6.1

Employees who are rostered for shift duties will be

paid a single rate Shift Allowance with effect from

01 April, 2010.

6.1.1

The Shift Allowance replaces the Night Shift

Allowance and the Work Through Break

Allowance, which will cease to be paid from the

same date.

6.2

The Shift Allowance will be paid on the following

basis:

6.2.1

FY1 0/11, FY11/12 & FY12/13 : Rs.1000 per month

X 11 months for each year;

6.2.2

Effective 01 April, 13, the Shift Allowance will

increase to Rs.2,500 per month;

6.2.3

Effective 01 April, 14, the Shift Allowance will

increase to Rs.3,000 per month.

UNIFORM LAUNDRY ALLOWANCE:

7.1

Effective 01 April, 2010, employees who are

required to wear uniforms will be paid a Uniform

Laundry Allowance of Rs.700 per month towards

the cost of laundering their uniforms.

7.2

Staff will not be paid the Uniform Laundry

Allowance when they are on annual leave.

ACTING ALLOWANCE

8.1

When an employee is absent for a period exceeding

5 working days, the Company may at its discretion

appoint an employee in a lower grade to act for the

absent employee. The junior employee will be

entitled to an Acting Allowance provided he takes

over the full responsibilities and duties of the senior

employee and acts for a period of at least 5

consecutive working days. The Acting Allowance

payable will be 6% of the junior employee’s

monthly basic salary pro-rated for the number of

days applicable.

BONUS

9.1

Employees will be paid an annual bonus in

accordance with the law.

10.

GRATUITY

10.1

Gratuity will be payable to all employees as per the

provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

and the amendments made thereafter.

11.

RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT OF SALARY

AND ALLOWANCES

11.1

In the event of excess payment of salary and

allowances, owing to

11.2

Cashier error

11.3

Error in calculation

11.4

Sick leave and annual leave taken in excess of

entitlement the Company shall recover the same

from the employee’s future wages. However, the

deduction should be effected within 01 year from

the date of excess payment.

12.

CHANGES IN ALLOWANCE AND BONUSES

AND SUCH OTHER PAYMENTS AS REQUIRED

BY LEGISLATION

12.1

The Company agrees to make such changes to the

allowances, bonuses, and such other payments

as may be required by legislation.

12.2

In the event that an employee resigns from the

services of the Company he will receive arrears

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5453

which are due to him from the date of termination

of employment, in accordance with the law.

13.

EXISTING BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES

13.1

All existing benefits, privileges, payments and

allowances not covered in this Agreement in Parts

One and Two shall not be changed without prior

agreement with the Association in writing.

GENERAL

14.1

The Management shall withdraw the Writ Petition

No. 22435 of 2013 filed by Singapore Airlines

Limited before the High Court of Judicature at

Madras where an order dated 19.08.2013 has been

passed to stay the proceedings in ID NO.36 of

2013 pending before the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and Writ Petition No.

22491 of 2013 filed by Singapore Airlines Limited

before the High Court of Judicature at Madras

where an order dated 19.08.2013 has been passed

to stay the proceedings in ID No.47 of 2013

pending before the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, Chennai. Subsequent to the withdrawal

of the Writ Petitions mentioned above, the

Association shall file the present Settlement

Agreement before the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and request CGIT to

pass an award in ID No. 36 of 2013, ID No. 47 of

2013 and ID No. 42 of 2014 in terms of this

Settlement Agreement.

14.2.1 The Union agrees not to make any other demands

other than those contained herein pursuant to the

Charter of Demand dated 03 June 2010, during the

tenure of this agreement. The demands which have

not been settled by this settlement and contained

in the Charter of Demands, are hereby withdrawn

by the Union.

14.3

In the event that the Company reaches reaches an

agreement with any staff association in India on

more beneficial terms, the Company undertakes to

extend the same to the Association, with effect

from the same date from which they become

applicable.

This agreement is signed at Chennaion the 31st day of

May Two Thousand and Fourteen

Manager Southern India

General Secretary

Singapore Airlines Limited

Singapore Airlines Staff

& Officers Union

(For & on behalf of the

Employer)

Employees)

WITNESSES :

1. K Ravichandran

2. Mohamed Akmal

ANNEXURE 1

1. Salary Ranges with effect from 01 April 2010.

Salary Ranges

(Rs./pm)

Grade Title

Min

Max

Office Helper

14,203

35,308

Clerk

17,717

44,293

Jr. Agent/Clerk

(Customer Service,

22,519

56,300

Reservations, Accounts,

Sales & Marketing)

Agent

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

25,981

64,950

Sales & Marketing)

Officer

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

33,085

82,700

Sales & Marketing)

2. Salary Ranges with effect from 01 April 2013.

Salary Ranges

(Rs./pm)

Grade Title

Min

Max

Jr. Agent/Clerk

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

25,000

62,500

Sales & Marketing)

Agent

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

33,000

82,500

Sales & Marketing)

Officer

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

40,000

100,000

Sales & Marketing)

Sr. Officer

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

45,000

112,500

Sales & Marketing)

5454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2102-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

,vjykbZUl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUUkbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 47 dk 2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@1@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 47/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Dispute between the management of M/s. Singapore

Airlines Limited and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 21/07/2014.

[No. L-11012/1/2013-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 27th June, 2014

PRESENT :

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 47/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of M/s. Singapore Airlines Ltd. and their

workman).

BETWEEN

The Singapore Airlines

: 1st Party/Petitioner

Limited Staff &

Officers Union,

12, Visweswarapuram Street

Mylapore Chennai-600004

AND

The Managing Director

: 2nd Party/Respondent

M/s Singapore Airlines Ltd.

West Minister,

108, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore Chennai-600074

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s BFS Legal, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s Fox Mandal &

Respondent

Associates, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-11012/1/2013 (IR(CM-I)

dated 08.04.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of

Singapore Airlines Ltd. in respect of appointment of

M/s. Nancy Kao as Sales Officer against the

guidelines and regulations of Singapore Airlines is

legal and justified ? To what relief the member of the

Petitioner Union is entitled to ?’’

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 47/2013 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel.

3. The Singapore Airlines Ltd., the Management

had approached the High Court of Madras under Article-

226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the

reference order. Even before Claim Statement was filed the

proceedings before this Tribunal has been stayed by the

High Court. The Airlines had sought permission before

the High Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and by order

dated 18.06.2014 the High Court had dismissed the Writ

Petition as withdrawn.

4. The Airlines and the Petitioner Union had settled

the dispute and had entered into a Memorandum of

Settlement on 31.05.2014.

5. A copy of the Memorandum of Settlement entered

into between the parties has been produced before this

Tribunal. The counsel for the petitioner as well as the

Management had endorsed stating that an award may

be passed on the basis of the Memorandum of

Settlement. Accordingly, an award is passed in terms

of the Memorandum of Settlement produced. The said

Memorandum of Settlement will be a part of the Award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 27th June, 2014).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5455

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD.

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

NAMES OF PARTIES: 1. SINGAPORE AIRLINES

LIMITED

THE WESTMINSTER, 1ST

FLOOR 108 DR:

RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI

MYLAPORE

CHENNAI- 600 004

2. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD.

STAFF & OFFICERS UNION

12, VISWESWARAPURAM

STREET MYLAPORE

CHENNAI 600 004

REPRESENTING

1. MR SEAH CHEE CHIAN THE

EMPLOYER

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD

CHENNAI

REPRESENTING

2. MR P S SELVAKUMARAN

THE EMPLOYEES

GENERAL SECRETARY

SINGAPORE AIRLINES

STAFF & OFFICERS UNION

CHENNAI

SHORT RECITAL

That Singapore Airlines Limited (hereinafter referred

to as “the Company”) received the Charters of Demands

dated 03 June 2010 from Singapore Airlines Staff & Officers

Union Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the

Association”) for and on behalf its members, the

employees of Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore

Airlines Cargo Pvt. Ltd. The Company, after making a

detailed study of the said demands, invited the Association

for negotiations. After holding negotiations on several

occasions on the said Charters of Demands, the Company

and the Association have arrived at an amicable settlement

on the following terms and conditions :

PERIOD OF AGREEMENT

1.1

This Agreement shall come into effect on 01 April

2010 and remain in force till 31 March, 2015.

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE, SALARY,

ALLOWANCES AND OTHER BENEFITS

2.1

The general conditions of service, salary and

allowances, and other benefits shall be set out in

Parts One and Two of the Agreement.

PART ONE

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

EXCLUSIVE SERVICE

1.1

An employee shall not, without the prior written

permission of the Company, be engaged in any

outside business or be employed in any capacity

for any period by any person, government

department, statutory board, firm, company or

organisation other than the Company.

1.2

If an employee’s family member(s) is engaged in

any business which has dealings with the

Company or any of it’s subsidiaries that could have

the effect of putting the employee in a position of

conflict of interest in the discharge of his duties

towards the Company, he must inform the

Company in writing as soon as possible.

PUBLICATIONS, INTERVIEWS, BROADCASTS,

ETC.

2.1

The consent of the Company must be obtained

before any employee may:

2.1.1

publish, or cause to be published or submit for

publication any article, book, letter or photograph;

2.1.2

give any interview or disclose any information for

publication;

2.1.3

broadcast or appear in television programmes;

2.1.4

deliver any lecture or speech;

2.1.5

exhibit or cause to be exhibited any cinematograph

film; or any matter which concerns his duties or

the business of the Company.

2.2

In the case of publication under clauses 2.1.1 to

2.1.5 not concerned with the Company, no mention

may be made by the employee of his title or position

in the Company, or his connection with the

Company.

PRIVILEGE TRAVEL

3.1

Employees may apply for privilege travel on the

Company services in accordance with the

Company regulations in force from time to time.

5456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

UNIFORM

4.1

Employees who are required to wear uniform during

duty hours will do so.

4.2

Uniform will be issued according to the Company’s

Uniform Manual and will rtmaln the property of

the Company.

4.3

Employees are responsible for keeping their

uniform clean, presentable and in good condition.

4.4

Uniform shall not be worn when staff are off duty.

Staff may, however, wear the uniform while

travelling between their home and their place of

duty and vice versa.

4.5

Employees leaving the services of the Company

must return all Items of uniform or pay the value of

the unexpired life of any article which may have

been lost. Such items may be deducted from the

final payments due on termination of employment.

PROBATIONARY PERIOD

5.1

The period of probation will be six months subject

to extension by the Company at its sole discretion

for a period of further three months. The total

period of probation shall not exceed nine months.

NOTICE FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

6.1

Termination of employment may be effected by

either the Company or the employee in the

following manner:

6.1.1

During probation:

(i)

within the first three months of employment:

without notice;

(ii) after the first three months of employment :

14 days notice In writing or payment of

14 days salary in lieu of notice; and

6.1.2

After confirmation:

(I)

one month’s notice in writing or by the

payment of one month’s salary in lieu of

notice.

MISCONDUCT/PUNISHMENT/DISMISSAL

7.1

Any of the following acts or omissions on the part

of any employee shall amount to misconduct;

7.1.1

wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether

or not in combination with another, of any lawful

and reasonable order of the superior;

7.1.2

going on illegal strike or abetting, inciting,

instigating or acting in furtherance thereof;

7.1.3

wilful slowing down in performance of work or

abetment or instigation thereof:

7.1.4

theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the

Company’s business or property;

7.1.5

taking or giving bribes or any illegal gratification;

7.1.6

habitual absence without leave or absence without

leave for more than 10 consecutive days or

overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient

grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation;

7.1.7

late attendance on not less than four occasions in

a month;

7.1.8

habitual breach of any law applicable to the

Company or any rules made there under;

7.1.9

collection without the permission of the Company

of any money within the premises of the Company

except sanctioned by any law for the time being in

force;

7.1.10 engaging in trade within the premises of the

Company;

7.1.11 drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent

behaviour in the Company premises;

7.1.12 commission of any act subversive to discipline or

good behaviour in the Company premises;

7.1.13 habitual neglect of work or gross or habitual

negligence;

7.1.14 habitual breach of any rules or instructions for the

maintenance and running of any department, or

the maintenance of the cleanliness of any portion

of the Company premises;

7.1.15 habitual commission of any act or omission for

which a fine may be imposed under Payment of

Wages Act 1936.

7.1.16 canvassing for Union membership or the collection

of Union dues within the Company premises,

except in accordance with any law or with the

permission of the Company;

7.1.17 wilful damage to any Company property;

7.1.18 holding meetings in the Company premises,

without the prior permission of the Company or

except in accordance with any law for the time being

in force;

7.1.19 disclosing to any unauthorised person any

information in regard to the process of the

Company which may come to the possession of

the employee in the course of his work;

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5457

7.1.20 gambling within the Company premises;

7.1.21 smoking or spitting in the Company premises where

it is prohibited by the Company;

7.1.22 failure to observe safety instruction notified by

the Company or interference with any safety device

or equipment installed by the Company.

7.1.23 distributing or exhibiting within the Company

premises handbills, pamphlets and such other

things or causing to be displayed by means of

signs or writing or other visible representation on

any matter without prior sanction of the company;

7.1.24 refusal to accept a charge sheet, order or other

communication served in accordance with the

Standing Orders; and

7.1.25 unauthorised possession of any lethal weapon in

the Company premises.

Explanation: No act of misconduct, which is

committed on less than three occasions within the

space of one year. shall be treated as habitual.

7.2

An employee guilty of misconduct may be:

7.2.1

warned or censured; or

7.2.2

fined. subject to and in accordance with the

provision of the Payment of Wages Act 1936; or

7.2.3

suspended by an order in writing from the Company

for a period not exceeding four days; or

7.2.4

dismissed without notice.

7.3

No order under 7.2.3 shall be made unless the

employee concerned has been informed in writing

of the allegod misconduct or given an opportunity

to explain the circumstances alleged against him.

7.4

No order or dismissal under 7.2.4 shall be made

except holding an enquiry against the employee

concerned in respect of the alleged misconduct in

the manner set out in clause 7.5.

7.5

An employee against whom an enquiry is proposed

to be held shall be given a charge sheet. clearly

setting forth the circumstances appearing against

him and requiring his explanation. He shall be

permitted to defend himself or shall be permitted

to be defended by an employee working in the

same department as himself or by any office bearer

of the Association. Except for reasons to be

recorded in writing by the Enquiry Officer, the

employee shall be permitted to produce witness in

his defence and cross examine any witness on

whose evidence the charges rest. A concise

summary of the evidence from both sides and the

employee’s pleas shall be recorded.

7.6

All proceedings of the enquiry shall be conducted

in English.

7.7

The enquiry shall be completed within a period of

3 months. Provided that the period of 3 months

may for reasons to be recorded in writing, be

extended to such further period as may be deemed

necessary by the Enquiry Officer.

7.8

An employee against whom any action is proposed

to be taken under clauses 7.2.2 to 7.2.4 may be

suspended pending the enquiry or for the period,

if any, allowed to him for giving his explanation.

The order of suspension may take effect

immediately on its communication to the employee.

7.8.1

Subject to the provision of the Payment of Wages

Act 1936, an employee who is placed under

suspension shall, during the period of suspension,

be paid a subsistence allowance at the following

rates:

(i)

for the first ninety days of the suspension

period, the employee will be paid on ½ of the

basic salary and allowances. However, the

Shift Allowance and Uniform Laundry

Allowance will not be paid;

(ii) If the enquiry gets prolonged and in case the

employee continues to be under suspension

for the period exceeding 90 days, he will be

paid ¾ basic pay and allowances. However,

the Shift Allowance and Uniform Laundry

Allowance will not be paid.

(iii) If the enquiry is not completed within a period

of 180 days the employee will be paid full

basic pay and allowances. However, Shift

Allowance and the Uniform Laundry

Allowance will not be paid.

7.8.2

Provided that where the findings of the enquiry

officer show that such enquiry is prolonged beyond

a period of 90 days, or as the case be 180 days, for

reasons directly attributable to the employee, the

subsistence allowance to be paid per month shall

be for the period exceeding 90 days, or as the case

may be 180 days, be reduced to ½ basic pay and

allowances.

7.8.3

If, as a result of the enquiry held or explanations

tendered, it is decided not to take any action

against the employee under Clause 7.2 the

employee shall be deemed to have been on duty

and shall be entitled to full wages minus such

subsistence allowance as he may already have

5458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

drawn and to all other privileges for the full period

of suspension.

7.8.4

The payment of subsistence allowance under

Clause 7.8.1 shall be subject to the employee

concerned not taking up any employment during

the period of subsistence.

7.9

In awarding the punishment under this standing

order, the Company shall take into account the

gravity of the misconduct, previous record if any

of the employee, and any other extenuating or

aggravating circumstances that may exist.

7.10

If an employee refuses to accept a charge sheet

order or other communication served in

accordance with the Standing Order and provided

that he has been asked to accept the charge sheet

in the presence of at least 2 witnesses, he shall be

told verbally the time and place at which the enquiry

into his alleged misconduct is to be held, and if he

refuses or fails to attend at that time, the enquiry

shall be conducted ex-parte and the punishment

awarded shall take into account the misconduct

under Standing Order 22 thus committed.

7.11

An employee may be warned, censured or fined

for any of the following acts and omissions:

7.11.1 absence without leave without sufficient cause;

7.11.2 late attendance;

7.11.3 negligence in performance of duties;

7.11.4 neglect of work;

7.11.5 absence without leave or without sufficient cause

from the appointed place of work;

7.11.6 entering or leaving, or attempting to enter or leave

the Company premises except by a gate or entrance

appointed:

7.11.7 committing a nuisance on the Company premises:

7.11.8 breach of any rule or instruction for maintenance

or running of any department. Provided that no

employee shall be fined, except in accordance with

the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1936,

where the provisions of the said Act are applicable

to him.

WORKING HOURS

8.1

The normal hours of work will not exceed thirty-

eight hours and forty-five minutes per week

excluding meal breaks. These hours of work will be

distributed over five days a week with two days in

each week being days off. It shall be the absolute

discretion of the Company to specify the exact

working hours, depending upon operational

requirements. In the case of employees working

on shift basis, the length of each working week

may vary according to the particular shift roster,

but on an average; each employee will be required

to complete 38 hours and 45 minutes over the

course of the complete shift cycle.

8.2

No employee shall be eligible to receive wages if

he fails to report for duty for any reason other

than approved leave or paid holidays.

8.3

An employee will work in excess of the normal

working hours when required to do so by the

Company subject to the payment of Overtime for

the extended hours worked.

8.4

Overtime will be calculated at twice the basic hourly

rate of work. The hourly rate will be calculated as

follows:

Basic Salary per month x 12 mooths

52 weeks x 38 hours and 45 minutes

8.5

Employees will be required to enter their starting

and finishing time of work, on each occasion, in

an attendance register kept for this purpose. Time

in excess of normal working hours has to be

certified in the register as being required for

company duty by the departmental head

concerned.

8.6

Employees working in excess of half an hour from

their rostered time off, shall be entitled to overtime

payment from the rostered time off.

WORKING ON A WEEKLY DAY OFF

9.1

If an employee is required to work on his scheduled

day off, he will be given a day off in lieu within 21

days. If this is not possible, he will be paid overtime

at twice the basic hourly rate subject to a minimum

guaranteed four hours.

WORKING ON PUBLIC/NATIONAL HOLIDAY

FALLING ON A OFF DAY

10.1

If an employee is required to work on his scheduled

off day which is also a Public/National holiday for

the station, he will be given two days off in lieu

within twenty-one days. If this is not possible. he

will be paid overtime at twice the basic hourly rate

for that day and be given a day off. Overtime will

be paid subject to a minimum guaranteed four

hours.

WORKING ON PUBLIC/NATIONAl. HOLIDAY

11.1

If an employee is required to work on a Public/

National holiday he will be given a day off in lieu

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5459

within twenty one days. If this is not possible he

will be paid overtime at twice the basic hourly rate,

subject to a minimum guaranteed four hours.

ROSTERED DUTIES

12.1

The roster will be published two weeks in advance

for a period of four weeks. It can, however, be

changed by giving twenty-four hours notice. For

operational exigencies for e.g. aircraft diversions,

or return to base, no notice of change need be

given.

12.2

There will be a minimum of twelve hours break

between shifts. If an employee is required to report

for duty before he has had this break of twelve

hours, he will be entitled for overtime payment for

the hours that fall short of the full break.

12.3

An employee who is required to work continuously

for 17 hours or more will be paid overtime for the

extended hours worked, be given a break of 12

hours and a compensatory off within 21 days.

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

13.1

Employees will be granted fifteen public holidays

in a calendar year. The list of public holidays will

be drawn up with the Association before the

commencement of the year. In case the Govemment

announces any additional holidays under the

Negotiable Instruments Act, employees will be

granted that holiday.

ANNUAL LEAVE

14.1

Annual leave will be granted on the following basis

and will be taken in accordance with the following

regulations:

14.1.1 For employees with up to :

17 working days

5 years service

14.1.2 For employees with more

20 working days

than 5 years service

14.1.3 For employees with more

23 working days

than 15 years service

14.2

Annual leave must be taken in the calendar year in

which it is earned. Leave not utilised by the end of

the calendar year will lapse unless it was not taken

at the Company’s request. In such cases and

provided prior approval is obtained from the

General Manager or State Manager, the leave may

be carried forward to the following year to be

cleared by 31 March.

CASUAL LEAVE

15.1

An employee will be entitled to paid Casual leave

up to 9 days in a calendar year, but not more than

2 days at a time.

15.2

Casual leave shall be non-cumulative and no leave

of any kind may be combined with Casual Leave.

15.3

Casual leave is intended to meet special or

unforeseen circumstances for which provision

cannot be made by exact rules.

15.4

The previous permission of the Department Head

must be taken in writing before Casual leave is

taken, but when this is not possible, information

should be given on the telephone.

SICK LEAVE

16.1

An employee will be eligible for sick leave on full

salary up to a maximum of 12 working days in one

calendar year. Sick leave may be accumulated up

to a maximum of 90 working days.

16.2

Sick leave taken for two or more working days must

be supported by a certificate from the Company-

appointed doctor.

MATERNITY LEAVE

17.1

All female employees will be entitled to maternity

leave as per the provisions of Maternity Benefit

Act - 1961 and the amendments made to it thereafter.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (DOMICILIARY)

18.1

Employees can opt for one of two schemes:

18.1.1 Scheme 1 : Full reimbursement tor the employee

only, for the cost of medical treatment received

from Company-appointed doctors.

18.1.2 Scheme 2 : Reimbursement, for the employee,

spouse and dependent children, for the cost of

medical treatment received from Company-

appointed doctors subject to a maximum limit of

Rs.8,500 per annum for staff, and Rs.2,500 per

annum each for spouse and two dependent

children

18.2

Medical treatment shall consist of consultation

fees, including specialist’s fees, the cost of any

tests/investigations required for the diagnosis of

the illness, and medicines prescribed by the

doctors. This will also include the Company-

appointed doctors’ visiting fees.

18.3

The employee shall exercise the option once a year.

Once exercised, the option cannot be changed for

a period of 12 months.

18.4

The Company shall not be responsible for the

payment of any expenses arising from:

18.4.1 all medical, surgical, optical and dental appliances

including spectacles and eye glasses, dentures

and similar appliances;

5460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18.4.2 pregnancy, confinement or miscarriage;

18.4.3 illness or disablement arising from attempted

suicide, the performance of an unlawful act,

provoked assault, the use of drugs other than those

prescribed by the Company’s doctor;

18.4.4 treatment of medicines where these become

necessary as a result of the misconduct or

negligence on the part of an employee or in the

case of an employee who refuses to undergo

treatment as prescribed by the Company doctor.

19.

DENTAL TREATMENT

19.1

Employees shall be reimbursed the cost of dental

treatment which they may receive from Company-

appointed dentists. This consists of consultation

fees, including specialist’s fees, the cost of any

tests/investigations required for the diagnosis of

the illness, and medicines prescribed by the dentist.

19.2

Dental treatment includes cleaning, scaling, filling,

extraction, root canal treatment, gum surgery etc.

It excludes capping, bridging, dentures and other

dental appliances.

20.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (HOSPITALISATION)

20.1

All employees are covered for hospitalisation by

an insurance policy with the premium of which

will be paid for by the Company. In the case of

married employees, the Company will pay fifty

percent of the premium for the employees’ spouse

and dependent children. The balance fifty percent

will be paid by the employee himself.

20.2

For employees in Grades Ill, the maximum sum

insured will be Rs.200,000. With effect from the

next date of renewal the sum insured will increase

to Rs.300,000 (subject to renewal of the policy by

the insurance company).

20.3

For employees in Grades IV and V, the maximum

sum insured will be Rs.250,000. With effect from

the next date of renewal of the said policies the

sum insured will be revised to Rs.350,000 (subject

to renewal of the policy by the insurance company).

21.

PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE

21.1

All employees are covered for hospitalisation by a

Personal Accident Insurance Policy, the premium

of which will be paid by the Company.

21.2

The sum insured for each employee will be twice

the annual salary of each employee (at the time of

renewal).

22.

EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND

22.1

Employees who are members of the, Employees’

Provident Fund will be eligible for the benefits as

per the rules of the Fund.

23.

RETIREMENT

23.1

The retirement age is 58 years for both male and

female employees.

PART TWO

SALARY, ALLOWANCES & OTHER SERVICE

CONDITIONS

SALARY SCALES

1.1

Salaries for each position will be paid in accordance

with the salary scales set out in Annexure 1.

ANNUAL INCREMENTS

2.1

Employees will be granted annual increments on

01 April each year, amounting to 4% of their basic

salary as at 31 March.

BASIC SALARY REVISION

3.1

Employees will be granted a Cost of Living

Adjsutment (COLA) for the duration of this

agreement as per the table below:

Date

COLA

(% of 31 March basic pay)

01 April 10

9.85

01 April 11

8.71

01 April 12

8.31

01 April 13

11.06

01 April 14

9.95

3.2

The Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) will be

based on a weighted average of CPI of 05 on-line

metros (BOM, BLR. CCU, DEL & MAA), using

staff strength as variable.

TRANSPORT SUBSIDY

Transport subsidy will be paid as per the table

below:

01 April 2010

01 April 2011 onwards

Grade

Town

Traffic

Town

Traffic

3550

6250

4250

7500

3680

6370

4400

7640

3800

6500

4550

7800

3900

6600

4680

7900

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5461

HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE

5.1

All employees will be entitled to receive a House

Rent Allowance amounting to 10% of their basic

pay.

SHIFT ALLOWANCE:

6.1

Employees who are rostered for shift duties will be

paid a single rate Shift Allowance with effect from

01 April, 2010.

6.1.1

The Shift Allowance replaces the Night Shift

Allowance and the Work Through Break

Allowance, which will cease to be paid from the

same date.

6.2

The Shift Allowance will be paid on the following

basis:

6.2.1

FY10/11, FY11/12 & FY12/13 : Rs.1000 per month

X 11 months for each year;

6.2.2

Effective 01 April, 13, the Shift Allowance will

increase to Rs. 2,500 per month;

6.2.3

Effective 01 April, 14, the Shift Allowance will

increase to Rs. 3,000 per month.

UNIFORM LAUNDRY ALLOWANCE:

7.1

Effective 01 April, 2010, employees who are

required to wear uniforms will be paid a Uniform

Laundry Allowance of Rs.700 per month towards

the cost of laundering their uniforms.

7.2

Staff will not be paid the Uniform Laundry

Allowance when they are on annual leave.

ACTING ALLOWANCE

8.1

When an employee is absent for a period exceeding

5 working days, the Company may at its discretion

appoint an employee in a lower grade to act for the

absent employee. The junior employee will be

entitled to an Acting Allowance provided he takes

over the full responsibilities and duties of the senior

employee and acts for a period of at least 5

consecutive working days. The Acting Allowance

payable will be 6% of the junior employee’s

monthly basic salary pro-rated for the number of

days applicable.

BONUS

9.1

Employees will be paid an annual bonus in

accordance with the law.

10.

GRATUITY

10.1

Gratuity will be payable to all employees as per the

provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

and the amendments made thereafter.

11.

RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT OF SALARY

AND ALLOWANCES

11.1

In the event of excess payment of salary and

allowances, owing to

11.2

Cashier error

11.3

Error in calculation

11.4

Sick leave and annual leave taken in excess of

entitlement

The Company shall recover the same from the

employee’s future wages. However, the deduction

should be effected within 01 year from the date of

excess payment.

12.

CHANGES IN ALLOWANCE AND BONUSES AND

SUCH OTHER PAYMENTS AS REQUIRED BY

LEGISLATION .

12.1

The Company agrees to make such changes to the

allowances, bonuses, and such other payments

as may be required by legislation.

12.2

In the event that an employee resigns from the

services of the Company he will receive arrears

which are due to him from the date of termination

of employment, in accordance with the law.

13.

EXISTING BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES

13.1

All existing benefits, privileges, payments and

allowances not covered in this Agreement in Parts

One and Two shall not be changed without prior

agreement with the Association in writing.

GENERAL

14.1

The Management shall withdraw the Writ Petition

No. 22435 of 2013 filed by Singapore Airlines

Limited before the High Court of Judicature at

Madras where an order dated 19.08.2013 has been

passed to stay the proceedings in ID No. 36 of

2013 pending before the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and Writ Petition No.

22491 of 2013 filed by Singapore Airlines Limited

before the High Court of Judicature at Madras

where an order dated 19.08.2013 has been passed

to stay the proceedings in ID No. 47 of 2013

pending before the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, Chennai. Subsequent to the withdrawal

of the Writ Petitions mentioned above, the

Association shall file the present Settlement

Agreement before the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and request CGIT to

pass an award in ID No. 36 of 2013, ID No. 47 of

2013 and ID No. 42 of 2014 in terms of this

Settlement Agreement.

5462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.2.1 The Union agrees not to make any other demands

other than those contained herein pursuant to the

Charter of Demand dated 03 June, 2010, during the

tenure of this agreement. The demands which have

not been settled by this settlement and contained

in the Charter of Demands, are hereby withdrawn

by the Union.

14.3

In the event that the Company reaches an

agreement with any staff association in India on

more beneficial terms, the Company undertakes to

extend the same to the Association, with effect

from the same daet from which they become

applicable.

This agreement is signed at Chennai on the 31st day of

May, Two Thousand and Fourteen

Manager Southern India

General Secretary

Singapore Airlines Limited

Singapore Airlines Staff &

Officers & Union

(For & on behalf of the

Employer)

Employees)

WITNESSES :

1. K Ravichandran

2. Mohamed Akmal

ANNEXURE 1

1. Salary Ranges with effect from 01 April, 2010.

Salary Ranges

Grade Title

(Rs./pm)

Min

Max

Office Helper

14,203

35,308

Clerk

17,717

44,293

Jr. Agent/Clerk

(Customer Service,

22,519

56,300

Reservations, Accounts,

Sales & Marketing)

Agent

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

25,981

64,950

Sales & Marketing)

Officer

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

33,085

82,700

Sales & Marketing)

2. Salary Ranges with effect from 01 April 2013.

Salary Ranges

Grade Title

(Rs./pm)

Min

Max

Jr. Agent/Clerk

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

25,000

62,500

Sales & Marketing)

Agent

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

33,000

82,500

Sales & Marketing)

Officer

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

40,000

100,000

Sales & Marketing)

Sr. Officer

(Customer Service,

Reservations, Accounts,

45,000

112,500

Sales & Marketing)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2103-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 65@

2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@07@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@179@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2014

S.O. 2103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 65/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 22/07/2014.

[No. L-20012/179/2011-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5463

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. 65 OF 2012

PARTIES :

The Executive Member,

Jharkhand Colliery Sharmik Union,

Binod Market, Dhanbad-826001

Vs.

The General Manager,

Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL,

PO : Kusunda, Dhanbad

Order No.L-20012/179/2011-IR(CM-I) dt.04.09.2012

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union : None

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld.

Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th May, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No L-20012/179/2011-IR(CM-I) dt.04.09.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

Gondudih Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing

Sr Basant Bhuia, M/Loader from the services of the

Company vide order date 29.2.2000 is fair and

justified? To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?”

2. Neither any Representative for the Jharkhand

Colliery Sharmik Union, Dhanbad, nor workman Basant

Bhuia appeared nor any written statement with the

documents filed on behalf of the workman/Union. Mr. D.K.

Verma, Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Management is present

as usual.

On perusal of the case record, I find despite three

Regd. Notices to the Union on the address noted in the

very Reference since the registration of the case from

17^th Sept., 2012, neither the written statement along with

the documents on behalf of the workman filed nor any

Union Representative ever represented the workman in

the case. As such the Union Representative and the

workman by their conducts appear to be not willing or not

interested in pursuing the case for its finality. In view of

the aforesaid facts, the instant Reference related to an

issue over the dismissal of the workman has no Industrial

dispute existent; hence the case is closed as no Industrial

Dispute existent; and accordingly an Order of no Industrial

Dispute is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2104-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj =kko.kdksj

VkbVsfu;e izksMDV~l 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;] dksphu ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@13@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2104.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 33/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-43012/13/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

Shri.D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 18th day of June, 2014/28th Jyaishtha,

1936)

5464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ID 33/2009

Union

The General Secretary, Titanium

Products Labour Union, INTUC

House,

Kunnumpuram,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695001

Management

The Managing Director

Travancore Titanium Products

Ltd., Post Box No. 1,

Thiruvananthapuram-695021

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.06.2014

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 18.06.2014 passed

the following:

AWARD

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

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

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

Government of India/Ministry of Labour has referred the

industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication as per

Order No-L-43012/13/2009-IR(M) dated 16.09.2009.

2. The dispute is :

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Travancore Titanium Products, Trivandrum in

not granting customary concession of extension of

service to Shri Marcose S. W. No.1567, in spite of

being medically fit, by two years from 01.08.2009 is

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

3. After appearance union filed claim statement

alleging that the management, after refusing the request

made by the workman to continue in service upto the age

of 60 years on medical fitness, removed him prematurely

from service at the age of 58 in violation of clause 12(c) of

the prevailing Standing Orders, Item No.34 of the Long

Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990, the customary practice

and all other norms regarding the retirement age and hence

he is to be appropriately compensated for the loss of salary

and other benefits.

4. Management filed written statement contending

that a workman has no right to claim extension of service

beyond the retirement age of 58 years and it is within the

absolute discretion of the management to grant extension

of service. No workman was given extension from April,

2007 to May, 2010 due to financial crisis. Management

has not violated any of the rules and there is no question

of any customary concession for granting extension.

Identical industrial dispute was considered by this

Tribunal in ID 23/2008 and it was found that the action of

the management in not granting extension of service

beyond the age of 58 years is legal and justified. The

discretionary power of the management as per clause 12(c)

of the Standing Orders was considered by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala in OP No.13568/1994-M filed by one

Mr. P. M. Kurian who was an employee of the management

and the OP was dismissed after holding that clause 12(c)

gives discretion to the management to extend the service

upto a maximum period of two years if he is certified fit for

such extended service and that even if a person is certified

fit for such extended service that by itself is no reason to

enable him to get extension since it is for the management

to decide whether they should exercise their discretion

and grant extension. The retirement age of the workman

as per the Standing Orders, 1980 is 58 years and he

cannot as a matter of right claim extension of service and

it is the management to decide whether he is to be granted

extension beyond the retirement age. The workman had

retired from service in accordance with the Rules and

hence he is not entitled to any relief.

5. Union did not file any rejoinder in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

6. After the submission of the pleadings the case

was adjourned for adducing evidence. In spite of several

adjournments union was continuously absenting without

any representation and hence set ex-parte. Management

filed affidavit. The documents produced from the side of

the management were marked as Exts.M1 to M15.

7. The dispute is as to the justifiability of the action

of the management in not granting customary concession

of extension of service to the workman for two years from

01.08.2009 even when he is medically fit. There is no

specific plea with regard to any customary concession in

the claim statement. In the written statement it is

specifically contended that there is no customary

concession enabling the workman to make claim for

extension of service beyond the age of 58. Union has not

adduced any evidence to prove it and there is no material

to satisfy that there was any such customary concession

for extension of service after the retirement age of 58 years.

Ext.M11 is the copy of the judgment dated 31.07.2009 in

ID 23/2008 of this Tribunal and from which it can be seen

that it was also a matter in issue in that case and it was

found by this Tribunal that there is no question of any

customary concession as there are specific provisions in

the Standing Orders as well as in the Long Term Settlement

with regard to the extension of service beyond the age of

58. The union and the management in this case were parties

in that case and hence the finding is binding since there is

nothing to show that there was any challenge against that

decision in that case and the same has not become final.

There is no reason to hold that there is any customary

concession which enables the workman to claim extension

of service after the retirement age.

8. In para 5 of the claim statement it is specifically

alleged that the claim of extension of service is as per

clause 12(c) of the prevailing Standing Orders and Item

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5465

No.34 of the Long Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990. The

copy of the Standing Orders, 1980 was marked as Ext.M1

and clause 12(c) contained in it reads thus:

“A workman who is at present covered by the

provisions of Standing Orders for workmen will retire

on completion of the age of 58 and a workman who

is now covered under the Standing Orders for staff

will retire on completion of the age of 60. The

management may however extend the service of a

workman upto a maximum period of 2 years beyond

his normal age of retirement as given above, at the

discretion of the Management if he is certified fit for

such extended service by the ESI Medical Officer or

such other competent authority in the case of those

who are not covered by the ESI Act.”

9. It is expressly clear that it is the discretion of

the management to allow a workman to continue after

the age of 58 for a period of two years subject to the

condition that he is medically fit. Even if he is medically fit

then also it is left to the discretion of the management to

grant extension of service. It was so held by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP 13568/1994M, certified copy of which was marked as

Ext.M10. Reliance was placed by this Tribunal on that

judgment while deciding Ext.M11 case. From the wording

in clause 12(c) itself it is apparently clear that the workman

cannot claim extension of retirement age as of right and it

is the absolute discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. The Long Term Settlement 1990 is

not produced in this case to support the claim of extension

of service.

10. The workman is not entitled to claim extension

of service beyond the age of 58 based on customary

concession or the Standing Orders, 1980 or the Long Term

Settlement, 1990. Hence I find that the action of the

management in not granting extension of service to the

workman though medically fit is justified. So the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

11. In the result an award is passed holding that the

action of the management in not granting customary

extension of service to Shri Marcose S, W No.1567, in

spite of being medically fit, by two years from 01.08.2009

is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the

18^th day of June, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Union

NIL

Witnesses for the Management

NIL

Exhibits for the Union

NIL

Exhibits for the Management :

True copy of the Standing Orders dated

21.05.1980

True copy of the letter No.156/H3/89/ID dated

07.05.1990 of the Govt. of Kerala

True copy of Profit and Loss Account for the

year ended on 31.03.2007

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2003

dated 06.11.2003 addressed to Shri V N

Ramachandran Pillai

True copy of the letter No.PL/C/RET/1128/2006

dated 15.02.2006 addressed to Shri C.

Venugopalan Nair

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2004

dated 04.11.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1240/2004

dated 12.01.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 03.02.2006

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager(Personnel & Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 08.05.2003

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager(Personnel & Administration)

M10

True copy of the judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP No.13568/1994-M of the Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala, Ernakulam

M11

True copy of the Award dated 31.07.2009 in ID

23/2008 of the Hon’ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ernakulam

M12

True copy of letter No.PL/D/RET/88 dated Nil

addressed to the Materials Manager by the

Deputy Manager(Personnel & Administration)

M13

True copy of Minutes of the union meeting

held on 04.02.2007

M14

True copy of Minutes of the 344^th meeting of

the Board of Directors held on 25.06.2007

5466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M15

True copy of the MD’s Order No. 23/2007 dated

05.07.2007.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2105-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj =kko.kdksj

VkbVsfu;e izksMDV~l fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

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

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 30@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@9@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 30/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-43012/9/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

Shri.D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 18th day of June, 2014/28th Jyaishtha,

1936)

ID 30/2009

Union

The General SecretaryTitanium

Products Labour Union INTUC

House, Kunnumpuram

Thiruvananthapuram-695001

Management :

The Managing

DirectorTravancore Titanium

Products Ltd. Post Box

No.1Thiruvananthapuram -

695021

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.06.2014

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 18.06.2014 passed

the following :

AWARD

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

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

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

Government of India/Ministry of Labour has referred the

industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication as per

Order No-L-43012/9/2009-IR(M) dated 18.08.2009.

2. The dispute is :

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Travancore Titanium Products, Trivandrum in

not granting customary concession of extension of

service to Shri P Vijayan, Work No.1736, in spite of

being medically fit, by two years from 01.01.2009 is

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

3. After appearance union filed claim statement

alleging that the management, after refusing the request

made by the workman to continue in service upto the age

of 60 years on medical fitness, removed him prematurely

from service at the age of 58 in violation of clause 12(c) of

the prevailing Standing Orders, Item No.34 of the Long

Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990, the customary practice

and all other norms regarding the retirement age and hence

he is to be appropriately compensated for the loss of salary

and other benefits.

4. Management filed written statement contending

that a workman has no right to claim extension of service

beyond the retirement age of 58 years and it is within the

absolute discretion of the management to grant extension

of service. No workman was given extension from April,

2007 to May, 2010 due to financial crisis. Management

has not violated any of the rules and there is no question

of any customary concession for granting extension.

Identical industrial dispute was considered by this

Tribunal in ID 23/2008 and it was found that the action of

the management in not granting extension of service

beyond the age of 58 years is legal and justified. The

discretionary power of the management as per clause 12(c)

of the Standing Orders was considered by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala in OP No.13568/1994-M filed by one

Mr.P M Kurian who was an employee of the management

and the OP was dismissed after holding that clause 12(c)

gives discretion to the management to extend the service

upto a maximum period of two years if he is certified fit for

such extended service and that even if a person is certified

fit for such extended service that by itself is no reason to

enable him to get extension since it is for the management

to decide whether they should exercise their discretion

and grant extension. The retirement age of the workman

as per the Standing Orders, 1980 is 58 years and he

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5467

cannot as a matter of right claim extension of service and

it is the management to decide whether he is to be granted

extension beyond the retirement age. The workman had

retired from service in accordance with the Rules and

hence he is not entitled to any relief.

5. Union did not file any rejoinder in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

6. After the submission of the pleadings the case

was adjourned for adducing evidence. In spite of several

adjournments union was continuously absenting without

any representation and hence set ex-parte. Management

filed affidavit. The documents produced from the side of

the management were marked as Exts.M1 to M15.

7. The dispute is as to the justifiability of the action

of the management in not granting customary concession

of extension of service to the workman for two years from

01.01.2009 even when he is medically fit. There is no

specific plea with regard to any customary concession in

the claim statement. In the written statement it is

specifically contended that there is no customary

concession enabling the workman to make claim for

extension of service beyond the age of 58. Union has not

adduced any evidence to prove it and there is no material

to satisfy that there was any such customary concession

for extension of service after the retirement age of 58 years.

Ext.M11 is the copy of the judgment dated 31.07.2009 in

ID 23/2008 of this Tribunal and from which it can be seen

that it was also a matter in issue in that case and it was

found by this Tribunal that there is no question of any

customary concession as there are specific provisions in

the Standing Orders as well as in the Long Term Settlement

with regard to the extension of service beyond the age of

58. The union and the management in this case were parties

in that case and hence the finding is binding since there is

nothing to show that there was any challenge against that

decision in that case and the same has not become final.

There is no reason to hold that there is any customary

concession which enables the workman to claim extension

of service after the retirement age.

8. In para 5 of the claim statement it is specifically

alleged that the claim of extension of service is as per

clause 12(c) of the prevailing Standing Orders and Item

No.34 of the Long Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990. The

copy of the Standing Orders, 1980 was marked as Ext.M1

and clause 12(c) contained in it reads thus:

“A workman who is at present covered by the

provisions of Standing Orders for workmen will retire

on completion of the age of 58 and a workman who

is now covered under the Standing Orders for staff

will retire on completion of the age of 60. The

management may however extend the service of a

workman upto a maximum period of 2 years beyond

his normal age of retirement as given above, at the

discretion of the Management if he is certified fit for

such extended service by the ESI Medical Officer or

such other competent authority in the case of those

who are not covered by the ESI Act.”

9. It is expressly clear that it is the discretion of

the management to allow a workman to continue after

the age of 58 for a period of two years subject to the

condition that he is medically fit. Even if he is medically fit

then also it is left to the discretion of the management to

grant extension of service. It was so held by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP 13568/1994M, certified copy of which was marked as

Ext.M10. Reliance was placed by this Tribunal on that

judgment while deciding Ext.M11 case. From the wording

in clause 12(c) itself it is apparently clear that the workman

cannot claim extension of retirement age as of right and it

is the absolute discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. The Long Term Settlement 1990 is

not produced in this case to support the claim of extension

of service.

10. The workman is not entitled to claim extension

of service beyond the age of 58 based on customary

concession or the Standing Orders, 1980 or the Long Term

Settlement, 1990. Hence I find that the action of the

management in not granting extension of service to the

workman though medically fit is justified. So the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

11. In the result an award is passed holding that the

action of the management in not granting customary

extension of service to Shri P Vijayan, Work No.1736, in

spite of being medically fit, by two years from 01.01.2009

is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 18th

day of June, 2014.

D . SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Union

NIL

Witnesses for the Management

NIL

Exhibits for the Union

NIL

Exhibits for the Management :

True copy of the Standing Orders dated

21.05.1980

True copy of the letter No.156/H3/89/ID dated

07.05.1990 of the Govt. of Kerala

5468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

True copy of Profit and Loss Account for the

year ended on 31.03.2007

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2003

dated 06.11.2003 addressed to Shri V N

Ramachandran Pillai

True copy of the letter No.PL/C/RET/1128/2006

dated 15.02.2006 addressed to Shri C.

Venugopalan Nair

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2004

dated 04.11.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1240/2004

dated 12.01.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 03.02.2006

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager(Personnel & Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 08.05.2003

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by theManager(Personnel & Administration)

M10

True copy of the judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP No.13568/1994-M of the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

M11

True copy of the Award dated 31.07.2009 in ID

23/2008 of the Hon’ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ernakulam

M12

True copy of letter No.PL/D/RET/88 dated Nil

addressed to the Materials Manager by the

Deputy Manager(Personnel & Administration)

M13

True copy of Minutes of the union meeting

held on 04.02.2007

M14

True copy of Minutes of the 344th meeting of

the Board of Directors held on 25.06.2007

M15

True copy of the MD’s Order No.23/2007 dated

05.07.2007

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2106-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy

bU'kqjUl dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsV ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

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

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 09@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@9@2005&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 09/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of National Insurance Company Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-17012/9/2005-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

Dated : 11th July, 2014

PRESENT :

Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

CR No. 09/2006

I Party :

Sh. B M Malagoudanavar,

S/o Malagonda Malagoudanavar,

H Sadashiva Photo Studio,

K C Road, Chikkod (PO),

Belagum Dist. – 591 201.

II Party :

The Regional Manager,

National Insurance Company Limited,

N0. 144, Subhram Complex,

2nd Floor, M G Road,

Bangalore – 560 001.

APPEARANCES :

I Party

: Shri S. Ramesh, Advocate

II Party

: Shri B. C. Avinash, Advocate

Order on the I Party application filed under Section 11

of ID Act dated 03.08.2011

1. The I Party in whose favour an Order was passed

on his Interim Relief Application against the II Party to

pay him Rs. 6937.00 by way of Interim Relief from the date

of his application dated 16.07.2008 by order dated 08.04.2011

filed this application to strike down the defence of the II

Party for non-compliance of the same supported by his

affidavit wherein he has stated that the II Party which has

been deliberately protracting the matter though this court

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5469

after holding the Domestic Enquiry as not fair and proper

considered the interim relief application and passed the

Order on 08.04.2011 directing the II Party to pay him interim

relief at the monthly rate of Rs. 6937.00 from 16.07.2008

having intentionally failed to honour the same its defence

deserves to be striked down. The learned advocate

appearing for the II Party filed objection to this application

the I Party having not come with clean hands and that this

court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this reference etc.,

touching the merits without highlighting as to how II Party

without complying the Order passed by this court which

is confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court can continue the

proceedings on merits.

2. After hearing the arguments of the learned

advocate appearing for the I party affording several

opportunities to the II Party to comply the interim relief

order on one or the other submissions made by its advocate

though on 02.04.2014 there was no representation for the

II Party one more opportunity was given till 21.04.2014

and as on that day also there was no representation for

the II Party taking that he is not interested to pay the last

adjournment cost and pay interim relief the matter came to

be posted for orders on the application.

3. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances

of the case and the attitude on the part of the II Party the

application deserves to be allowed and consequently the

reference has to be allowed for no evidence justifying the

impugned action of the II Party in dismissing the services

of the I Party for the following reasons :

REASONS

4. In this reference by the Central Government for

adjudication as to

“Whether the management of National Insurance

Company Ltd. Is justified in dismissing the services

of Sri Bhupal Malagouda Malagoudanavar from the

Corporation. If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

having regard to the specific allegations made by the

I Party touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry after

raising a Preliminary Issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the

I party by the II Party is fair and proper?”

and answering it in the Negative by order dated 18.10.2010

the application filed by the I Party for interim relief dated

16.07.2008 was taken up and by order dated 08.04.2011 the

II Party was directed to pay the I Party interim relief @ Rs.

6937.00 per month from date of application. This order

was challenged by the II Party before the Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka in W P No. 17725/2011 and same came

to be dismissed confirming the order of this tribunal.

Subsequently, the counsel for the II Party filed an

application seeking amendment to the counter statement

touching the jurisdiction of this tribunal which came to be

allowed by order dated 02.12.2011 and thereafter the

counsel for the II Party in view of his additional contention

taken touching the jurisdiction of this court filed an

application to permit him to deposit the interim relief

amount in any nationalized bank and to preserve it until

the question of jurisdiction is decided and that application

came to be dismissed by order dated 14.12.2011 and even

that order was assailed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Karnataka in W P No. 6571/2012 (L-RES) and same was

withdrawn on 26.03.2012 by filing a Memo seeking leave

to file an application before this tribunal not to release the

entire sum to the I party and to withdraw a sum of Rs.

6937.00 every month prospectively and an application was

later filed before this tribunal on 05.06.2012 and that

application came to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 500.00

by order dated 10.09.2012 and there after several

adjournments were taken submitting that a Writ appeal is

preferred against the order of the single judge confirming

the interim relief order passed by this tribunal and this

court tough advised the II Party counsel to get Order of

stay from the Hon’ble High Court in the Writ Appeal no

action was taken or intimation is given in that regard Thus

it shows the II Party is bent upon to somehow avoid

payment of interim relief and to harass the I Party. Since

the interim relief after holding the Domestic Enquiry

conducted by the II Party as Not Fair and Proper is in the

form of a Subsistence Allowance to the dismissed

employee it would be very difficult for the dismissed

employee to participate in the proceedings and to face the

trial. Under these circumstances, the II Party which has

deliberately avoided to pay the Interim Relief directed by

this tribunal confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court cannot

be permitted to lead evidence to justify the dismissal of

the I party and the request made by the I Party under this

application to strike off its defence is just and proper. In

the result, i arrive at conclusion of allowing this application

and to strike off the defence of the II Party.

5. Since as already adverted to by me above by

order dated 18.10.2010 the Domestic Enquiry is held as

Not Fair and Proper and II Party was called upon to prove

the charge in view of the striking off its defence it cannot

be permitted to lead evidence and thereby the situation

leads to of no evidence to justify the impugned action of

the II Party/management against the I Party the reference

has to be allowed directing the II Party to reinstate the I

Party in service with continuity of service and full

backwages and all other consequential benefits. In the

result, I pass the following

ORDER

The application is allowed and striking off the

defence of the II party the Reference is allowed holding

5470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that the management of National Insurance Company

Limited failed to justify its action of dismissing the services

of Sh. Bhupal Malagouda Malagoudanavar from its

services and that it is liable to reinstate him in Service with

continuity of Service, full backwages and all other

consequential benefits.

This Order shall be forwarded to the Ministry for

publication treating as an Award

(Typed by U D C to my dictation, corrected and signed

by me on 11th July 2014)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2107-—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 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] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 1@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11011@7@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 1/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-11011/7/2002-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

PRESENT :

Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID No. 1/2004

Sh. Rajinder Singh & Ors.

Versus

Airport Authority of India

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-11011/7/2002-IR(M) dated

11.12.2003 referred the following industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication :

“Whether the Industrial dispute raised by Shri

Rajinder Singh and 22 others (List at Annexure ‘A’ )

against the management of Airport Authority of India

for reinstatement in service justified? If so, to what

relief the workmen concerned are entitled and from

which date ?”

On 19.01.04 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No 1/2004 and claimant 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 workmen/Claimants

appeared and filed claim statement on 15.03.2004.

Wherein they submitted as follows :

1. That the workmen have raised a dispute regarding

their illegal termination of service which has been referred

to this Hon’ble Court under L-7107117/2002 Dated

11.12.2003.

2. That Sh. Rajender Singh and 22 employees whose

names are being given in the Annexure ‘A’ have served

the management Airport Authority of India continuously

on the post of Mali (Gardener) to their entire satisfaction .

They were employees of Airport Authority and were

performing duties incidental to work of Airport authority.

They were employees of the management.

3. That the job of Mali is a part and parcel of the

work of the management. The job of Horticulture is to

being done on the premises of Airport Authority of India.

The job of perennial nature. The workmen were working

under the directions and control of the management.

4. That the so called contractors was only in name

and they were changing from time to time. The workmen

continued to perform the duties of Mali continuously. The

so called contract was a sham. The payment was made by

the management under whose direction and control the

malis worked.

5. That they were paid Rs. 1,784 per month which

was less than the minimum wages fixed by the appropriate

government.

6. That the management at the time of appointment

of the workmen and also during the tenure of service took

the signature of the workmen against their will on blank

sheets, vouchers and papers with revenue stamps. That

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5471

the workmen were made to sign as per the wishes of the

management and in case of refusal they would have been

thrown out of job.

7. That these workmen were not given legal facilities

under the labour laws like appointment letters, leave,

wages, casual leave at the time of giving salary the amount

as not filled therein. The workmen complained several times

but to no effect. Their helplessness was being exploited

and when they did not comply their services were

terminated by one Sh. R. S. Sharma on behalf of the

management Sh. Sharma refused them duties and

terminated on 02.02.1997 from their services. He also

threatened the workmen of implicating them in service

offences. In case they came to Airport that the workmen

complained to the Labour Commissioner office through

Delhi Zonal Udyog Karamchari Sangh about their illegal

termination and non payment of their wages.

8. That the workmen sent a demand notice dated

09.04.1997 but the management did not sent to reply nor

gave the workmen duties. The Management did not pay

wages to the workmen.

9. That while terminating the services of the

workmen no chargesheet was given for their termination

nor was section 25 (F) and 25(G) of I. D. Act complied

with.

10. That the termination of service/Refusal of duty

to the workmen on 02.02.1997 is illegal and in violation of

Section 25(F) and 25 (G) of I.D. Act.

11. That the workmen are unemployed since the date

of their termination from the services.

PRAYER :

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that an award

may kindly be passed awarding reinstatement with full

back wages.

In reply to claim statement management filed

Written Statement. Wherein it is submitted as follows :

1. That the present statement of claim filed by

Sh. Rajinder Singh & Ors. through Delhi General Udyog

Karamchari Sangh is clearly a misuse and abuse of the

process of this Hon’ble Tribunal. It is respectfully

submitted that the workmen, with an ulterior motive have

filed the present statement of claim which is based entirely

on incorrect and distorted facts.

2. That the present statement of claim is liable to be

dismissed as the same is vague and is not accompanied

by any supporting documents. It is respectfully submitted

that the workmen are claiming reinstatement, however, the

statement of claim does not aver as to the date when the

said Workmen have been alleged to have been employed

in the services of the Respondent Authority. The workmen

with ulterior motive to mislead this Hon’ble Tribunal have

concealed material facts and have not stated the date on

which they were deployed with the respondent authority.

It is respectfully submitted as has been held by the apex

court in a catena of judgments that the statement of claim

should be self sufficient and should disclose all the

material facts upon which the Courts of Law can be asked

to adjudicate upon the issues. In the absence of material

information the present statement of claim cannot be

entertained and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

3. That Airport Authority of India is a statutory body

established under the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994

for the purpose of maintenance and development of

Airports. It is submitted that during the discharge of its

ancillary activities the Respondent Management avails

the services of various Contractors for providing

manpower regarding certain works to be performed which

are not perennial in nature.

4. That the workers are engaged for the performance

of ancillary activities through Contractor under a written

argument which is executed between the Respondent/

management and the contractor. The said agreement is on

a principal to principal basis and the Workmen so deployed

under the contract are governed by the service conditions

of the contractor who is the employer viz a viz such

workmen claimants.

5. That in the present case also the workmen/

claimants were employed by the Contractor and who alone

retained all the control with respect to the deployment of

a specific worker to a particular site or with respect to

service conditions and the Respondent/Management had

no say in these matters. It is respectfully submitted that

the workers were governed by the terms and conditions

of their respective contract of employment entered into

between the Contractor and the Workmen/Claimants.

6. That the present reference has been made

mechanically without proper application of mind and as

such is liable to be dismissed. The workmen were deployed

with the respondent authority through M/s Parliament

Street Nursery. It is respectfully submitted that the alleged

issue is with respect to termination of the services of the

Workmen/Claimants which were deployed through the

contractor. The contractor has not been made a party to

the present proceedings, in the absence of which the

present statement of claim cannot be adjudicated in a just

and fair manner and hence the present statement of claim

is liable to be dismissed.

In the light of the above, it is evident that the workers

were never in the employment of the Respondent/

Management and the claim of the workers for reinstatement

and back wages against the answering respondent is

entirely misconceived and liable to be rejected.

5472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

PARAWISE REPLY :

1. That the contents of para 1 of the statement of

claim are misconceived. It is that the that claimants have

no cause of action against Respondent No. 2 as the

claimant were never the employees of the answering

respondent and the reference against Respondent No. 2

is bad in law and is liable to be struck down. It is respectfully

submitted that the reference made by the appropriate

Government is without application of mind and has been

made in a casual manner. It is further submitted that the

since the workmen were never in the employment of the

respondent authority the issue of illegal termination at

the behest of Respondent No. 2 does not arise.

2. That the contents of para 2 of the statement of

claim are wrong and denied. It is respectfully submitted

that the workers were never in the employment of the

answering Respondent/Management. The claimants

herein were engaged by the Contractor and were deployed

at the premises of the answering Respondent/

Management. It is further submitted that the claimant were

the employees of the contractor for all purposes and intent

and were deployed within the premises of the answering

respondent in pursuant to the contract entered into

between the answering respondent and the contractor. It

is mischievous on the part of the claimants to rank

themselves wrongfully as the employees of the answering

respondent in order to claim wrongful reinstatement at the

based of the answering respondent.

3. That the contents of para 3 of the statement of

claim are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that

the job of horticulture is of perennial nature and is a part

and parcel of the work of the respondent authority as

alleged. It is submitted that the contract which was awarded

to the contractor was a specialized contract and technical

expertise was required to effectively discharge the

contract. It is mischievous on the part of the claimants to

have equated the work of horticulture with the job of a

gardener. It is submitted that a contract was awarded to

M/s Parliament Street Nursery for the development of Hort.

Features at IGI Airport, New Delhi and also for the mass

plantation of trees in the vicinity of IGI Airport. Under the

aforesaid contract the contractor was allowed a period of

five months for the development and Twelve months for

maintenance. It is further denied that the workman were

working under the control and directions of the respondent

authority. It is respectfully submitted that the claimants

were the employees of the contractor who deployed them

within the premises of the answering respondent. The

claimants were engaged by the contractor and were

working under the instructions and directions of the

contractor and the respondent authority exercised of the

contractor and the respondent authority exercised no

control on the specific worker/claimant.

4. That the contents of para 4 of the statement of

claim are wrong and denied. It is respectfully submitted

that the contract was perfectly valid and was in accordance

with law and was not a sham agreement as alleged and the

claimants are put to strict proof of the same.

5. That the contents of para 5 of the statement of

claim are wrong and denied. It is respectfully submitted

that the workmen were paid wages by the contractor in

accordance with the minimum wages as fixed by Govt. of

NCT of Delhi.

6. That the contents of para 6 of the statement of

claim are wrong and denied. It is respectfully submitted

that the workman were working for the contractor and

management had no role to play at time of the appointment

as it was the contractor who was the appointing authority

with respect to the claimants. The contents of rest of the

para under reply are denied for what of knowledge. It is

further wrong to allege and taking the signature of

workman at blank sheet/vouchers and papers with revenue

stamp during the tenure of their services.

7. That the contents of para 7 of the statement of

claim are wrong and denied. It is respectfully submitted

that the workmen/claimants were never the employees of

the answering respondent. The claimants were deployed

at the premises of answering respondent under a contract.

It is respectfully submitted that since there was no

employer employees relationship between the respondent

authority and the workmen/claimants, there was no

question to issue appointment letters to the Workmen/

claimants and neither the issue of leave, wages, casual

leave arises against the answering respondent. The

grievance whatsoever the claimants are raising can be

raised only against the contractor and not against the

respondent authority. The contention of the Workmen that

the services of the Workmen were terminated by Sh. R. S.

Sharma on behalf of respondent management on

02.02.1997 is devoid of substance and is denied as the

services of the claimants can only be terminated by the

contractor who alone had the power to terminate the

services of its employees. It is respectfully submitted that

since the Workmen were never in the employment of the

respondent authority, the issue of termination of their

services on behalf of the management does not arise.

8. That the contents of para 8 of the statement of

claim are wrong and denied. It is denied that any demand

notice has been served upon the respondent authority by

the workmen. It is further submitted that wages have been

paid to the Workmen/claimants as per minimum wages as

prescribed by the appropriate authority.

9. & 10. That the content of para 9 and 10 are wrong

and denied. It is respectfully submitted that the provisions

of section 25 (F) and (G) of the Industrial disputes are not

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5473

applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present

case. It is reiterated that since the Workmen were never

the employees of the answering respondent the issue

retrenchment of the workmen at the behest of the answering

respondent does not arise.

11. That the contents of para 11 of the statement of

claim are wrong and denied for the want of knowledge and

claimants be put to strict proof of the same.

Prayer :

In view of the aforesaid, it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to :

(a)

Reject the present terms of reference against

respondent No. 2;

(b)

Dismiss the present statement of claim with cost

and /or

(c)

Pass any other or further order (s) as this Hon’ble

Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

Workmen/claimants in reply to aforesaid written

statement filed rejoinder wherein they stated as follows :

1. Para 1 is mis-conceived, vague imprecise and

totally wrong. The reference has been made on the failure

of the conciliation officer. Admittedly the workmen were

working on the premises of the Airport Authority of India

as Mali. They were in the employment of the Airport

Authority of India from 5/95 and their services were

terminated in 1997.

2. Para 2 is not admitted as correct and kind attention

of the Hon’ble Tribunal is invited to the statement of claim.

They were in the employment of the establishment from

May, 1993. The list showing the date of employment is

submitted as Annexure ‘A’. Their services were terminated

in 1997. The respondent has not denied that the workmen

was working but their only case is that they were

employees of the Contractor. The material information has

been given in the Statement of claim.

3. Para 3 is not admitted as correct. The so called

contractor is only on paper. Workmen were working on

the lawns of the Airport Authority of India as Mali. As

their services have been illegally terminated without any

charge-sheet or compliance of section 35 F of Industrial

Dispute Act.

4. Para 4 is totally wrong and is not admitted as

correct. Respondnet is put to strict proof.

5. Para 5 is not admitted as correct. The workmen

were working under the direction and control of the Airport

Authority of India Management. They were not working

under the direct control of the contractor. No contract was

entered between the Contractor and the workmen.

6. Para 6 is not admitted as correct. The reference

has been made lawfully bringing out the real dispute

between the parties. It is totally wrong that they were

deployed through the Contractor. The workmen were in

the employment of the management of Airport Authority

of India working on the lawns of Airport Authority and

were paid wages by Airport Authority of India.

On Merits :

1. Para 1 is not admitted as correct and para 1 of the

statement of claim is re-affirmed. The reference cannot be

challenged before the Labour Court Authority. The

workmen were in the employment of the Respondent

Airport Authority of India.

2. Para 2 is not admitted as correct and para 1 of the

statement of claim is re-affirmed. Workmen were employees

of the respondent Airport Authority of India. They were

not engaged by the Contractor. It is correct that they were

working on the premises of the Respondent. They not

employees of the contractor. The respondent is put to

strict proof.

3. Para 3 is not admitted as correct and para 1 of the

statement of claim is re-affirmed. Horticulture is a part and

parcel of the Airport Authority of India. The work is of

perennial nature and it cannot be entrusted to the

contractor. It is totally wrong that it was a specialized

project. The rest of the para 1 is not admitted as correct.

The workmen were working under the control of the Airport

Authority of India. They were not in the employment of

the contractor.

4. Para 4 is not admitted as correct and para 1 of the

statement of claim is re-affirmed. The contract was sham.

5. Para 5 is not admitted as correct and para 1 of the

statement of claim is re-affirmed.

6. Para 6 is not admitted as correct and para 1 of the

statement of claim is re-affirmed. It is totally wrong that

the workman were working for the Contractor. The

management has no role to play at the time of appointment.

The rest of the para is not admitted as correct. The

respondent is put to strict proof.

7. Para 7 is not admitted as correct and para 1 of the

statement of claim is re-affirmed. Workmen were employees

of the respondent Airport Authority of India. They were

not given any letter of appointment. The service were

terminated by Sh. R.S. Sharma on behalf of management

on 02.02.1997. The rest of the para is not admitted as

correct. The respondent is put to strict proof.

8. Para 8 is not admitted as correct and para 1 of the

statement of claim is re-affirmed. The demand notice was

sent on 09.04.1997.

5474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9 & 10. Para 9-10 is not admitted as correct and para

1 of the statement of claim is re-affirmed.

11. Para 11 is not admitted as correct and para 1 of

the statement of claim is re-affirmed.

On the basis of pleadings following issues have been

framed by my Ld. predecessor on 02.03.06 :

1. Whether the claimant were the employee as

claimed?

2. Whether the workmen was contractor as claimed

by Respondent (OPM).

3. Whether the job of the workmen was not of

perennial in nature as claimed.

4. Whether the claim is not maintainable in view of

perennial objection as per term of reference?

Workman Sh. Rajendra Singh filed his affidavit on

09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing himself

as WW1 on 19.10.2006. His examination-in-chief and

cross-examination is as follows :

I have filed my affidavit in my evidence. The same is

Ex. WW1/A . It may be read as part of my evidence. The

documents filed by me in my evidence are Ex. WW1/1 to

Ex. WW1/

XXXXXX By Sh.V.P. Gaur Advocate, A/R for

management :

I did not apply for the job. I was appointed by the

Director. No interview was taken. However, I was deputed

to the work. I have come to know through other co-workers

there were vacancies for the job. There were some

permanent employees already working on the jobs. I was

assigned job initially in the month of June, 95. My

attendance used to be marked in the register maintained

for this purpose. I was paid salary monthly. There were

many person whose name were written in the register. I

cannot tell the number at present. I have placed the proof

of my being engaged on the job in the case. I do not have

the original of documents Ex. WW1/1 to 15. The employees

were allowed entry in the Airport area. They have been

issued Identity Card. I was given only Photostat of the I.

Card. I was allowed entry for one month inside and I used

to work outside in the Nursery for the respondent. It is

correct that I did not enter inside Airport premises without

I.Card i.e. to say I was not allowed entry without I. Card.

At the time of my disengagement my salary was Rs. 1784

per month. I complained to the Director that I was not paid

complete salary as per minimum wages Act and my salary

was less. My signatures was obtained in Payment/salary

given salary by K.P. Singh Director. He was accompanied

by Junior Engineer who actually distributed the salary in

presence of K.P. Singh . I do not recollect the name of J.E.

at the moment. I will tell his name as when I recollect the

same I never worked under the /with the Contractor. The

claim was prepared by my counsel at my instance. I never

got written in my claim statement that its contractor a

Shame contractor was engage under shame Contract. My

affidavit was prepared at my instance and under my

instructions by my counsel. It is correct that I mentioned

in my affidavit that there was shame contractor under

whom I used to work. I have mentioned correct facts in my

affidavit . It is incorrect to suggest that I have filed a false

affidavit. It is also incorrect to suggest that I made incorrect

and false averments in my claim statement in this regard.

I made complaint to the Union and Union executed

talk to the management . I do not recollect whether I have

filed notice dated 09.04.97 on the case file. My services

and of other employees were terminated/disengaged on

2.02.97. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not employee

of the respondent and it is wrong to suggest that I was

employee of contractor it is further incorrect to suggest

that my services were terminated by the contractor on

completion of contract.

I was not gainfully employed during the period of

my unemployment. I remained almost unemployed except

I got some work on daily wages to meet both ends. I got

such work occasionally in the colony. I got work in a month

for 10-12 days and by getting such work my wages were at

the rate of Rs. 60 per day and my income were hardly

Rs. 600. It is incorrect to suggest that I am gainfully

employed after I am disengaged. My signatures were not

obtained on any document at the time of my engaged by

J.E. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

Workman Sh. Ramji Lal filed his affidavit on

09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing himself

as WW2 on 17.10.2006. His examination-in-chief and

cross-examination is as follows :

I have not make any application for getting the job.

I was not given any appointment letter. I was engaged

initially on the job on 02.01.1994 . Entry was allowed in the

Nursery inside Airport Authority without I.Card. I was

paid my salary against my signatures on the Salary

leave. I was given holidays on Sunday but Sunday holiday

was not given if there was heavy work load. I worked

under the Sahibs. The name of the Sahibs is S.P Singh.

Shri R.S. Sharma Bare Sahib used to come sometimes only.

Only one officer used to come on Sundays either Rakam

Singh or S.P. Singh used to come on Sunday. On Holi and

Dewali there used to be holiday. I did not avail leave as it

was not needed. My signature was obtained at the time of

my engagement on the paper as well as on the register.

I was not given any appointment letter by the respondent

officials. It is incorrect to say that I was not employee of /

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5475

under the respondent authority. It is also incorrect to

suggest that I worked on contract basis under the

contractor. I am not educated I do not know if I have

mentioned in my claim or affidavit that I was kept under

the Sham contractor confronted with portion A to A where

this fact is so mentioned.

I was paid salary by the K.P. Singh Sahib. Salary

was distributed by Rakam Singh by his own hand in

presence of K.P. Singh Sahib. Sometime other Bare Sahib

Sh. R.S. Sharma also used to come. I informed the union.

Union might have given notice on my behalf to the

management. I showed my ration card and given photo

copy of the same for verification of my place of residence

at the time of my engagement. I got the ration card but

have not brought the same. It is incorrect to suggest that

I do not possess any ration card. My services were

disengaged by the management on 2nd of February, 97.

There were many other employees whose services were

also terminated on the same day. I was not disclosed any

reason for my termination /disengagement of services. It

is incorrect to suggest that I was not the employee of the

respondent. It is also incorrect to suggest that I was under

the contract on contract basis. It is further incorrect to

suggest that the contract with the contractor expired and

therefore my services were also terminated. It is incorrect

to suggest that I am entitled to the relief claimed. I hardly

get work 2-3 days in a month. I am not gainfully employed.

My wife is working in kothis. My income is hardly 300 or

Rs. 400 in a month. I did not get any work more than that in

any month or year till today.

Workman Sh. Satbir Chand filed his affidavit on

09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing himself

as WW3 on 18.01.2007. His examination-in-chief and

cross-examination is as follows :

I have filed my affidavit in support of my case. The

facts mentioned in my affidavit are true and correct. My

affidavit be read as part of my statement. I be granted the

relief claimed.

XXXX : By Sh. V. P. Gaur, A/R for the manage-

ment :

I was not given any letter of appointment . I was not

given any letter of interview. I was appointed by Sh. K.P.

Singh. I had gone to him through other co-workers working

there. My other co-workers from my village has told me

that there was vacancy with the respondent. I was given

the Identity Card which is Ex. WW1/ original of the I. Card

has been deposited with the respondent. I was appointed

in the year 1993. No card was issued before 1996. I was

removed after 03.12.96. Again said I was again issued I.

Card for three months after 03.12.1996 and I worked upto

3.02.97. I was removed from the service thereafter. It is

incorrect to suggest that my services were availed of by

the respondent through contractor and I was employee of

the contractor. It is further incorrect to suggest that I was

not the employee of the respondent. I do not know if any

other person junior to me worked with the respondent or

some other workers were also engaged by the respondent

after my services were dispensed with. My attendance

was marked and I was made payment. My attendance was

worked by Sh. S.P. Singh. My signatures were obtained

on a receipt at the time of making payment. Sh. K.P. Singhji

used to make payment. Some other person were also

present with me in the nursery at the time of making

payment. S.P Singh was also present at the time of making

payment of wages/salary. They only came for making

payment. The above said officer Sh. K.P. Singh and Sh.

S.P. Singh used to visit on other dates also. They also

came for marking presence. Four five officers from the

respondent used to visit in the Nursary I do not know

their names. Permanent workers of the Airport Authority

also work in the Nursary the permanent workers are

Manphool, Ram Singh, Veeru and others. I do not recollect

the names of other persons. It is incorrect to suggest that

nobody was working as Gardener/Mali in the Nursary. I

served a demand notice before filing this case. I gave the

notice through the Union. I am member of the Union. I

have got the subscription slips of the Member of the Union.

It is incorrect to suggest that no demand notice was sent

through it has been pointed out by the counsel for the

respondent. I am doing some work of labour on wages. I

earn Rs. 700 to Rs 800 from this work. I was not given any

letter of termination of my service. It is incorrect to suggest

that my case is wrong or that I am not entitled to the relief

claimed.

Workman Sh. Raju filed his affidavit on 09.03.2005.

He tendered his affidavit by producing himself as WW4

on 09.04.2007. His examination-in-chief and cross-

examination is as follows :

I have filed my affidavit in evidence. The fact

mentioned in my affidavit are true and correct. My affidavit

is Ex. WW4/a .The same be read as part of my statement.

XXXX : By Sh. V. P. Gaur, A/R for the manage-

ment :

I am 47 years old at present. I was not given any

appointment letter by the respondent. I applied for the job

at Indira Gandhi Airport Terminal II. Some employee whose

name was Hari has informed me about existence of vacancy.

I am illiterate. I did not make any application for my

engagement/appointment. My attendance was taken/

marked by first by Raj Kumar J.E. and then by R.S. Sharma

on register. I used to get salary of Rs. 1200 P.M. Initially

and later on I received salary of Rs. 1784 PM. My

signatures were also obtained on voucher by Raj Kumar

J.E. My services were dispensed with in the month of

5476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

February, 1997. I was appointed/engaged in the month of

June, 1993. I was not medically examined at the time of my

appointment . I was not given any interview letter. I was

taken by the employee to the office when I was assigned

the job/put on job. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not

called by and on behalf of Airport Authority or that I was

engaged/appointed by respondent Airport Authority. It is

incorrect to suggest that I was not paid salary by

respondent Airport Authority or that my attendance was

not marked by Airport Authority. I was issued ESI Card

but the same was withdrawn or taken back after two

months during my entire period of engagement. I was

issued ESI Card after 4-5 of E.S.I. card is not available with

me now. Facility of P.F. was not available to me. About 20

gardeners were working alongwith me. All of them also

received salary after obtaining their signatures on the

this case. I am member of the Labour Union. I do not

recollect the name of the union now. I am not doing any

work after my services were terminated. I am depending

on arms. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

It is incorrect that averments made in my affidavit are wrong

and false.

Workman Sh. Ved Pal filed his affidavit on

09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing himself

as WW5 on 11.04.2007. His examination-in-chief and

cross-examination is as follows :

I have field my affidavit in my evidence alongwith

copies of documents. The facts mentioned in my affidavit

are true and correct. My affidavit bears my signatures at

points A. My affidavit is Ex. WW5/A and copies of

documents Ex. WW5/1 to 6 be reads as part of my statement

in my evidence. I am entitled to the relief claimed. I be

given same.

XXXX : By Sh. V. P. Gaur, A/R for the

management :

I was not given any appointment letter. I was not

issued any I Card by the respondent. ESI facilities were

also not available to me i.e. to say I was not given any ESI

facility. I used to orally tell S.P. Singh whence I took leave.

I was informed by one boy whose name I do not remember

about existence of vacancy in the respondent. I was

introduced by that boy to S.P.Singh J.E. I did not apply for

the job. However, I furnished copy of ration card as

demanded by S.P. Singh. I was engaged on 05.03.95. My

services were dispensed with on 02.02.1997. My

attendance were marked in a attendance register after taking

attendance we were sent on site for work. My signatures

were obtained on a ticket on a blank paper at the time of

making payment of my wages/salary. My signatures were

not obtained on any other document except on the blank

paper. I do not know if union has given any notice before

initiating these proceedings. I am members of Bhartya

Mazdoor Sangh Union. Workman produces a membership

subscription which is taken on record as WW5/X. It is

incorrect to suggest that the union Delhi General Udyog

Karamchari Sangh of which the prescription slip has been

produced in not the union of Airport Authority. It is

incorrect to say that this Union D.G.U.K.S. is not authorized

to enroll employees of Airport Authority as its members. It

is incorrect to suggest that I was not employed by

respondent Airport Authority. I was not medically

examined at the time of my engagement/employment. It is

incorrect to suggest that maintenance of plants and trees

in the premises of Airport Authority is done through

contractor. I am not doing any work. I had worked as a

mazdoor/daily wager of doing the job of Construction

Labour sometimes and was given Rs. 50 Rs. 60 per day

whenever the work was available. Thus I earned Rs. 300 in

a month as and when I got the work but after doing the

work for about 2 months I developed some Hair disease

and I stopped doing this work on the advise of my father.

It is incorrect to suggest that I have not worked at any

point of time with the respondent or with any contractor

of the respondent. I do not know if entry is permitted in

the premises of respondent Airport Authority without gate

pass/I. card. It is incorrect to suggest that I have filed a

wrong case and false affidavit or that I am not entitled to

the relief claimed.

Workman Sh. Srikishan filed his affidavit on

09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing himself

as WW6 on 26.07.2007. His examination-in-chief and

cross-examination is as follows :

I have filed my affidavit as well as copies of

documents. The facts mentioned in my affidavit are true

and correct. My affidavit bears my signatures at point A.

My affidavit is Ex. WW6/A and Document I. Card is mark

X. My affidavit and document mark X be read in evidence

as part of my statement. I am entitled to the relief claimed.

I be given the same.

XXXX : By Sh. V. P. Gaur, A/R for the manage-

ment :

It is incorrect to suggest that I have worked in M/s

Rambo Land Horticulture. The original of mark X has been

taken back by Sh. H.P. singh, J.E. who had issued the

same. Mark A has been issued by respondent Airport

Authority. It is incorrect to suggest that mark A was issued

by Airport Authority. I had worked upto 28th February, 97.

I was not issued any appointment letter. I had not given

any application for employing me on the job. Sometimes

my signature were obtained on plain papers at the time of

making payments. And sometimes my signatures were

obtained on the payment register. My attendance was

used to be marked in the register. Sh. H.P. Singh used to

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5477

take my attendance. Other workers names were also

mentioned in the attendance register. Other workers whose

names were written in the register were Narinder, Dinesh,

Shashi, Ram Singh, Veeru Names of others person were

not mentioned besides me. I was not issued any

termination letter. I have not given any notice before filing

this case. My name was written along with the permanent

workman employed in the Airport. My name was written

after the names of the permanent employees in the register.

Three workmen namely Ram Sewak, Ram Singh and Veeru

were permanent and their name was written in the register.

I do not know in what manner the permanent workmen

were paid wages. But I was given wages after obtaining

my signatures sometimes on blank paper and sometimes

on the payment register. I have no other copy of the I.

Card except marked X. It is incorrect to suggest that I was

not engaged /employed by respondent Airport Authority

at any point of time or that my services have not been

terminated by Airport Authority . It is wrong to suggest

that I have filed false affidavit and raised a false claim. It is

incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

Workman Sh. Pardeep Kumar filed his affidavit on

09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing himself

as WW7 on 26.07.2007. His examination-in-chief and

cross-examination is as follows :

I have filed my affidavit in evidence. The facts

mentioned in my affidavit are true and correct. My affidavit

is Ex. WW7/A. My signatures appears at point A on my

affidavit.

XXXX : By Sh. V. P. Gaur, A/R for the manage-

ment :

I was not issued /given any appointment letter. I

had not given any application for employing/engaging

me. I was issued identity card but the same was taken

back. I do not have any copy of the I. Card now. My

attendance was used to be marked by J.E. along with other

three persons whose names are Raju, Hari, and Pardeep .

Permanent workmen were not working with us. Our wages

was being on obtaining our signatures on the payment

Sharma and Rakam Singh J.E. used to come to make

payment to me/us. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not

paid wages by any employee of the Airport Authority. It is

wrong to suggest that I was not engaged or employed by

Airport Authority at any point of time. My ration card was

taken from me and kept by the Raj Kumar J.E. I have not

brought the ration card or photocopy of ration card. I

come to know that some vacancies were lying vacant with

the management though other co villagers who were their

workers. I have not worked under the contractor. I do not

know if any contract was given for maintenance of

plantation and horticulture. I do not know if some contract

agency by the name of M/s Rambo Land Horticulture was

doing the work of maintenance and plantation etc. I also

do not know if any contract was given for maintenance of

parliament street nursery. I had not given any notice before

initiating the proceedings. It is incorrect to suggest that

no gardener was engaged by the Airport Authority during

the period from 1995 onwards. I do not have any

documentary proof of my having being engaged and

worked with the respondent as claimed. My name is not

registered with employment exchange. I was not medically

examined before my alleged engagement. It is incorrect to

suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is incorrect to suggest

that I was never engaged or employed by respondent as

mali as claimed.

Workman Islam Khan filed his affidavit on

09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing himself

as WW8 on 31.10.2007. His examination-in-chief and

cross-examination is as follows :

I have filed my affidavit in this case. The facts

mentioned in my affidavit are true and correct. My affidavit

bears my signatures at points A to A. My affidavit is Ex.

WW8/A. I am entitled to the relief claimed. Same be given

to me.

XXXX : By Sh. V. P. Gaur, A/R for the manage-

ment :

I was not given any appointment letter in writing.

Vol. I was only verbally asked to come to work. I was not

interviewed. I was not issued any identity Card. I had

seen the notice on the notice board that some vacancies

on the Nursery that some vacancies for the post were

available and therefore, I contacted the concerned officer

Sh. K.P. Singh Sahib and showed him my papers, ration

card etc. He kept me on duty and asked me to work. I have

studied up to 6th class. I can read Hindi. Mr. K.P. Singh

obtained my signatures on the register and allowed me to

work. I do not know any contractor . I did not see persons

of contractor working there. I do not recollect if I had

moved any application of leave at any point of time. I do

not recollect if my signatures were obtained on blank paper

or not. I did not submit any demand letter or after I was

sent. I filed this case after my services were terminated.

There were permanent workers working on the job also.

There were permanent Gardeners besides myself. Name of

one of the permanent workers are Beeru. I do not recollect

if Beeru used to mark his attendance in which I used to

mark my attendance. My signatures were obtained on

payment registers as and when wages/salary were paid to

me. I used to receive salary at the end of the month. I used

to get salary of Rs. 1784/- a month. Earlier I used to

receive salary of about Rs. 1300/- and something. Sh. K.P.

Singh used to pay the salary . Mr. K.P. Singh used to pay

salary. Mr. K.P. Singh used to pay salary to all the

Gardeners. He used to obtain our signatures. Along with

Sh. K.P. Singh, S.P. Singh , Rakam Singh JE used to come.

5478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is incorrect to suggest that Sh. K.P. Singh did not come

to distribute salary. It is further incorrect to suggest that

he used to come to verify if we were paid wages by the

contractor or not. I used to work in the parks outside airport

authority premises and therefore, I was not required to

obtain the Daily permit. Some other person who used to

go inside were issued permit. It is incorrect to suggest

that I have filed a false case.

Workman Sh. Bhanwar Singh filed his affidavit

on 09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing

himself as WW9 on 19.08.2010. His examination-in-chief

and cross-examination is as follows :

I tender in evidence my affidavit which is exhibit

WW9/A. The affidavit has been signed by me at points A

& B on page 4 of my affidavit. The same may be read as my

statement in this case.

XXXX : By Sh. V. P. Gaur, A/R for the manage-

ment :

I have got through the cross-examination done

on workmen Rajinder Singh WW1 and I have no objection

if the said cross-examination is read and used in this case

in my case as well. I have no appointment letter, identity

card and gate pass with me as such documents were never

issued to me by the management. I earn about Rs. 2000 per

month on average from manual job done be me ever since

the date of termination. It is wrong to suggest that I have

no case against the management or that I am not entitled

to any thing from the management.

Workman Sh. Ashok Kumar filed his affidavit on

09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing himself

as WW10 on 04.03.2011. His examination-in-chief and

cross-examination is as follows :

I tender in evidence my affidavit by way of

examination in chief. It is signed by me at points A and B.

It is Ex. WW10/A . The same be read as part of my

statement .

XXXX : By Sh. V. P. Gaur, A/R for the manage-

ment :

(I adopt the cross-examination done of workman

Rajinder Singh WW1 in this case as well with the consent

of A/R of the workman). I am not in possession of any

appointment letter showing my appointment by the

management . Apart from the documents placed on record

in this case I am not in possession of any other document.

Workman Sh. Sita Ram filed his affidavit on

09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing himself

as WW11 on 04.03.2011. His examination-in-chief and

cross-examination is as follows :

I tender in evidence my affidavit by way of

examination in chief. It is signed by me at points A and B.

It is Ex. WW11/A . The same be read as part of my

statement .

XXXX : By Sh. V. P. Gaur, A/R for the manage-

ment :

(I adopt the cross-examination done of workman

Rajinder Singh WW1 in this case as well with the consent

of A/R of the workman). I am not in possession of any

appointment letter showing my appointment by the

management . Apart from the documents placed on record

in this case I am not in possession of any other document.

Workman Sh. Jagdish filed his affidavit on

09.03.2005. He tendered his affidavit by producing himself

as WW12 on 04.03.2011. His examination-in-chief and

cross-examination is as follows :

I tender in evidence my affidavit by way of

examination in chief. It is signed by me at points A and B.

It is Ex. WW12/A. The same be read as part of my

statement.

XXXX : By Sh. V. P. Gaur, A/R for the manage-

ment :

(I adopt the cross-examination done of workman

Rajinder Singh WW1 in this case as well with the consent

of A/R of the workman). I am not in possession of any

appointment letter showing my appointment by the

management . Apart from the documents placed on record

in this case I am not in possession of any other document.

In support of its case management filed affidavit of

MW1 Captain Sudhir Malik on 08.08. 2011. Wherein he

stated as follows :

1. That the deponent is the SM(Horticulture)

Airports Authority of India, office of Regional Executive

Director , Northern Region, Rangpuri, New Delhi and as

such is well conversant with the facts of the case and fully

competent and authorized to depose the present affidavit.

2. That the Airport Authority of India invited tender

for the work of horticulture from time to time, the many

contractors applied for the same but the tender was

awarded to M/s Rainbow Land Scape & Horticulture

Services vide agreement dated 07.10.93 for executing the

work per the “Schedule of the work” of the contract for

the Horticulture work to be maintained on unit rate basis

meaning thereby that the said contractor had to provide

the services to the Respondent at the specific rate and

that the contractor had to execute the work as per the

“Schedule of Work” of aforesaid contract. The photocopy

of one such letter dated 20.08.1993 of award and Schedule

of work is Ex. RW1/1 , agreement dated 07.10.93 is exhibited

as Ex. RW. ½ (Colly) , a copy of attendance register of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5479

contract labour was also supplied by the contractor and

the same is marked as Ex. RW1/3.

3. That the respondent awarded fresh tender after

expiring of the previous contract to Mr. Harcharn Singh,

C-53, Jangpura –B, Near Rajdoot Hotel, New Delhi vide

agreement dated 24.08.94 on the same terms and

conditions for executing the work as per the “Schedule

of the work” of the Horticulture work on same unit rate

basis. The photocopy of a letter dated 15.07.1994/

18.07.1994 issued by the Respondent to the contractor is

Ex. RW1/4, agreement dated 24.08.1994 along with terms

and conditions are marked as Ex. RW1/5 colly, a letter

issued by 07.07.1994 is Ex. RW1/6 along with copy of

attendance register supplied by the contractor is marked

as Ex. RW1/7.

4. That the Respondent, after expiry the previous

contract with Mr. Harcharan Singh awarded the tender to

M/s Parliament Street Nursery , Purana Quilla Road, New

Delhi -110001 vide agreement dated 04.10.94 for executing

the work as per the “Schedule of the Work” of the contract

for the Horticulture work to be maintained on unit rate

basis to provide the services to the Airport Authority of

India at the specific rate to execute the work. The

photocopy of letter dated 30.09.1994 whereby allowed the

contractor to start the work is marked as Ex. RW1/8,

agreement dated 04.10.94 along with terms and conditions

are exhibited as Ex. RW.1/9 Colly, the contractor issued a

certificate dated 07.07.1995 along with copy of attendance

sheet is marked as Ex. RW1/10 Colly.

5. That the Respondent again awarded fresh tender

to M/S Parliament Street Nursery, Purana Quilla Road, New

Delhi 110001 vide agreement dated 14.07.95 for executing

the work as per the “Schedule of the Work” of the contract

for the Horticulture work to be maintained on unit rate

basis meaning thereby that the contractors had to provide

the services to the Airport Authority of India at the specific

rate, in this regard a Letter dated 06.07.1995 was issued by

the Respondent and the same is already on record and

marked as Ex. RW1/11 and also on 14.07.95 an agreement

was signed with the contractor. A Copy of letter dated

06.07.1995 is marked as Ex. RW1/12 and a copy of agreement

dated 14.07.1995 is marked as Ex. RW1/13.The contractor

M/s. Parliament Street Nursery issued a letter dated

08.08.1996 along with attendance sheet of the contract

labour is marked as Ex. RW1/14 Colly.

6. I further say that as per the agreements with the

contractors the respondent was giving the specific amount

as mentioned in the agreement to the contractors who in

turn engaged workmen supervise their work and paid the

wages to its workmen, also the contractor provided tools

where they were deployed by the contractor. The contract

was awarded on the basis of tenders and in case a new

contractor was given job contract, the contractor used to

bring his own labour and the Respondent had no role to

play/say in this regard. I further say that as the petitioner

/claimants were not under the employment of the

respondent at any point of time, therefore the question to

giving pay less than the minimum wages or any wages to

the petitioners/claimants did not arise at all.

7. I further say that contractors were responsible

for executing the work as per the conditions of the contract

and were liable to pay minimum wages as per law. I further

say that no complaint was ever received from the workers

deputed by the contractors at the site regarding payment

and/ or any other problem regarding their services at any

time during the contract period.

8. I say that the claimants were not under the

employment of the respondents as such question of

payment of wages or salary to them does not arise at all. In

fact the contractor is only responsible to make payment in

case of any outstanding dues of the claimants.

9. I say that no official person of Airport Authority

of India refused any contract labour to do the job assigned

to them/deployed by the Contractors, it is hereby clarified

that Airport Authority of India had no authority to assign

any job to any contract labour.

10. I say that work of gardening was awarded to

different contractors in different period from time who were

maintaining and looking after gardening work under

agreements.

11. I say that the contractors submitted the

attendance register of their contract labour for the purpose

of record and issuing Entry Card, the same has already

placed on court record.

12. I say that the claimants have no right to file

statement of claim for reinstatement in service with full

back wages against Airport Authority of India as there

was no contract of employment with the claimants and no

employer and employee relationship ever existed between

the parties.

13. His affidavit was tendered and MW1 Sh. Rakam

Singh was cross-examined by Ld. A/R for workman.

Workmen filed written arguments on 02.04.2014

which is introduced on record.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF AIRPORT

AUTHORITY OF INDIA

1. That the captioned matter is pending for

adjudication before this Hon’ble Court and the same is

listed on 01.05.2014 for filing of written argument.

2. The Governemnt of India, Ministry of Labour and

Employment referred the following dispute vide order

5480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. L-11011/8/2002 IR(M) dated 11.12.2003 for adjudication

before this Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal :-

“Whether the industrial dispute raised by Sh.

Rajender Singh and 22 others (List of Annexure ‘A’)

against the management of Airport Authority of India

for reinstatement in services justified? If so, to what

relief the workmen concerned are entitled and from

which date?”

3. That the claimants filed the statement of claim

and Airport Authority of India replied to the same

categorically denying the allegations alleged in claim

statement . Thereafter, the Hon’ble Tribunal allowed both

the parties to lead their evidence and after concluding the

evidence was pleased to fix the matter for final arguments.

4. At the outset it brought to the notice of this

Hon’ble Tribunal that 23 claimants had preferred the

statement of claims as also filed their evidence by way of

affidavit in support of the said statement of claims

however, only 12 claimants have appeared for cross-

examination. The list of claimants which have appeared

cross-examination are enumerated below :

(i)

Rajender Singh-WW/1

(ii)

Ramji Lal – WW/2

(iii)

Satbir- WW/3

(iv)

Raju –WW/4

(v)

Vedpal-WW/5

(vi)

Sri Krishan-WW/6

(vii)

Pradeep Kumar-WW/7

(viii)

Islam Khan-WW/8

(ix)

Bhanwar Singh-WW/9

(x)

Ashok Kumar-WW/10

(xi)

Sita Ram-WW/11

(xii)

Jagdish Prasad-WW/12

It is trite law that evidence tendered in examination-

in-chief not being subjected to cross-examination duet to

willful non-appearance of a witness cannot be read as

credible evidence and thus other claimants which defaulted

in presenting themselves for cross-examination have no

claim before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

5. That the claimants have failed to establish

employer-employee relationship with the Airport Authority

of India which is sine qua non for considering the claims

of the workmen under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In

this regard it is submitted that the Claimants have not

produced any evidence in support of their length of service

with the Airport Authority of India nor prayed for

summoning the attendant as witness or the payment

India had engaged an independent contractor for

performance of horticulture work and it was the prerogative

of the Contractor to get the work executed. The Airport

Authority of India has also placed agreement entered

between the contractors during the evidence of the

Management and same stand exhibited as Ex. RW1/1, RW1/2,

RW1/3, RW1/4, RW1/5 and 9.

6. That from the bare reading of the agreements for

contract of labour placed on record by the Airport

Authority of India, the following facts arise :

(i)

Two claimants namely Pradeep Kumar and Naresh

Kumar were employed for October, November and

December, 1995 with Parliament Street Nursery

Contractor.

(ii)

Claimant Rajender was employed with Rainbow

Landscape & Horticulture Contractor for March,

April, May& June, 1994.

(iii)

Mr. Sashi and Islam were employed by sh.

Harcharn Singh, Contractor from 21.07.1995 to

31.08.1995 as per the available record.

From the above mentioned facts, it is clear that these

five claimants have not even worked for 240 days in a

calendar year. Apart from these five claimants , the others

claimants have neither produced any substantial material

or evidence for establishing the factum of their employment

with the Airport Authority of India at any point in time nor

have they summoned any record of attendance register,

muster roll, salary payment slips and personal files for

establishing the same.

7. That is similar circumstances, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in the decision of Range Forest

Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani 2002 (3) SCC 25 has held that

onus of proof lies on claimant in absence of salary receipts

on record, that he was in employment and mere filing

evidence by way of affidavit, being only his statement in

his favour, is not sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to

arrive at a conclusion that the claimant workmen had, in

fact, worked for 240 days in the year preceding his

termination. The relevant portion of judgment is

reproduced hereinbelow:-

“3 In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing

the onus on the management without first

determining on the basis of cogent evidence that

the respondent had worked for more than 240 days

in the year preceding his termination. It was the case

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5481

of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim

was denied by the appellant It was then for the

claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact

worked for 240 days in the year preceding his

termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own

statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded

as sufficient evidence for any court or Tribunal to

come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact,

worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of

salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of

appointment or engagement for this period was

produced by the workman. On this ground alone,

the award is liable to be set aside”.

8. Also in Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai

Harjibhahai Rabari 2005 (10) SCC 792, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed that the onus of proof that a claimant

was in employment of a management primarily lies on

person who claims to be a workman and degree of proof

required would depend upon the facts and circumstances

of each case. The relevant portion of the said judgment is

extracted below :

“6 Before the Division Bench of the High Court the

Bank had relied on a judgment of this Court in the

case of Range forest Officer Vs. S. T. Hadimani which

judgment was distinguished by the High Court in

the impugned order by holding that unlike in that

case, in the present case the employee had by cogent

evidence established that he had worked as a driver

of the car of the Bank for the period from July 1994

to October 1995.”

xxxxxx

8… there is no doubt in law that the burden of proof

that a claimant was in the employment of a

management , primarily lies on the workman who

claims to be a workman, the degree of such proof so

required, would vary from case to case.

Pertinently, the operative decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda (supra) does not apply

to the facts of the case at hand in as much as the workman

had produced receipts for the period from July 1994 to

October 1995 which were issued against salary, apart from

his own statement as evidence and further the said amount

was debited from the account of Bank from which the

workmen had claimed. In the present matter, the Claimants

have failed to produce any document in support of their

length of service except making bare statements in affidavit

on evidence. Therefore, facts in the instant matter are

squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Range Forest Officer (Supra) and the final decision

in Bank of Baroda (supra) cannot be applied to the present

claim.

9. It is relevant to note that similar view has been

taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while rendering the

decision in Reserve Bank of India Vs. S. Mani 2005 (5)

SCC 100 after placing reliance on the decision in Range

Forest Officer (supra). The relevant portion of the said

decision reads as under :

“Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in

his favor be regarded as sufficient evidence for any

court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a

workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year.

(para no. 30 and 31).

… The purported circumstantial evidence relied on

by the Tribunal to hold that the workmen had

completed 240 days of work is wholly irrelevant for

the purpose of considering as to whether the

respondents have completed 240 days or services

or not; a party to the list may or may not succeed in

its defence. (para 34, 35 and 36)…”

10. In R.M. Yelleti Vs. Asst. Executive Engineer

2006 (1) SCC 106, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that other

cogent evidence is required to be on record besides the

affidavit in evidence of the workmen establishing the

factum of his employment with the management. The

relevant para of he said decision is extracted below:-

“This is not a case where allegations of the workman

are founded merely on an affidavit . He has produced

cogent evidence in support of his case. The

workman was working in SD-1. Athani and Ext. W-1

was issued by the former Assistant Executive

Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Contruction Division

No. 1, Athani 591 304. In that case defence of the

management was that although Ext. W-1 refers to

the period 22.11.1988 to 20.06.1994, the workman

had not worked as a daily-wager on all days during

that period. If so, the management was duty bound

to produce before the labour court the nominal muster

rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was

summoned to do so. We are not placing this

Judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not

placing this case on drawing of adverse inference .

In the present case we are of the view that he had

worked for 240 days in a given year was supported

by the certificate (Ex. W-1). In the Circumstances ,

the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in

interfering with the concurrent findings of fact.”

From the perusal of the above, it is crystal clear

that in R.M. Yellatti (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

was faced with a scenario where the claimant workman

had produced cogent evidence in form of Ext. W-1

(Certificate of employment issued by Executive Engineer)

apart from the affidavit in evidence. The facts in R.M.

Yellati (Supra) are distinguishable from the case at hand

as the claimants herein have not produced even a single

piece of paper except bare statement in their affidavit in

5482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

evidence and therefore, said decision is not applicable to

the present case.

11. That the Airport Authority of India has by

producing written contract signed by them with the

Independent Contractor has clearly established that it has

no employee-employer with the Claimants and in fact

genuine relationship was with the Contractor who had

been awarded work for completion of the contract assigned

to it.

12. That the claimants have submitted that contract

between AAI and the contractors were sham but have

failed to substantiate the same with reliable evidence

contravening the same. It is further clarified that none of

the terms of the agreement entered into with the Contractor

has been violated by the Answering Respondent.

13. That the claimants have not produced any cogent

evidence to show that they had ever work with either the

Airport Authority of India or that the Contract entered

into between principal Airport Authority of India and

contractor employer was a sham.

In the light of above discussion, it is prayed that

claim of the claimants are being devoid of merit and being

untenable in the eyes of law is liable to be rejected with

exemplary cost.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the pleadings of claim statement, written

statement rejoinder and evidences of the parties, principle

laid down in the cited rulings by Ld. A/R’s for the parties

as well as settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court and

Hon’ble Delhi High Court .

Perusal of record makes it crystal clear that reference

in respect of 23 workmen has been referred to this tribunal

for adjudication . All the 23 workmen filed their claim

statement and in support of their claim statement they

filed their evidence by way of filing their affidavit in this

tribunal. Out of 23 workmen only following workmen

produced themselves for cross-examination:-

(i)

Rajender Singh-WW/1

(ii)

Ramji Lal – WW/2

(iii)

Satbir- WW/3

(iv)

Raju –WW/4

(v)

Vedpal-WW/5

(vi)

Sri Krishan-WW/6

(vii)

Pradeep Kumar-WW/7

(viii)

Islam Khan-WW/8

(ix)

Bhanwar Singh-WW/9

(x)

Ashok Kumar-WW/10

(xi)

Sita Ram-WW/11

(xii)

Jagdish Prasad-WW/12

So, other workmen who defaulted in not presenting

themselves for cross-examination have deprived the

management to challenge the veracity of their version

given by them by way of filing affidavits.

In this background workmen can be divided under

two categories :

(1)The workmen who only pleaded and filed their

affidavit in their evidence but not produced themselves

for cross-examination. They are as follows :

Sh. Prakash

Sh. Hari Prasad

Sh. Naresh

Sh. Narender

Sh. Rakesh Padmali

Sh. Dinesh

Sh. Hari Ram

Sh. Jai Bhagwan

Sh. Jit Singh

10.

Shri Kant

11.

Sh. Shashi

Without their cross-examination their evidence in

support of claim statement cannot be deemed to be

evidence in support of claim statement in true sense.

In addition to it claim statement of workmen must be

supported by credible and reliable evidence which is

wanting in the instant case. In respect of these workmen.

So, they are entitled to no relief. Hence reference is liable

to be decided against workmen Sh. Prakash, Sh. Hari

Prasad, Sh. Naresh, Sh. Narender, Sh. Rakesh Padmali, Sh.

Dinesh, Sh. Hari Ram, Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Sh. Jit Singh, Shri

Kant, Sh. Shashi and in favour of management. Which is

accordingly decided.

Now I am dealing with the case of workmen who

filed claim statement, alongwith their affidavit in their

evidence and produced themselves for cross examination.

They are as follows:-

(i)

Rajender Singh-WW/1

(ii)

Ramji Lal – WW/2

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5483

(iii)

Satbir- WW/3

(iv)

Raju –WW/4

(v)

Vedpal-WW/5

(vi)

Sri Krishan-WW/6

(vii)

Pradeep Kumar-WW/7

(viii)

Islam Khan-WW/8

(ix)

Bhanwar Singh-WW/9

(x)

Ashok Kumar-WW/10

(xi)

Sita Ram-WW/11

(xii)

Jagdish Prasad-WW/12

Their case will be decided on the basis of evidence

adduced by workmen as well as evidence of management.

On the basis burden of proof of question of determination

No.1 mentioned in schedule of reference.

In schedule of reference question of determination

No. 1 is mentioned as follows :

“Whether the Industrial dispute raised by

Shri Rajender Singh and 22 others (List at Annexure

‘A’ ) against the management of Airport Authority

of India for reinstatement in service justified ?”

Which in itself indicates that burden to proof

aforesaid question of determination is on workmen.

To prove the aforesaid question of determination

workmen adduced their oral evidence which is not

supported by any documentary evidence. Although

workmen is stated that no documentary evidence is in

their possession. Management through its evidence tried

to prove that workmen Sh. Pradeep Kumar employed for

October, November and December, 1995 with parliament

street Nursery contractor.

Workmen Sh. Rajender Singh was employed with

Rainbow Landscape and Horticulture contractor for

March, April and June 1994.

Workmen Islam was employed by Sh. Hari Charan

Contractor from 21.07.1995 to 31.08.1995.

Aforesaid evidence of management is based as per

available record as alleged by management. So, this cannot

be deemed to be perfect rebuttal evidence.

On the point of question of determination No. 1

whether aforesaid workmen has not completed continuous

work for 240 days in a calendar year.

In these circumstances there is possibility of non-

tracing out of record which may show that aforesaid

workmen have completed their service continuously for

240 days in a calendar year.

In these circumstances I am of considered that

workmen Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sh. Rajender Singh and Islam

have proved their case of completing their service for a

period of 240 days in a calendar year. So, question of

determination No. 1 is liable to be decided in favour of

them and against management. So, for other workers

namely Sh. Ramji Lal , Sh. Satbir , Sh. Raju, Sh. Vedpal,

Sri Krishan , Sh. Bhanwar Singh, Sh. Ashok Kumar , Sita

Ram and Jagdish Prasad is concerned they have not

proved their case through their reliable and credible

evidence on the point of completion of their service

continuously for 240 days in calendar year nor they tried

to move an application under Section 11(3) ID Act to

summon the record which may show that they worked for

management for period more than 240 days continuously

in a calendar year.

In these circumstances this tribunal has no option

except to decide the question of determination No.1

against aforesaid workmen and in favour of management.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court on the

point of reinstatement and grant of back wages which

shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence

wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the

facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded.

In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and

Anr Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that reinstatement of workman with

continuity of service and 25% back wages was not proper

in the facts and circumstances of the case and the

compensation of Rs.50,000 (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall

meet the ends of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State

Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. AIR 2009 Supreme

Court 3004, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus “the award

of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the

workman has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of termination particularly, daily wagers

has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead

compensation has been awarded.” In catena of Judgments,

Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that reinstatement

is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal

or in contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute

Act. In Talwara Co-operative credit and service society

Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble

Supreme Court held thus,” grant of relief of reinstatement,

it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not

automatic.”

Workmen of the instant case was not appointed by

following due procedure and as per rules. They had

rendered service with the respondent as a casual workers,

thus. Compensation of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand

5484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

only) by way of damages as compensation to the workmen/

claimants by Management after expiry of period of

limitation of available remedy against Award. That will

meet the ends of Justice.

Thus Reference is decided in favour of workmen

Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sh. Rajender Singh and Islam Khan

and against 20 workmen Sh. Prakash, Sh. Hari Prasad,

Sh. Naresh , Sh. Narender, Sh. Rakesh Padmali, Sh. Dinesh

,Sh. Hari Ram, Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Sh. Jit Singh, Shri Kant,

Sh. Shashi, Sh. Ramji Lal, Sh. Satbir, Sh. Raju, Sh. Vedpal,

Sri Krishan, Bhanwar Singh, Ashok Kumar, Sh. Sita Ram

and Sh. Jagdish Prasad as well as against management.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-17.06.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2108-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

IykaV (lSy) ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (dkWEi-

la[;k 9@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43011@9@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014

S.O. 2108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Comp. No. 9/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL) and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12/05/2014.

[No. L-43011/9/2011-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT U/S 33 (A) OF

I.D. ACT, 1947.

COMP. NO. 9/2013

( Arising out of Ref. 50/2011)

Ministry’s Order No. L-43011/9/2011 IR(M)

D.C.Gohain

General Secretary

Jharkhand Kirantikari Mazdoor Union

. . . Complainant

Vs.

C.E.O

M/s. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (SAIL)

Adm. Building

Bokaro Steel City Bokaro

. . . Opp. Party

PRESENT :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

APPEARANCES :

For Complainant

: Sri K.K.Mishra, Advocate

Sri D.C.Gohain Rep.

For Opp. Party

: Sri D. Mukherjee Advocate

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Steel

Dated. : 8th April, 2014

AWARD

2. The present complaint arises out of Ref. Case

No. 50/2011 . The Reference case is for regularization of

contract labourer who are rendering services to the

management through contractors. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the workman , the management during

the pendencey of the reference case is planning or even

disengage some of the workmen. Therefore prays

protection.

3. This Tribunal without passing any interim order

in the reference case disposed the complaint case

observing that the management shall not disengage any

workmen who are rendering services to the management

and who are listed workmen in the reference case . If it is

so needed for any other reason, the management to remove

the same , taking permission of this Tribunal.

This is my award

R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2109-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj =kko.kdksj

VkbVsfu;e izksMDV~l fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5485

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@12@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 34/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-43012/12/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

Shri.D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 18th day of June, 2014/28th Jyaishtha,

1936)

ID 34/2009

Union

The General Secretary

Titanium Products Labour Union

INTUC House, Kunnumpuram

Thiruvananthapuram-695001

Management

The Managing Director

Travancore Titanium

Products Ltd.,

Post Box No. 1,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695021

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.06.2014

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 18.06.2014 passed

the following :

AWARD

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

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

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

Government of India/Ministry of Labour has referred the

industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication as per

Order No-L-43012/12/2009-IR(M) dated 16.09.2009.

2. The dispute is:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Travancore Titanium Products, Trivandrum in not

granting customary concession of extension of

service to Shri V Vikraman Nair, Work No.1675, in

spite of being medically fit, by two years from

01.06.2009 is justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?’

3. After appearance union filed claim statement

alleging that the management, after refusing the request

made by the workman to continue in service upto the age

of 60 years on medical fitness, removed him prematurely

from service at the age of 58 in violation of clause 12(c) of

the prevailing Standing Orders, Item No.34 of the Long

Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990, the customary practice

and all other norms regarding the retirement age and hence

he is to be appropriately compensated for the loss of salary

and other benefits.

4. Management filed written statement contending

that a workman has no right to claim extension of service

beyond the retirement age of 58 years and it is within the

absolute discretion of the management to grant extension

of service. No workman was given extension from April,

2007 to May, 2010 due to financial crisis. Management

has not violated any of the rules and there is no question

of any customary concession for granting extension.

Identical industrial dispute was considered by this

Tribunal in ID 23/2008 and it was found that the action of

the management in not granting extension of service

beyond the age of 58 years is legal and justified. The

discretionary power of the management as per clause 12(c)

of the Standing Orders was considered by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala in OP No.13568/1994-M filed by one

Mr.P M Kurian who was an employee of the management

and the OP was dismissed after holding that clause 12(c)

gives discretion to the management to extend the service

upto a maximum period of two years if he is certified fit for

such extended service and that even if a person is certified

fit for such extended service that by itself is no reason to

enable him to get extension since it is for the management

to decide whether they should exercise their discretion

and grant extension. The retirement age of the workman

as per the Standing Orders, 1980 is 58 years and he

cannot as a matter of right claim extension of service and

it is the management to decide whether he is to be granted

extension beyond the retirement age. The workman had

retired from service in accordance with the Rules and

hence he is not entitled to any relief.

5. Union did not file any rejoinder inspite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

6. After the submission of the pleadings the case

was adjourned for adducing evidence. Inspite of several

5486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

adjournments union was continuously absenting without

any representation and hence set ex-parte. Management

filed affidavit. The documents produced from the side of

the management were marked as Exts.M1 to M15.

7. The dispute is as to the justifiability of the action

of the management in not granting customary concession

of extension of service to the workman for two years from

01.06.2009 even when he is medically fit. There is no

specific plea with regard to any customary concession in

the claim statement. In the written statement it is

specifically contended that there is no customary

concession enabling the workman to make claim for

extension of service beyond the age of 58. Union has not

adduced any evidence to prove it and there is no material

to satisfy that there was any such customary concession

for extension of service after the retirement age of 58 years.

Ext.M11 is the copy of the judgment dated 31.07.2009 in

ID 23/2008 of this Tribunal and from which it can be seen

that it was also a matter in issue in that case and it was

found by this Tribunal that there is no question of any

customary concession as there are specific provisions in

the Standing Orders as well as in the Long Term Settlement

with regard to the extension of service beyond the age of

58. The union and the management in this case were parties

in that case and hence the finding is binding since there is

nothing to show that there was any challenge against that

decision in that case and the same has not become final.

There is no reason to hold that there is any customary

concession which enables the workman to claim extension

of service after the retirement age.

8. In para 5 of the claim statement it is specifically

alleged that the claim of extension of service is as per

clause 12(c) of the prevailing Standing Orders and Item

No.34 of the Long Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990. The

copy of the Standing Orders, 1980 was marked as Ext.M1

and clause 12(c) contained in it reads thus:

“A workman who is at present covered by the

provisions of Standing Orders for workmen will retire

on completion of the age of 58 and a workman who

is now covered under the Standing Orders for staff

will retire on completion of the age of 60. The

management may however extend the service of a

workman upto a maximum period of 2 years beyond

his normal age of retirement as given above, at the

discretion of the Management if he is certified fit for

such extended service by the ESI Medical Officer or

such other competent authority in the case of those

who are not covered by the ESI Act.”

9. It is expressly clear that it is the discretion of

the management to allow a workman to continue after

the age of 58 for a period of two years subject to the

condition that he is medically fit. Even if he is medically fit

then also it is left to the discretion of the management to

grant extension of service. It was so held by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP 13568/1994M, certified copy of which was marked as

Ext.M10. Reliance was placed by this Tribunal on that

judgment while deciding Ext.M11 case. From the wording

in clause 12(c) itself it is apparently clear that the workman

cannot claim extension of retirement age as of right and it

is the absolute discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. The Long Term Settlement 1990 is

not produced in this case to support the claim of extension

of service.

10. The workman is not entitled to claim extension

of service beyond the age of 58 based on customary

concession or the Standing Orders, 1980 or the Long Term

Settlement, 1990. Hence I find that the action of the

management in not granting extension of service to the

workman though medically fit is justified. So the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

11. In the result an award is passed holding that the

action of the management in not granting customary

extension of service to Shri V Vikraman Nair, Work No.1675,

in spite of being medically fit, by two years from 01.06.2009

is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the

18^th day of June, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Union

NIL

Witnesses for the Management

NIL

Exhibits for the Union

NIL

Exhibits for the Management :

True copy of the Standing Orders dated

21.05.1980

True copy of the letter No.156/H3/89/ID dated

07.05.1990 of the Govt. of Kerala

True copy of Profit and Loss Account for the

year ended on 31.03.2007

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2003

dated 06.11.2003 addressed to Shri V N

Ramachandran Pillai

True copy of the letter No.PL/C/RET/1128/2006

dated 15.02.2006 addressed to Shri C

Venugopalan Nair

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5487

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2004

dated 04.11.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1240/2004

dated 12.01.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 03.02.2006

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager (Personnel & Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 08.05.2003

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by theManager(Personnel & Administration)

M10

True copy of the judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP No.13568/1994-M of the Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala, Ernakulam

M11

True copy of the Award dated 31.07.2009 in ID

23/2008 of the Hon’ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ernakulam

M12

True copy of letter No.PL/D/RET/88 dated Nil

addressed to the Materials Manager by the

Deputy Manager(Personnel & Administration)

M13

True copy of Minutes of the union meeting

held on 04.02.2007

M14

True copy of Minutes of the 344^th meeting of

the Board of Directors held on 25.06.2007

M15

True copy of the MD’s Order No.23/2007 dated

05.07.2007

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2110-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy os;jgkmflax

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

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

51@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@1@2005&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2110.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-42012/1/2005-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/51/05

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Bhole Kumar Prajapati,

S/o Shri Paramlal Prajapati

Behind Gayatri Shaktipeeth Temple,

Harijan Marg,

Chhattarpur (MP)

. . . Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Regional Office, 52-53, Amar Niwas,

New Market, T.T.Nagar,

Bhopal (MP)

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27th day of June 2014

1. As per letter dated 1-6-05 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42012/

1/2005-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Regional

Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation,

Regional office, Bhopal MP in terminating the

services of Shri Bhole Kumar Prajapati S/o Shri

Paramlal Prajapati, Ex-Daily rated mazdoor w.e.f.

30-7-03 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled ?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

3/1 to 3/5. Case of workman is that his father was

permanent employee in CWC Katni. Workman was

engaged as casual labour on monthly wages in June 2000.

That experience of working in Ware Housing for

considerable period. He holds qualification BA. He claims

5488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to be appointed as permanent employee. He belongs to

SC. That he was performing various types of work

maintenance of valuation of stock for insurance valuation,

maintaining attendance. That workman was receiving

monthly salary Rs.1823/- per month. The salary was

disbursed in obtaining receipts in fictitious name.

Workman claims to have completed 240 days continuous

service. That on 29-7-03 due to some misunderstanding

about delivery of food grain bags to some purchaser in

Abram Morenjee godown. Management was prejudiced

against him. His services were discontinued from 30-7-03.

Workman had approached repeatedly management to allow

him on duty but his request was not accepted. Workman

submits that his services are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. he claims appropriate directions

against IInd party.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 8/1 to

8/2. IInd party denied claim of workman. It is submitted by

IInd party that it is a Government of India Undertaking

incorporated under the Act of parliament. The Corporation

has framed its own recruitment rules notified in Gazette of

India. No recruitment can be made in violation of such

rules. There is selection committee for recruitment of the

candidate. Workman was not given appointment letter.

There was no question of termination of his services.

Workman was engaged as casual labour. There is no

employer employee relationship. Workman was engaged

as per exigencies on day to day basis. Management needs

casual labor as per availability of work in Ware House.

There was no question of termination of service of

workman in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. On such

contentions, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

4. Rejoinder is filed by workman. It is contented by

workman that he was not engaged as casual labour. He

was appointed against clear vacant post. Workman was

paid salary Rs. 60.67 from 1-6-00 to 29-6-03. He was engaged

for maintenance of vouchers for insurance valuation. That

after his termination, department appointed many casual

labours who are still working.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Regional

Manager,

Central

Warehousing Corporation,

Regional office, Bhopal MP

in terminating the services

of Shri Bhole Kumar

Prajapati S/o Shri Paramlal

Prajapati, Ex-Daily rated

mazdoor w.e.f. 30-7-03 is

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

6. Workman contending that he was engaged as

casual labour against vacant post in June 2000. His

services are terminated in violation of section 25-F of

I.D.Act from 30-7-03. His termination is illegal. He prays

for appropriate direction i.e. reinstatement. The claim of

workman is denied by management claiming that workman

was casually engaged on day to day basis. There is no

question of termination of service in violation of Section

25-F of I.D.Act. workman filed affidavit of his evidence

covering his contentions in statement of claim that he was

engaged on monthly wages in June 2000. He was working

against vacant post till 29-7-03. His services are terminated

in violation of section 25-F. he was not issued notice.

Other casual employees are engaged. Workman has stated

detils of his working in Para-17 of his affidavit. That he is

unemployed after termination of his service. It is matter of

surprise that IInd party counsel failed to cross-examine

workman. Counsel for IInd party also did not take care to

adduce evidence of management. The evidence of

workman was closed on 29-7-2013. Management’s

evidence was closed on 26-2-2014. Thus the contentions

of management are not supported by evidence. Workman

in Para-4 of his statement of claim has stated that prior to

his joining as casual labour from June 2000 had acquired

enough knowledge and experience. It is clear from his

pleadings that he was engaged as casual labour. Workman

has not produced any evidence about post he was

engaged was lying vacant. He has not produced evidence

about his appointment against permanent post. His

pleadings and evidence are silent about his selection

following recruitment process. However the evidence of

workman remained unchallenged. He continuously worked

for more than 240 days preceding his termination.

Workman was working from June 2000 till 29-7-03 for a

period of 4 years.

7. Learned counsel for workman Shri Abhilash Dey

submitted bunch of citations. 1999 AIR-SC-1540, 2005-AIR

(SC)2175, 2013-SCJ (7)274, 2009 –AIR (SC)-3004, 2013

MPLJ (1) 380, 204 AIR(SC)-1188 & 2013 LAWS (CHH) 1-

54. I have gone through the ratio held in all those cases. In

case of Praveen Kumar Jain- 50 % back wages were allowed

confirming reinstatement. In case of Lal Singh Ram Singh

Rajpur appeal was allowed setting aside impugned

judgment and affirm the order of learned single judge in

Writ petition No. 12089 of 1998 dated 30-6-99 granting

continuity of service to the workman. Benefit of

reinstatement would be granted by Labour Court and Single

Judge was confirmed.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5489

The facts of present case not comparable. Workman

was not appointed following recruitment rules. He was

engaged as casual labour on daily wages. Employment

would not justify his reinstatement. The recent trend of

Apex Court is reasonable compensation should be awarded

in such cases. For reasons discussed above, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative. Considering the period

of working and nature of employment on daily wages,

award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Regional

Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation,

Regional Office, Bhopal MP in terminating the

services of Shri Bhole Kumar Prajapati S/o Shri

Paramlal Prajapati, Ex-Daily rated mazdoor w.e.f.

30-7-03 is not proper and legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 1

Lakh to the workman within 30 days form the

date of publication of award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2111-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj =kko.kdksj

VkbVsfu;e izksMDV~l fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

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

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

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@16@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2111.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-43012/16/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

Shri.D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 18th day of June, 2014/28th Jyaishtha,

1936)

ID 42/2009

Union

The General Secretary,

Titanium Products Labour Union

INTUC House, Kunnumpuram

Thiruvananthapuram - 695001

Management

The Managing Director,

Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

Post Box No. 1,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695021

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.06.2014

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 18.06.2014 passed

the following:

AWARD

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

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

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

Government of India/Ministry of Labour has referred the

industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication as per

Order No. L-43012/16/2009-IR(M) dated 28.10.2009.

2. The dispute is :

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

Travancore Titanium Products, Trivandrum in not

granting customary concession of extension of

service to Shri Raveendran T M, Work No.1732, by

two years from 01.10.2009 in spite of being medically

fit is justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to ?”

3. After appearance union filed claim statement

alleging that the management, after refusing the request

made by the workman to continue in service upto the age

of 60 years on medical fitness, removed him prematurely

from service at the age of 58 in violation of clause 12(c) of

the prevailing Standing Orders, Item No.34 of the Long

Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990, the customary practice

and all other norms regarding the retirement age and hence

he is to be appropriately compensated for the loss of salary

and other benefits.

5490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. Management filed written statement contending

that a workman has no right to claim extension of service

beyond the retirement age of 58 years and it is within the

absolute discretion of the management to grant extension

of service. No workman was given extension from April,

2007 to May, 2010 due to financial crisis. Management

has not violated any of the rules and there is no question

of any customary concession for granting extension.

Identical industrial dispute was considered by this

Tribunal in ID 23/2008 and it was found that the action of

the management in not granting extension of service

beyond the age of 58 years is legal and justified. The

discretionary power of the management as per clause 12(c)

of the Standing Orders was considered by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala in OP No.13568/1994-M filed by one

Mr.P M Kurian who was an employee of the management

and the OP was dismissed after holding that clause 12(c)

gives discretion to the management to extend the service

upto a maximum period of two years if he is certified fit for

such extended service and that even if a person is certified

fit for such extended service that by itself is no reason to

enable him to get extension since it is for the management

to decide whether they should exercise their discretion

and grant extension. The retirement age of the workman

as per the Standing Orders, 1980 is 58 years and he

cannot as a matter of right claim extension of service and

it is the management to decide whether he is to be granted

extension beyond the retirement age. The workman had

retired from service in accordance with the Rules and

hence he is not entitled to any relief.

5. Union did not file any rejoinder in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

6. After the submission of the pleadings the case

was adjourned for adducing evidence. In spite of several

adjournments union was continuously absenting without

any representation and hence set ex-parte. Management

filed affidavit. The documents produced from the side of

the management were marked as Exts.M1 to M15.

7. The dispute is as to the justifiability of the action

of the management in not granting customary concession

of extension of service to the workman for two years from

01.10.2009 even when he is medically fit. There is no

specific plea with regard to any customary concession in

the claim statement. In the written statement it is

specifically contended that there is no customary

concession enabling the workman to make claim for

extension of service beyond the age of 58. Union has not

adduced any evidence to prove it and there is no material

to satisfy that there was any such customary concession

for extension of service after the retirement age of 58 years.

Ext.M11 is the copy of the judgment dated 31.07.2009 in

ID 23/2008 of this Tribunal and from which it can be seen

that it was also a matter in issue in that case and it was

found by this Tribunal that there is no question of any

customary concession as there are specific provisions in

the Standing Orders as well as in the Long Term Settlement

with regard to the extension of service beyond the age of

58. The union and the management in this case were parties

in that case and hence the finding is binding since there is

nothing to show that there was any challenge against that

decision in that case and the same has not become final.

There is no reason to hold that there is any customary

concession which enables the workman to claim extension

of service after the retirement age.

8. In para 5 of the claim statement it is specifically

alleged that the claim of extension of service is as per

clause 12(c) of the prevailing Standing Orders and Item

No.34 of the Long Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990. The

copy of the Standing Orders, 1980 was marked as Ext.M1

and clause 12(c) contained in it reads thus:

“A workman who is at present covered by the

provisions of Standing Orders for workmen will retire

on completion of the age of 58 and a workman who

is now covered under the Standing Orders for staff

will retire on completion of the age of 60. The

management may however extend the service of a

workman upto a maximum period of 2 years beyond

his normal age of retirement as given above, at the

discretion of the Management if he is certified fit for

such extended service by the ESI Medical Officer or

such other competent authority in the case of those

who are not covered by the ESI Act.”

9. It is expressly clear that it is the discretion of

the management to allow a workman to continue after the

age of 58 for a period of two years subject to the condition

that he is medically fit. Even if he is medically fit then also

it is left to the discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. It was so held by the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 12.10.1994 in OP

13568/1994M, certified copy of which was marked as

Ext.M10. Reliance was placed by this Tribunal on that

judgment while deciding Ext.M11 case. From the wording

in clause 12(c) itself it is apparently clear that the workman

cannot claim extension of retirement age as of right and it

is the absolute discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. The Long Term Settlement 1990 is

not produced in this case to support the claim of extension

of service.

10. The workman is not entitled to claim extension

of service beyond the age of 58 based on customary

concession or the Standing Orders, 1980 or the Long Term

Settlement, 1990. Hence I find that the action of the

management in not granting extension of service to the

workman though medically fit is justified. So the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5491

11. In the result an award is passed holding that the

action of the management in not granting customary

extension of service to Shri Raveendran T M, W No.1732,

in spite of being medically fit, by two years from 01.10.2009

is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 18th

day of June, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Union

NIL

Witnesses for the Management

NIL

Exhibits for the Union

NIL

Exhibits for the Management :

True copy of the Standing Orders dated

21.05.1980

True copy of the letter No.156/H3/89/ID dated

07.05.1990 of the Govt. of Kerala

True copy of Profit and Loss Account for the

year ended on 31.03.2007

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2003

dated 06.11.2003 addressed to Shri V N

Ramachandran Pillai

True copy of the letter No.PL/C/RET/1128/2006

dated 15.02.2006 addressed to Shri C

Venugopalan Nair

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2004

dated 04.11.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1240/2004

dated 12.01.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 03.02.2006

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager(Personnel & Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 08.05.2003

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by theManager(Personnel & Administration)

M10

True copy of the judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP No.13568/1994-M of the Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala, Ernakulam

M11

True copy of the Award dated 31.07.2009 in ID

23/2008 of the Hon’ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ernakulam

M12

True copy of letter No.PL/D/RET/88 dated Nil

addressed to the Materials Manager by the

Deputy Manager(Personnel & Administration)

M13

True copy of Minutes of the union meeting

held on 04.02.2007

M14

True copy of Minutes of the 344th meeting of

the Board of Directors held on 25.06.2007

M15

True copy of the MD’s Order No.23/2007 dated

05.07.2007

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2112-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj =kko.kdksj

VkbVsfu;e izksMDV~l fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

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

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@18@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2112.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-43012/18/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

5492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

PRESENT :

Shri.D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 18th day of June, 2014/28th Jyaishtha,

1936)

ID 41/2009

Union

: The General Secretary,

Titanium Products Labour Union

INTUC House, Kunnumpuram

Thiruvananthapuram - 695001

Management

: The Managing Director,

Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

Post Box No. 1,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695021

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.06.2014

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 18.06.2014 passed

the following :

AWARD

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

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

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

Government of India/Ministry of Labour has referred the

industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication as per

Order No-L-43012/18/2009-IR(M) dated 28.10.2009.

2. The dispute is :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Travancore Titanium Products, Trivandrum in not

granting customary concession of extension of

service to Shri J Muthupilla Chettiar, W. No.1300, by

two years from 01.6.2009 in spite of being medically

fit is justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to ?”

3. After appearance union filed claim statement

alleging that the management, after refusing the request

made by the workman to continue in service upto the age

of 60 years on medical fitness, removed him prematurely

from service at the age of 58 in violation of clause 12(c) of

the prevailing Standing Orders, Item No.34 of the Long

Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990, the customary practice

and all other norms regarding the retirement age and hence

he is to be appropriately compensated for the loss of salary

and other benefits.

4. Management filed written statement contending

that a workman has no right to claim extension of service

beyond the retirement age of 58 years and it is within the

absolute discretion of the management to grant extension

of service. No workman was given extension from April,

2007 to May, 2010 due to financial crisis. Management

has not violated any of the rules and there is no question

of any customary concession for granting extension.

Identical industrial dispute was considered by this

Tribunal in ID 23/2008 and it was found that the action of

the management in not granting extension of service

beyond the age of 58 years is legal and justified. The

discretionary power of the management as per clause 12(c)

of the Standing Orders was considered by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala in OP No.13568/1994-M filed by one

Mr.P M Kurian who was an employee of the management

and the OP was dismissed after holding that clause 12(c)

gives discretion to the management to extend the service

upto a maximum period of two years if he is certified fit for

such extended service and that even if a person is certified

fit for such extended service that by itself is no reason to

enable him to get extension since it is for the management

to decide whether they should exercise their discretion

and grant extension. The retirement age of the workman

as per the Standing Orders, 1980 is 58 years and he

cannot as a matter of right claim extension of service and

it is the management to decide whether he is to be granted

extension beyond the retirement age. The workman had

retired from service in accordance with the Rules and

hence he is not entitled to any relief.

5. Union did not file any rejoinder in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

6. After the submission of the pleadings the case

was adjourned for adducing evidence. In spite of several

adjournments union was continuously absenting without

any representation and hence set ex-parte. Management

filed affidavit. The documents produced from the side of

the management were marked as Exts.M1 to M15.

7. The dispute is as to the justifiability of the action

of the management in not granting customary concession

of extension of service to the workman for two years from

01.06.2009 even when he is medically fit. There is no

specific plea with regard to any customary concession in

the claim statement. In the written statement it is

specifically contended that there is no customary

concession enabling the workman to make claim for

extension of service beyond the age of 58. Union has not

adduced any evidence to prove it and there is no material

to satisfy that there was any such customary concession

for extension of service after the retirement age of 58 years.

Ext.M11 is the copy of the judgment dated 31.07.2009 in

ID 23/2008 of this Tribunal and from which it can be seen

that it was also a matter in issue in that case and it was

found by this Tribunal that there is no question of any

customary concession as there are specific provisions in

the Standing Orders as well as in the Long Term Settlement

with regard to the extension of service beyond the age of

58. The union and the management in this case were parties

in that case and hence the finding is binding since there is

nothing to show that there was any challenge against that

decision in that case and the same has not become final.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5493

There is no reason to hold that there is any customary

concession which enables the workman to claim extension

of service after the retirement age.

8. In para 5 of the claim statement it is specifically

alleged that the claim of extension of service is as per

clause 12(c) of the prevailing Standing Orders and Item

No.34 of the Long Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990. The

copy of the Standing Orders, 1980 was marked as Ext.M1

and clause 12(c) contained in it reads thus:

“A workman who is at present covered by the

provisions of Standing Orders for workmen will retire

on completion of the age of 58 and a workman who

is now covered under the Standing Orders for staff

will retire on completion of the age of 60. The

management may however extend the service of a

workman upto a maximum period of 2 years beyond

his normal age of retirement as given above, at the

discretion of the Management if he is certified fit for

such extended service by the ESI Medical Officer or

such other competent authority in the case of those

who are not covered by the ESI Act.”

9. It is expressly clear that it is the discretion of

the management to allow a workman to continue after the

age of 58 for a period of two years subject to the condition

that he is medically fit. Even if he is medically fit then also

it is left to the discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. It was so held by the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 12.10.1994 in OP

13568/1994M, certified copy of which was marked as

Ext.M10. Reliance was placed by this Tribunal on that

judgment while deciding Ext.M11 case. From the wording

in clause 12(c) itself it is apparently clear that the workman

cannot claim extension of retirement age as of right and it

is the absolute discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. The Long Term Settlement 1990 is

not produced in this case to support the claim of extension

of service.

10. The workman is not entitled to claim extension

of service beyond the age of 58 based on customary

concession or the Standing Orders, 1980 or the Long Term

Settlement, 1990. Hence I find that the action of the

management in not granting extension of service to the

workman though medically fit is justified. So the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

11. In the result an award is passed holding that the

action of the management in not granting customary

extension of service to Shri J Muthupilla Chettiar, W

No.1300, in spite of being medically fit, by two years from

01.06.2009 is justified and the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 18th

day of June, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Union

NIL

Witnesses for the Management

NIL

Exhibits for the Union

NIL

Exhibits for the Management :

True copy of the Standing Orders dated

21.05.1980

True copy of the letter No.156/H3/89/ID dated

07.05.1990 of the Govt. of Kerala

True copy of Profit and Loss Account for the

year ended on 31.03.2007

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2003

dated 06.11.2003 addressed to Shri V N

Ramachandran Pillai

True copy of the letter No.PL/C/RET/1128/2006

dated 15.02.2006 addressed to Shri C

Venugopalan Nair

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2004

dated 04.11.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1240/2004

dated 12.01.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 03.02.2006

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager(Personnel & Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 08.05.2003

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager(Personnel & Administration)

M10

True copy of the judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP No.13568/1994-M of the Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala, Ernakulam

M11

True copy of the Award dated 31.07.2009 in ID

23/2008 of the Hon’ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ernakulam

M12

True copy of letter No.PL/D/RET/88 dated Nil

addressed to the Materials Manager by the

Deputy Manager(Personnel & Administration)

5494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M13

True copy of Minutes of the union meeting

held on 04.02.2007

M14

True copy of Minutes of the 344th meeting of

the Board of Directors held on 25.06.2007

M15

True copy of the MD’s Order No.23/2007 dated

05.07.2007

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2113-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj =kko.kdksj

VkbVsfu;e izksMDV~l fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

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

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@15@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2113.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 40/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-43012/15/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

Shri.D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 18th day of June, 2014/28th Jyaishtha,

1936)

ID 40/2009

Union

The General Secretary Titanium

Products Labour UnionINTUC

House,

Kunnumpuram

Thiruvananthapuram - 695001

Management

The

Managing

Director

Travancore Titanium Products

Ltd.

Post

Box

No.

Thiruvananthapuram - 695021

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.06.2014

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 18.06.2014 passed

the following:

AWARD

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

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

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

Government of India/Ministry of Labour has referred the

industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication as per

Order No-L-43012/15/2009-IR(M) dated 26.10.2009.

2. The dispute is:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Travancore Titanium Products, Trivandrum in not

granting customary concession of extension of

service to the following 7 workers from the date of

attaining the age of 58 years in spite of being

medically fit is justified? What relief the workmen

are entitled to ?”

Sl.

Name of the employee Designation

Date of

No.

with Work Number

retirement

Smt Carmel Sosamma,

Canteen

W. No.9298

Mazdoor

31.05.2009

Shri Sunnajan S E, W.

Assistant

31.05.2009

No.9282

Cook

Shri George M, W.

Process

31.05.2009

No.1388

Operator

Shri Mohd.Asraf A,

Sr.Boiler

30.04.2009

W. No.1647

Attendant

Shri Raja Mohaman

Fitter

31.05.2009

Nair, W. No.1654

Shri Sekharan V, W.

Rigger

31.05.2009

No.1591

Shri Sarasakshan,

Charge Hand

30.04.2009

W. No.1200

Operator

3. After appearance union filed claim statement

alleging that the management, after refusing the request

made by the workmen to continue in service upto the age

of 60 years on medical fitness, removed them prematurely

from service at the age of 58 and in violation of clause

12(c) of the prevailing Standing Orders, Item No.34 of the

Long Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990, the customary

practice and all other norms regarding the retirement age

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5495

and hence they are to be appropriately compensated for

the loss of salary and other benefits.

4. Management filed written statement contending

that a workman has no right to claim extension of service

beyond the retirement age of 58 years and it is within the

absolute discretion of the management to grant extension

of service. No workman was given extension from April,

2007 to May, 2010 due to financial crisis. Management

has not violated any of the rules and there is no question

of any customary concession for granting extension.

Identical industrial dispute was considered by this

Tribunal in ID No. 23/2008 and it was found that the action

of the management in not granting extension of service

beyond the age of 58 years is legal and justified. The

discretionary power of the management as per clause 12(c)

of the Standing Orders was considered by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala in OP No.13568/1994-M filed by one

Mr. P. M. Kurian who was an employee of the management

and the OP was dismissed after holding that clause 12(c)

gives discretion to the management to extend the service

up to a maximum period of two years if he is certified fit for

such extended service and that even if a person is certified

fit for such extended service that by itself is no reason to

enable him to get extension since it is for the management

to decide whether they should exercise their discretion

and grant extension. The retirement age of the workman

as per the Standing Orders, 1980 is 58 years and he/she

cannot as a matter of right claim extension of service and

it is the management to decide whether he/she is to be

granted extension beyond the retirement age. The workmen

had retired from service in accordance with the Rules and

hence they are not entitled to any relief.

5. Union did not file any rejoinder in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

6. After the submission of the pleadings the case

was adjourned for adducing evidence. In spite of several

adjournments union was continuously absenting without

any representation and hence set ex-parte. Management

filed affidavit. The documents produced from the side of

the management were marked as Exts.M1 to M15.

7. The dispute is as to the justifiability of the action

of the management in not granting customary concession

of extension of service to the seven workmen for two years

after the retirement age of 58 even when they are medically

fit. There is no specific plea with regard to any customary

concession in the claim statement. In the written statement

it is specifically contended that there is no customary

concession enabling the workmen to make claim for

extension of service beyond the age of 58. Union has not

adduced any evidence to prove it and there is no material

to satisfy that there was any such customary concession

for extension of service after the retirement age of 58 years.

Ext.M11 is the copy of the judgment dated 31.07.2009 in

ID No. 23/2008 of this Tribunal and from which it can be

seen that it was also a matter in issue in that case and it

was found by this Tribunal that there is no question of

any customary concession as there are specific provisions

in the Standing Orders as well as in the Long Term

Settlement with regard to the extension of service beyond

the age of 58. The union and the management in this case

were parties in that case and hence the finding is binding

since there is nothing to show that there was any challenge

against that decision in that case and the same has not

become final. There is no reason to hold that there is any

customary concession which enables the workmen to

claim extension of service after the retirement age.

8. In para 5 of the claim statement it is specifically

alleged that the claim of extension of service is as per

clause 12(c) of the prevailing Standing Orders and Item

No. 34 of the Long Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990. The

copy of the Standing Orders, 1980 was marked as Ext.M1

and clause 12(c) contained in it reads thus:

“A workman who is at present covered by the

provisions of Standing Orders for workmen will retire

on completion of the age of 58 and a workman who

is now covered under the Standing Orders for staff

will retire on completion of the age of 60. The

management may however extend the service of a

workman up to a maximum period of 2 years beyond

his normal age of retirement as given above, at the

discretion of the Management if he is certified fit for

such extended service by the ESI Medical Officer or

such other competent authority in the case of those

who are not covered by the ESI Act.”

9. It is expressly clear that it is the discretion of the

management to allow a workman to continue after the age

of 58 for a period of two years subject to the condition

that he is medically fit. Even if he is medically fit then also

it is left to the discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. It was so held by the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 12.10.1994 in OP No.

13568/1994-M, certified copy of which was marked as

Ext.M10. Reliance was placed by this Tribunal on that

judgment while deciding Ext.M11 case. From the wording

in clause 12(c) itself it is apparently clear that the workmen

cannot claim extension of retirement age as of right and it

is the absolute discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. The Long Term Settlement 1990 is

not produced in this case to support the claim of extension

of service.

10. The workmen are not entitled to claim extension

of service beyond the age of 58 based on customary

concession or the Standing Orders, 1980 or the Long Term

Settlement, 1990. Hence I find that the action of the

management in not granting extension of service to the

5496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

seven workmen though medically fit is justified. So the

workmen are not entitled to any relief.

11. In the result an award is passed holding that

the action of the management in not granting customary

extension of service to the seven workmen listed in the

Schedule, in spite of being medically fit, by two years

beyond the age of 58 years is justified and the workmen

are not entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 18th

day of June, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Union

NIL

Witnesses for the Management

NIL

Exhibits for the Union

NIL

Exhibits for the Management :

True copy of the Standing Orders dated

21.05.1980

True copy of the letter No.156/H3/89/ID dated

07.05.1990 of the Govt. of Kerala

True copy of Profit and Loss Account for the

year ended on 31.03.2007

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2003

dated 06.11.2003 addressed to Shri V. N.

Ramachandran Pillai

True copy of the letter No.PL/C/RET/1128/2006

dated 15.02.2006 addressed to Shri C.

Venugopalan Nair

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2004

dated 04.11.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1240/2004

dated 12.01.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 03.02.2006

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager(Personnel & Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 08.05.2003

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by theManager(Personnel & Administration)

M10

True copy of the judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP No.13568/1994-M of the Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala, Ernakulam

M11

True copy of the Award dated 31.07.2009 in ID

No. 23/2008 of the Hon’ble CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam

M12

True copy of letter No.PL/D/RET/88 dated Nil

addressed to the Materials Manager by the

Deputy Manager(Personnel & Administration)

M13

True copy of Minutes of the union meeting

held on 04.02.2007

M14

True copy of Minutes of the 344th meeting of

the Board of Directors held on 25.06.2007

M15

True copy of the MD’s Order No.23/2007 dated

05.07.2007

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2114-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj =kko.kdksj

VkbVsfu;e izksMDV~l fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

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

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@17@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 43/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-43012/17/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5497

(Wednesday the 18th day of June, 2014/28th Jyaishtha,

1936)

ID 43/2009

Union

: The General Secretary,

Titanium Products Labour Union

INTUC House, Kunnumpuram

Thiruvananthapuram - 695001

Management

: The Managing Director,

Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

Post Box No. 1,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695021

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.06.2014

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 18.06.2014 passed

the following:

AWARD

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

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

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

Government of India/Ministry of Labour has referred the

industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication as per

Order No. L-43012/17/2009-IR(M) dated 03.11.2009.

2. The dispute is :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Travancore Titanium Products, Trivandrum in not

granting customary concession of extension of

service to Shri Bose M. Paret, W. No.907, by two

years from 01.10.2009 in spite of being medically fit

is justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

3. After appearance union filed claim statement

alleging that the management, after refusing the request

made by the workman to continue in service up to the age

of 60 years on medical fitness, removed him prematurely

from service at the age of 58 in violation of clause 12(c) of

the prevailing Standing Orders, Item No. 34 of the Long

Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990, the customary practice

and all other norms regarding the retirement age and hence

he is to be appropriately compensated for the loss of salary

and other benefits.

4. Management filed written statement contending

that a workman has no right to claim extension of service

beyond the retirement age of 58 years and it is within the

absolute discretion of the management to grant extension

of service. No workman was given extension from April,

2007 to May, 2010 due to financial crisis. Management

has not violated any of the rules and there is no question

of any customary concession for granting extension.

Identical industrial dispute was considered by this

Tribunal in ID 23/2008 and it was found that the action of

the management in not granting extension of service

beyond the age of 58 years is legal and justified. The

discretionary power of the management as per clause 12(c)

of the Standing Orders was considered by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala in OP No.13568/1994-M filed by one

Mr.P M Kurian who was an employee of the management

and the OP was dismissed after holding that clause 12(c)

gives discretion to the management to extend the service

upto a maximum period of two years if he is certified fit for

such extended service and that even if a person is certified

fit for such extended service that by itself is no reason to

enable him to get extension since it is for the management

to decide whether they should exercise their discretion

and grant extension. The retirement age of the workman

as per the Standing Orders, 1980 is 58 years and he

cannot as a matter of right claim extension of service and

it is the management to decide whether he is to be granted

extension beyond the retirement age. The workman had

retired from service in accordance with the Rules and

hence he is not entitled to any relief.

5. Union did not file any rejoinder in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

6. After the submission of the pleadings the case

was adjourned for adducing evidence. In spite of several

adjournments union was continuously absenting without

any representation and hence set ex-parte. Management

filed affidavit. The documents produced from the side of

the management were marked as Exts.M1 to M15.

7. The dispute is as to the justifiability of the action

of the management in not granting customary concession

of extension of service to the workman for two years from

01.10.2009 even when he is medically fit. There is no

specific plea with regard to any customary concession in

the claim statement. In the written statement it is

specifically contended that there is no customary

concession enabling the workman to make claim for

extension of service beyond the age of 58. Union has not

adduced any evidence to prove it and there is no material

to satisfy that there was any customary concession for

extension of service after the retirement age of 58 years.

Ext.M11 is the copy of the judgment dated 31.07.2009 in

ID 23/2008 of this Tribunal and from which it can be seen

that it was also a matter in issue in that case and it was

found by this Tribunal that there is no question of any

customary concession as there are specific provisions in

the Standing Orders as well as in the Long Term Settlement

with regard to the extension of service beyond the age of

58. The union and the management in this case were parties

in that case and hence the finding is binding since there is

nothing to show that there was any challenge against that

decision in that case and the same has not become final.

There is no reason to hold that there is any customary

concession which enables the workman to claim extension

of service after the retirement age.

5498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. In para 5 of the claim statement it is specifically

alleged that the claim of extension of service is as per

clause 12(c) of the prevailing Standing Orders and Item

No.34 of the Long Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990. The

copy of the Standing Orders, 1980 was marked as Ext.M1

and clause 12(c) contained in it reads thus:

“A workman who is at present covered by the

provisions of Standing Orders for workmen will retire

on completion of the age of 58 and a workman who

is now covered under the Standing Orders for staff

will retire on completion of the age of 60. The

management may however extend the service of a

workman up to a maximum period of 2 years beyond

his normal age of retirement as given above, at the

discretion of the Management if he is certified fit for

such extended service by the ESI Medical Officer or

such other competent authority in the case of those

who are not covered by the ESI Act.”

9. It is expressly clear that it is the discretion of the

management to allow a workman to continue after the age

of 58 for a period of two years subject to the condition

that he is medically fit. Even if he is medically fit then also

it is left to the discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. It was so held by the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 12.10.1994 in OP

13568/1994-M, certified copy of which was marked as

Ext.M10. Reliance was placed by this Tribunal on that

judgment while deciding Ext.M11 case. From the wording

in clause 12(c) itself it is apparently clear that the workman

cannot claim extension of retirement age as of right and it

is the absolute discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. The Long Term Settlement 1990 is

not produced in this case to support the claim of extension

of service.

10. The workman is not entitled to claim extension

of service beyond the age of 58 based on customary

concession or the Standing Orders, 1980 or the Long Term

Settlement, 1990. Hence I find that the action of the

management in not granting extension of service to the

workman though medically fit is justified. So the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

11. In the result an award is passed holding that

the action of the management in not granting customary

extension of service to Shri Bose M. Paret, W. No.907, in

spite of being medically fit, by two years from 01.10.2009

is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 18th

day of June, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Union

NIL

Witnesses for the Management

NIL

Exhibits for the Union

NIL

Exhibits for the Management :

True copy of the Standing Orders dated

21.05.1980

True copy of the letter No.156/H3/89/ID dated

07.05.1990 of the Govt. of Kerala

True copy of Profit and Loss Account for the

year ended on 31.03.2007

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2003

dated 06.11.2003 addressed to Shri V. N.

Ramachandran Pillai

True copy of the letter No.PL/C/RET/1128/2006

dated 15.02.2006 addressed to Shri C.

Venugopalan Nair

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2004

dated 04.11.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1240/2004

dated 12.01.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 03.02.2006

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager(Personnel & Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 08.05.2003

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager(Personnel & Administration)

M10

True copy of the judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP No.13568/1994-M of the Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala, Ernakulam

M11

True copy of the Award dated 31.07.2009 in ID

23/2008 of the Hon’ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ernakulam

M12

True copy of letter No.PL/D/RET/88 dated Nil

addressed to the Materials Manager by the

Deputy Manager(Personnel & Administration)

M13

True copy of Minutes of the union meeting

held on 04.02.2007

M14

True copy of Minutes of the 344th meeting of

the Board of Directors held on 25.06.2007

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5499

M15

True copy of the MD’s Order No.23/2007 dated

05.07.2007

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 2115-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj =kko.kdksj

VkbVsfu;e izksMDV~l fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

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

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@14@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014

S.O. 2115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 39/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2014.

[No. L-43012/14/2009-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

Shri.D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 18th day of June, 2014/28th Jyaishtha,

1936)

ID 39/2009

Union

The General Secretary,

Titanium Products Labour Union

INTUC House, Kunnumpuram

Thiruvananthapuram - 695001

Management

The Managing Director,

Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

Post Box No. 1,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695021

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.06.2014

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 18.06.2014 passed

the following :

AWARD

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

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

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

Government of India/ Ministry of Labour has referred the

industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication as per

Order No. L-43012/14/2009-IR(M) dated 26.10.2009.

2. The dispute is :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Travancore Titanium Products, Trivandrum in not

granting customary concession of extension of

service to Shri Thomas Fernandes, W. No.1559, in

spite of being medically fit by two years from 1/1/

2009 is justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to?”

3. After appearance union filed claim statement

alleging that the management, after refusing the request

made by the workman to continue in service upto the age

of 60 years on medical fitness, removed him prematurely

from service at the age of 58 in violation of clause 12(c) of

the prevailing Standing Orders, Item No.34 of the Long

Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990, the customary practice

and all other norms regarding the retirement age and hence

he is to be appropriately compensated for the loss of salary

and other benefits.

4. Management filed written statement contending

that a workman has no right to claim extension of service

beyond the retirement age of 58 years and it is within the

absolute discretion of the management to grant extension

of service. No workman was given extension from April,

2007 to May, 2010 due to financial crisis. Management

has not violated any of the rules and there is no question

of any customary concession for granting extension.

Identical industrial dispute was considered by this

Tribunal in ID 23/2008 and it was found that the action of

the management in not granting extension of service

beyond the age of 58 years is legal and justified. The

discretionary power of the management as per clause 12(c)

of the Standing Orders was considered by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala in OP No.13568/1994-M filed by one

Mr.P M Kurian who was an employee of the management

and the OP was dismissed after holding that clause 12(c)

gives discretion to the management to extend the service

upto a maximum period of two years if he is certified fit for

such extended service and that even if a person is certified

fit for such extended service that by itself is no reason to

enable him to get extension since it is for the management

to decide whether they should exercise their discretion

and grant extension. The retirement age of the workman

as per the Standing Orders, 1980 is 58 years and he

cannot as a matter of right claim extension of service and

it is the management to decide whether he is to be granted

5500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 26, 2014/SRAVANA 4, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

extension beyond the retirement age. The workman had

retired from service in accordance with the Rules and

hence he is not entitled to any relief.

5. Union did not file any rejoinder in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

6. After the submission of the pleadings the case

was adjourned for adducing evidence. In spite of several

adjournments union was continuously absenting without

any representation and hence set ex-parte. Management

filed affidavit. The documents produced from the side of

the management were marked as Exts.M1 to M15.

7. The dispute is as to the justifiability of the action

of the management in not granting customary concession

of extension of service to the workman for two years from

01.01.2009 even when he is medically fit. There is no

specific plea with regard to any customary concession in

the claim statement. In the written statement it is

specifically contended that there is no customary

concession enabling the workman to make claim for

extension of service beyond the age of 58. Union has not

adduced any evidence to prove it and there is no material

to satisfy that there was any such customary concession

for extension of service after the retirement age of 58 years.

Ext.M11 is the copy of the judgment dated 31.07.2009 in

ID 23/2008 of this Tribunal and from which it can be seen

that it was also a matter in issue in that case and it was

found by this Tribunal that there is no question of any

customary concession as there are specific provisions in

the Standing Orders as well as in the Long Term Settlement

with regard to the extension of service beyond the age of

58. The union and the management in this case were parties

in that case and hence the finding is binding since there is

nothing to show that there was any challenge against that

decision in that case and the same has not become final.

There is no reason to hold that there is any customary

concession which enables the workman to claim extension

of service after the retirement age.

8. In para 5 of the claim statement it is specifically

alleged that the claim of extension of service is as per

clause 12(c) of the prevailing Standing Orders and Item

No.34 of the Long Term Settlement dated 15.05.1990. The

copy of the Standing Orders, 1980 was marked as Ext.M1

and clause 12(c) contained in it reads thus:

“A workman who is at present covered by the

provisions of Standing Orders for workmen will retire

on completion of the age of 58 and a workman who

is now covered under the Standing Orders for staff

will retire on completion of the age of 60. The

management may however extend the service of a

workman upto a maximum period of 2 years beyond

his normal age of retirement as given above, at the

discretion of the Management if he is certified fit for

such extended service by the ESI Medical Officer or

such other competent authority in the case of those

who are not covered by the ESI Act.”

9. It is expressly clear that it is the discretion of

the management to allow a workman to continue after

the age of 58 for a period of two years subject to the

condition that he is medically fit. Even if he is medically fit

then also it is left to the discretion of the management to

grant extension of service. It was so held by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP 13568/1994M, certified copy of which was marked as

Ext.M10. Reliance was placed by this Tribunal on that

judgment while deciding Ext.M11 case. From the wording

in clause 12(c) itself it is apparently clear that the workman

cannot claim extension of retirement age as of right and it

is the absolute discretion of the management to grant

extension of service. The Long Term Settlement 1990 is

not produced in this case to support the claim of extension

of service.

10. The workman is not entitled to claim extension

of service beyond the age of 58 based on customary

concession or the Standing Orders, 1980 or the Long Term

Settlement, 1990. Hence I find that the action of the

management in not granting extension of service to the

workman though medically fit is justified. So the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

11. In the result an award is passed holding that the

action of the management in not granting customary

extension of service to Shri Thomas Fernandes,

W No.1559, in spite of being medically fit, by two years

from 01.01.2009 is justified and the workman is not entitled

to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 18th

day of June, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Union

NIL

Witnesses for the Management

NIL

Exhibits for the Union

NIL

Exhibits for the Management :

True copy of the Standing Orders dated

21.05.1980

True copy of the letter No.156/H3/89/ID dated

07.05.1990 of the Govt. of Kerala

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 26] [email protected] 4] 1936

5501

True copy of Profit and Loss Account for the

year ended on 31.03.2007

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2003

dated 06.11.2003 addressed to Shri V N

Ramachandran Pillai

True copy of the letter No.PL/C/RET/1128/2006

dated 15.02.2006 addressed to Shri C

Venugopalan Nair

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1529/2004

dated 04.11.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter No.PL/D/PER/1240/2004

dated 12.01.2004 addressed to the Chief

Engineer by the Manager(Personnel &

Administration)

True copy of the letter dated 03.02.2006

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager(Personnel & Administration)

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

True copy of the letter dated 08.05.2003

addressed to the Chief Production Manager

by the Manager (Personnel & Administration)

M10

True copy of the judgment dated 12.10.1994 in

OP No.13568/1994-M of the Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala, Ernakulam

M11

True copy of the Award dated 31.07.2009 in ID

23/2008 of the Hon’ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ernakulam

M12

True copy of letter No.PL/D/RET/88 dated Nil

addressed to the Materials Manager by the

Deputy Manager(Personnel & Administration)

M13

True copy of Minutes of the union meeting

held on 04.02.2007

M14

True copy of Minutes of the 344th meeting of

the Board of Directors held on 25.06.2007

M15

True copy of the MD’s Order No.23/2007 dated

05.07.2007.