izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 32]
ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 3—vxLr 9] 2014] '[email protected] 12—Jko.k 18] 1936
No. 32]
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 3—AUGUST 9, 2014, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 12—SRAVANA 18, 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)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
3044 GI/2014
(5619)
foÙk ea=kky;
(jktLo foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2163.—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 jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu izorZu funs'kky; ds
jkaph {ks=kh; dk;kZy; dks ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa
us fgUnh dk dk;Z lk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh
gSA
[iQk- la- bZ- 11017@01@2012&,Mh (fgUnh&4)]
pUnzHkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2014
S.O. 2163.—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 notifies
the Ranchi Regional office of the Directorate of Enforcement
Under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80%
staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E. 11017/1/2012-AD(Hindi-4)]
CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL)
5620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fons'k ea=kky;
(lhihoh izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2164.—jktuf;d vkSj dkalyh; vkWfiQlj ('kiFk
vkSj iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds
vuqlj.k esa dsanz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh lfranj dqekj jkBkSj lgk;d
dks 24 tqykbZ] 2014 ls Hkkjr ds dkSalykokl gsjkr lgk;d dksalqyj
vf/dkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/d`r djrh gSA
[la-Vh- 4330@01@2014]
,l- ,u- oh- jeuk jko] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2014
S.O. 2164.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby authorize Shri. Satinder Kumar Rathore, Assistant, in
Consulate General of India, Herat to perform the duties of
Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 24th July, 2014.
[No. T. 4330/01/2014]
S. N. V. RAMANA RAO, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;
(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2165.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]
1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi/kjk (8)
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ekuuh; dydÙkk mPp
U;k;ky; ,oa vU; mPp U;k;ky;ksa rFkk Hkkjr ds ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; esa 'kkjnk fpV iQaM ?kksVkyk ekeyksa ,oa mlls lacaf/r
ekeyksa vFkok muls izklafxd vU; ekeyksa dh vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa esa
mifLFkr gksus@lapkyu gsrq Jh ds- jk?kkokpk;qZyq] vf/oDrk dks
fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk (ds-v- C;wjks) dh vksj ls fo'ks"k yksd
vfHk;kstd fu;qDr djrh gSA
[iQk-la- 225@27@2014&,-oh-Mh-&II]
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014
S.O. 2165.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government
hereby appoints Shri K. Raghavacharyulu, Advocate as
Special Public Prosecutor for appearing/conducting Sharda
Chit Fund Scam Cases and its related cases before the
Hon/ble High Court of Calcutta and any other High Courts
and Hon'ble"Supreme Court of India on behalf of Delhi
Special Police Establishment (CBI) and appeals/revisions
or other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
[F. No. 225/27/2014-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
okf.kT; ,oa m|ksx ea=kky;
(okf.kT; foHkkx)
(iwfrZ izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2166.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e
(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] okf.kT; ,oa m|ksx ea=kky;] okf.kT; foHkkx
(iwfrZ izHkkx) 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 fuEu dk;kZy; dks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS%
1-
xq.krk vk'oklu funs'kky;
igyh eafty
vk;dj Hkou mix`g
U;w ejhu ykbal
eqEcbZ&400020
[iQk-la- bZ-&11016@06@2004&fgUnh]
jfo diwj] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(SUPPLY DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 28th July, 2014
S.O. 2166.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule
(10) of Official Language (Use for Official purposes of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5621
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the following offices of the Ministry of Commerce &
Industry, Department of Commerce (Supply Division),
where more than 80% of Employees have attained working
knowledge of Hindi:-
1.
Directorate of Quality Assurance
Aayakar Bhawan Annexe
New Marine Lines,
Mumbai-400020
[F. No. E-11016/06/2004-Hindi]
RAVI CAPOOR, Jt. Secy.
bLikr ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2167.—jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds
fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkkla'kksf/r] 1987) ds fu;e 10 ds
mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk bLikr
ea=kky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa] ftuds
80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjho`Un us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku
izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/lwfpr djrh gS%&
1-
'kk[kk fcØh dk;kZy;] vkj-vkbZ-,u-,y-] fo'kk[kkiV~V.ke
bLikr la;a=k] la- 38@4&ch] ,iQ&10 vkSj 11] izQSaMl lsaVj]
iatkc o fla/ cSad ds ikl] lat; iSysl] vkxjk&282002
2-
'kk[kk fcØh dk;kZy;] vkj-vkbZ-,u-,y-] fo'kk[kkiV~V.ke
bLikr la;a=k] pkdksl VkWoj] nwljh eafty] iák taD'ku]
,ukZdqye] dksphu&682035
3-
'kk[kk fcØh dk;kZy;] vkj-vkbZ-,u-,y-] fo'kk[kkiV~V.ke
bLikr la;a=k] 27] igyk ry] bZ lh jksM] nsgjknwu&248160
4-
esdksau fyfeVsM] rhljh eafty] VkWoj Øekad&7] vUrjkZ"Vªh;
bUiQksVsd ikdZ] ok'kh jsyos LVs'ku dkEIysDl] ok'kh] uoha
eqEcbZ&400703 (egkjk"Vª)
5-
iQSjks LØSi fuxe fyfeVsM] ,l,e,l dk;kZy; Hkou (izFke
ry)] ch,pbZ,y la;a=k ds Hkhrj] iksLV&jkuhiqj]
ftyk&gfj}kj&249403 (mÙkjk[k.M)
6-
fganqLrku LVhyoDlZ daLVªD'ku fyfeVsM] ySaM MsoyiesaV cSad
fcfYaMx] r`rh; ry] cq¼ ekxZ] iVuk&800001 (fcgkj)
7-
fganqLrku LVhyoDlZ daLVªd'ku fyfeVsM] ,p-,l-lh-,y-
bZ&5 ,oa bZ&6] ';keyh dkWyksuh] bLikr vLikry ds fudV]
iksLV&MksjaMk] jkaph&834002 (>kj[k.M)
8-
fganqLrku LVhyoDlZ daLVªD'ku fyfeVsM] jkmjdsyk bLikr
la;a=k] ftyk&laqnjx<+ (mM+hlk)] jkmjdsyk&769011
[la- bZ&11011@01@2012&fganh]
yksds'k pUnz] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF STEEL
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2167—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central
Government hereby notifies the following offices under
the administrative control of Ministry of Steel, wherein
more than 80% of the staff have acquired the working
knowledge of Hindi:-
1.
Branch Sales Office, RINL, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,
No. 38/4-B, F-10 & 11, Friends Centre Near Punjab &
Sind Bank, Sanjay Palace, Agra-282002
2.
Branch Sales Office, RINL, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,
Chakos Tower, 2nd Floor, Padma Junction Ernakulam,
Cochin-682035
3.
Branch Sales Office, RINL, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,
No. 27, 1st Floor, E. C. Road, Dehradun-248160
4.
Mecon Limited, 3rd Floor, Tower No. 7, International
Infotech Park, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai-400703 (Maharashtra)
5.
Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, SMS Office Building (1st
floor), Inside BHEL Plant, Post-Ranipur, Dist.:
Haridwar-249403 (Uttarakhand)
6.
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd., Land
Development Bank Building, 3rd Floor, Budh Marg,
Patna-800001 (Bihar)
7.
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd., (HSCL) E-
5 & E-6, Shyamali Colony (Near Ispat Hospital), Post-
Doranda, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)
8.
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd.,
Rourkela Steel Plant, Distt. Sundargarh (Odisha)
Rourkela-769011
[No. E. 11011/01/2012-Hindi]
LOKESH CHANDRA, Jt. Secy.
5622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2168-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ bathfu;j
(bysfDVªdy) fMikVZesaV vkWiQ VsyhdkWe] paMhx<+ ds izca/ra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 764@2005) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks dks izkIr gqvk
Fkk A
[la- ,y- 40012@17@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2014
S.O. 2168.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 764/
2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in
the industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Chief Engineer (Electrical)
Department of Telecom, Chandigarh, and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
18/07/2014.
[No. L-40012/17/2004 - IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present :
SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No.764/2005
Registered on 5.9.2005
Sh. Upkar Singh,
S/o Sh. Sant Singh,
C/o Sh. Amit Sharma,
K.No.903, Sector 64,
Phase XI, Mohali,
Chandigarh.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Engineer (Electrical),
Deptt. of Telecom,
SCO No. 332-34, Sector 64,
Chandigarh.
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
Sh. Arun Batra Adv.
For the Management
Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 6.6.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/
17/2004-IR(DU) Dated 28.7.2004, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom
now known as BSNL in terminating the services of
Sh. Upkar Singh Ex- Peon w.e.f. 28/8/2001 without
any notice and without complying with the
provisions of the ID Act, 1947 is just and legal? If
not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to and from which date?”
In response to the notice the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that he was engaged as a Peon
on daily wages w.e.f. 4.4.1998 by respondent management
and his services were terminated in the year 28.8.2001
without payment of any compensation. That the persons
junior to him were retained in service and thus there is
violation of Section 25G of the Act. The management
again appointed fresh persons without giving him any
priority and violated Section 25H of the Act. That he be
reinstated in service with full back wages.
Respondent management filed written statement
pleading that the workman was engaged in the office of
Chief Engineer in the month of April 2000 on a stop gap
arrangement where he worked up to June 2001. Thereafter
the contract was given to the security agency and the
workman did not work for the management. That there
was no requirement to comply with the provisions of
Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act.
Parties led their evidence.
In support of his case the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit supporting his claim as
set out in the claim petition.
However management did not lead any evidence
and its evidence was closed vide order dated 17.12.2013.
I have heard Sh. Arun Batra counsel for the workman
and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the management and
perused the file carefully.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that workman was appointed as Peon w.e.f.
4.4.1998 and he worked as such till 28.8.2001 when his
services were terminated in violation of the provision of
Section 25F of the Act and since his termination is illegal,
he is liable to be reinstated in service.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5623
I have considered the contentions of the learned
counsel.
Though the workman has pleaded that he was
engaged as Peon on 4.4.1998 on daily wages, but he did
not produce any documentary evidence to prove this fact
and it is not his case that he was engaged orally by the
management. In the absence of any document it cannot
be said that he was engaged on 4.4.1998. In the
circumstances the stand of the management that he was
engaged in April, 2000 is to be taken as true.
According to the workman his services were
discontinued on 28.8.2001. Again there is no cogent and
convincing evidence that he worked with the management
till 28.8.2001. He did not summon any record from the
management to establish that he was paid salary till
28.8.2001 by the management and even no attendance
record has come on the file to establish that he attended
to his duties till 28.8.2001.
According to the management he worked for 181
days from April, 2000 to December, 2000; and for 120 days
from January, 2001 to June, 2001 i.e. for a total period 301
days. But since the workman himself claims that his
services were terminated on 28.8.2001, which is not proved
on the file; and the working days calculated from 28.8.2001
only comes to 224 days and it cannot be said that he
continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year
preceding the date of his alleged termination. Thus, no
violation of Section 25F of the Act, proved on the file.
Again there is nothing on the file that any person junior to
the workman was retained in service or any fresh
appointment was made by the management after
terminating the services of the workman. Thus there is no
violation of any provision of law in the present case.
In result it is held that the workman has failed to
prove that his services were terminated on 28.8.2001 and
that too in violation of the provisions of the Act and he is
not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly
answered against the workman. Let hard and soft copy of
the award be sent to the Central Government for further
necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2169-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj
ch,l,u,y] dkWaxM+k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 200@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y- 40011@7@2011&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2014
S.O. 2169.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 200/
2011) of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-II,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the General Manager, BSNL, Kangra, and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/07/2014.
[No. L-40011/7/2011 - IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present:
Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 200/2011
Registered on 20.9.2005
Sh. Chaman Singh,
Part Time Sweeper,
Telephone Exchange,
Kiani, Chamba.
...Petitioner
Versus
The General manager,
BSNL, Dharamshala,
Kangra
The SDO (T/P),
BSNL, Telecom Sub-Division,
Chamba.
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
Sh. I.S. Jaryal A.R.
For the Management
:
Sh. Kailash Sharma Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 6.6.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40011/
7/2011 IR(DU) Dated 2.6.2011, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of the Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited for not converting the
services of Sh. Chaman Singh into full time worker
w.e.f. 17/5/2002 without adhering to policy of
5624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conversion and provisions of Section 25B of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified?
What relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?”
In response to the notice the workman appeared
and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was
engaged as part-time worker in April, 1998 by the
respondent management at Telephone Exchange, Kiani,
where he worked till March, 1995. He fell sick, and
thereafter, his wife Smt. Nirmala Devi was engaged in his
place. The workman again joined the service in April, 1998
after recovering from sickness. That department issued
instructions for converting part-time workers into whole
time workers. The workman also appeared in the Office of
the SDO for the purpose. But he was not treated as whole
time worker. That the persons junior to him were converted
into full time workers. The respondent management had
pleaded that workman had completed only 233 working
days for the period from 25.11.1999 to 31.8.2000 and was
not eligible to be considered as whole time worker. That
the management did not count Sundays and gazetted
holidays and actually his working days comes to 270 days
and he qualifies the criteria as laid down in the instructions.
It is further pleaded that the respondent management
has not paid him the wages from November, 2004 onwards.
It is further prayed that the respondent management be
directed to count number of holidays including Sundays
for calculating his period of service, to regularize his
service w.e.f. 17.5.2002 and he be paid wages from 1.11.2002
onwards.
Respondent management filed written statement
pleading that the workman was engaged w.e.f. 26.11.1999
as part-time worker for one hour duty and he abandoned
his services in November, 2004. That workers who have
completed 240 days are to be considered for conversion
of whole time workers as per the instructions dated
25.8.2000 and since the workman did not put in requisite
service, he was not eligible for conversion of his service
to full time casual labourer. It is further pleaded that the
workman has abandoned his services in November, 2004.
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
Sh. Chaman Lal workman appeared in the witness
box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as set out in
the claim petition.
On the other hand management examined Kalyan
Singh who filed his affidavit supporting the case of the
management as set out in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. I.S. Jaryal, AR of the workman and
Sh. Kailash Sharma, counsel for the management and have
gone through the written arguments filed by the workman.
It was argued by the AR of the workman that as per
instructions dated 25.8.2000 a part time casual labourer
who worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months was
to be converted into full time casual labourers and the
workman was in service from November, 1999 to August,
2000 and the management did not count the holidays and
Sundays who wrongly calculated the days as 233, whereas
the workman completed 270 days. Thus he was eligible to
be considered for conversion into a whole time casual
labourer. The AR of the workman also carried me through
Section 25B of the Act to submit that the workman
continuously worked for 240 days and was eligible for
conversion as a whole time casual labourer.
It is not disputed that the department issued
instructions dated 25.8.2000 for conversion of part-time
casual labourer working for less than 4 hours per day into
full time casual labourers. Its Clause (i) to (iii) read as
follows-
(i)
As one time relaxation, Part Time Casual
Labourers with less than 4 hours of duty per
day who have worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months may be converted into
full time casual labourers. This will be
applicable only to the extent of the numbers
indicated against respective field units in the
Annexure (the figures are based on the
information furnished by the Circles
themselves) and it will further be subject to
the conditions mentioned in the following
paragraphs.
(ii)
They should be engaged as casual labourers
subject to suitability and qualifications.
(iii)
They should be engaged as casual Labourers
only where there is shortage of Gr. ‘D’ staff
(i.e. existence of vacant Gr.’D’ posts after
accounting for all temporary status mazdoors
(TSMs) and
existing full time casual
labourers and no posts should be created for
this purpose).
Thus as per instruction a part-time casual labourer
who worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months were
to be converted into full time casual labourer provided he
is otherwise suitable and there was no shortage of group
‘D’ staff.
The workman himself relied on the information
supplied by the management under the RTI Act (Annexure
P15) wherein following period is mentioned during which
the workman worked:-
Vr No.12
period 11/1999
-
04 days
Vr No.13
period 12/1999
-
26 days
Vr No.19
period 1/2000
-
25 days
Vr No.20
period 2/2000
-
25 days
Vr No.21
period 3/2000
-
25 days
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5625
Vr No.22
period 4/2000
-
25 days
Vr No.23
period 5/2000
-
27 days
Attendance report of Jun, 2000
-
25 days
Attendance report of July, 2000
-
26 days
Attendance report of August, 2000
-
25 days
The total days comes to 230 days when calculated.
Now according to Mr. I.S. Jaryal, AR of the workman,
the management did not include the holidays and Sundays
from November, 1999 to August, 2000 and when the same
are included the working days comes to 270 days and as
such the workman fulfilled the criteria as laid down under
the instruction dated 25.8.2000 and he was to be converted
as full time casual labourer as per the said policy and
Section 25B of the Act.
Along with the information regarding the working
days of the workman, the department, also furnished the
vouchers for making payment to him showing that he was
paid wages only for 233 days during the period in question
and not for 270 days as argued by AR of the workman.
The working days are to be counted as 233 days for
which he was paid and not for all the days falling during
the period in question and it cannot be held that the
workman had worked for 270 days during the period in
question.
Moreover no evidence has been led on the file that
there was any shortage of Group ‘D’ staff in the concerned
office at the relevant time and in the absence of this
evidence, as per guidelines and reproduced above, the
workman was not entitled to be made full time casual
labourer.
The workman has claimed wages from April, 1998 to
November, 1999 and from 1.11.2004 onwards. But this
controversy is not covered under the reference.
For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the action
of the management for not converting the services of the
workman into full time worker is legal and justified and
workman is not entitled to any relief and reference is
accordingly answered against him. Let hard and soft copy
of the award be sent to the Central Government for further
necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2170-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj
dkWy MSe gkbMªksbysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV ,uVhihlh ,.M vnlZ] ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 228@2012) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y- 42012@293@2010&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2014
S.O. 2170.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 228/
2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court-II,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro
Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others, and their
workman,which was received by the Central Government
on 18/07/2014.
[No. L-40012/293/2010 - IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present:
Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. 228/2012
Registered on 23.1.2012
Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mado Ram,
Village Khatpur,
Post Office Markanda,
Tehsil Sadar,
Dist. Bilaspur (HP).
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The General Manager,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
NTPC, VPO Barmana,
Distt. Bilaspur (HP)
2. M/s. UR Infrastructure
Company Pvt. Ltd.
Village Chamb, Post Office Harnora,
Dist. Bilaspur
3. The Project Manager,
Italian Thai Development
Company ltd. Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Village Kayan, P.O. Slapper,
Tehsil Sunder Nagar, Mandi
... Respondents
5626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the workman
:
Ex parte.
For the Management :
Sh. V.P. Singh for Resp. No.1
Respondent No.2 ex parte
Sh. H.R. Sharma for Resp. No. 3
AWARD
Passed on 3.6.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/
293/2010-IR(DU) Dated 29.12.2011, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether retrenchment of services of Sh. Ramesh
Kumar S/o Sh. Mado Ram, Khatpur, Bilaspur w.e.f.
3.9.2008 by the management of M/s. U.R.
Infrastructure Company Private Limited, Chamb,
Bilaspur sub-contractor of M/s. Italian Thai
Development Public Limited a contractor of M/s.
NTPC Limited without following the principal of ‘Last
Come First Go’, is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to from the employer?”
On receipt of the reference notice was issued to the
workman through registered cover. He did not appear and
was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 17.2.2014.
Since the workman was proceeded against ex parte,
he did not submit any statement of claim and as such
there is nothing on the file that his services were illegally
terminated. In result, the reference is answered against
the workman and he is not entitled to any relief. Let hard
and soft copy of the award be sent to Central Government
for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2171-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lqifjUVsUMsUV
vkWiQ iksLV vksfiQlsl] ukxifV~Vue fMohtu ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 6@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&40011@71@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2014
S.O. 2171.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/2014)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagapattinam Division and
their workman, which wasreceived by the Central
Government on 18/07/2014.
[No. L-40011/71/2013 - IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 4th July, 2014
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 6/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),
between the Management of Superintendent of Post
Offices and their workman)
Between
The Divisional Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner
All India Postal Employees
Union Postman & MTS
Nagapattinam Division
Nagapattinam-611001
And
The Superintendent of
:
2nd Party Respondent
Post Offices
Nagapattinam Division
Nagapattinam-611001
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s. K. M. Ramesh,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent : Set Ex parte
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/71/2013-IR (DU)
dated 15.01.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the Union in restoration of
two posts of postman and cancellation of order No.
A1/119/Delivery-digs dated 30.04.2012 for reduction
of delivery beats by the Supdt. of Post Offices,
Nagapattinam Division, is legal and justified? If so,
to what relief the Union is entitled?”
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5627
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 6/2014 and issued notices to both
sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through his
counsel and filed Claim Statement. Though the
Respondent received notice, he remained absent and has
been set ex-parte.
3. The petitioner is the Divisional Secretary of All
India Postal employees Union, Postman and MTS of
Nagapattinam Division. The dispute was raised on
account of the grievance of the employees of the division
consequent to the reduction of delivery beats of
Nagapattinam Head Post Office from 12 to 10 w.e.f.
16.07.2012. According to the petitioner, Nagapattinam
which is a selection grade municipality has 36 wards and
has a populous of around 1 lakh. The Director General,
Departments of Posts, New Delhi has prescribed that the
work time for one Postman per day as 450 minutes.
Additional duty of making data entry 80 minutes, 60
minutes in the morning and 20 minutes in the evening
has been given to the Postmen. The Management has
collected statistics to review the Postman establishment
of Nagapattinam Head Post Office with reference to
revised job items prescribed for Postman. On the basis
of the time factor stipulated for each item of job they
have concluded that the posts of 10 Postman will be
sufficient. According to the petitioner the Management
has arrived at such a conclusion without taking into
account the duty of data entry of 80 minutes for each
Postman. It is also stated by the petitioner that the
Management has collected statistics of only 6 working
days to arrive at such a conclusion. According to the
petitioner, Nagapattinam Head Post Office is to handle
5000 old age Pension Money Orders every month. It is
stated that the Management has not taken this into
account, while calculating the number of Money Orders
to be dealt with by the Postman. According to the
Petitioner Union, the average traffic of posts handled by
the Nagapattinam Post Office could be found out only
by compiling the statistics for 25 working days, for a
whole month. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the
Management had brought into effect its order reducing
the number of Postman from 12 to 10 w.e.f. 16.07.2012,
while conciliation proceedings was pending, in violation
of Section-33 of Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner
had demanded that the order of the Management dated
30.04.2012 bringing down the number of Postman is to
be cancelled and the Management is to be directed to
restore the previous strength of the Postman
establishment of Nagapattinam and also to revise the
method of computing work hour statement of the
establishment by compiling statistics for a month of 25
working days and also to pay compensation to all the 10
Postman on duty w.e.f. 16.07.2012 till date for shouldering
the additional work of retrenched posts, by equally
distributing the minimum wage payable to the post among
them.
4. The petitioner has marked Ext.W1 to Ext.W10 on
its side. No oral evidence was adduced by the petitioner.
5. The points to be considered are:
(i)
Whether the demands raised by the petitioner
are legal and justified?
(ii)
What is the relief, if any to which the petitioner
is entitled?
The Points
6. The petitioner who is the Divisional Secretary of
the Union has filed Proof Affidavit to substantiate the
case. The petitioner has reiterated his case in the petition,
in the affidavit filed by him.
7. It is apparent from the documents and affidavit of
the petitioner that the Respondent has reduced the number
of delivery beats of Nagapattinam Post Office from 12 to
10 w.e.f. 16.07.2012. If the Claim Statement and the affidavit
of the petitioner are taken into account the Respondent
has not made a scientific re-assessment of the actual work
under the Nagapattinam Post Office before taking the
decision to reduce the number of beats. It is seen from
Claim Statement and the affidavit that the statistics of
only a week was taken into account for assessing the
work requirement. This statistics for one week will not
reflect the actual work requirement, according to the
petitioner. It is pointed out in the affidavit of the petitioner
that the old age pension money orders of about 5000 in
number every month were not taken into account while
compiling the statistics. It is further pointed out that the
additional duty of data entry of 80 minutes each given to
the Postman also were not taken into account while
reducing the number.
8. The petitioner has given notice of strike
demanding restoration of previous position so far as the
number of Postman are concerned. It seems, during
conciliation proceedings, the Management has
implemented its decision to reduce the number of delivery
beats from 12 to 10.
9. The Management has not come forward to contest
the case. Even though notice was received it has remained
absent. No data is available against the facts put forward
by the petitioner through the documents and the affidavit.
In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the demand of
the petitioner to restore the strength of the Postman of the
establishment. It is for the Management to compile the
statistics of the Nagapattinam Post Office for all the working
days of an entire month and to make a reassessment of the
work requirement and fix the number of delivery beats
required. Though there is a claim for compensation for the
added responsibility done by the 10 Postman, there is no
5628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
evidence to show that they worked for extra hours or have
done extra work so they are not entitled to any
compensation.
10. In view of my discussion above, an award is
passed as follows:
“The Respondent is directed to revise the method
of computing work hour statement of Postman
establishment by compiling statistics for a month of
25 working days and re-fix the number of delivery
beats required”.
“The Respondent is also directed to restore the
strength of Postman establishment of Nagapattinam
Head Post Office to 12 until re-fixation is done in the
above manner”.
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 4th July, 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
1
2
3
Ex.W1
05.02.2010
Copy of Note below Directorate
letter no. 9-1/2005/WSI/PEI
Ex.W2
05.02.2010
Copy of Directorate letter no. 9-1/
2005/WSI/PE I
Ex.W3
25.11.2008
Copy of Directorate letter no. 25-
20/2008 PE.I
Ex.W4
25.02.2012
Copy of work hour statement for
postman establishment of
Nagapattinam HO
Ex.W5
04.09.2012
Copy of complaint filed by
Petitioner Union before ALC
Puducherry under Section-33 of
ID Act, 1947
Ex.W6
09.05.2012
Copy of notice of strike issued by
the petitioner with annexure
Ex.W7
21.05.2012
Copy of notice issued by the
Asstt. Labour Commissioner
(Central), Pondicherry to the
Petitioner and Respondent
1
2
3
Ex.W8
06.06.2012
Copy of the remarks submitted
Ex.W9
16.06.2012
Copy of reply submitted by the
Petitioner before the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner
(Central),
Pondicherry
Ex.W10
11.07.2012
Copy of letter submitted by the
Petitioner to the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner
(Central),
Pondicherry
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2172-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV] 509
vkehZ csl odZ'kkWi] vkxjk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&14011@03@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014
S.O. 2172.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 20/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relations to to the
management of Commandant, 509 Army Base Workshop,
Agra and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/07/2014.
[No. L-14011/03/2007 - IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,
LUCKNOW
Present:
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 20/2007
Ref. No. L-14011/3/2007-IR (DU) dated: 21.05.2007
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5629
Between:
The General Secretary
509, Employees Union
Agra Office, 37/31, Buntu Katra
Agra (U.P.) – 11
AND
The Commandant
509 Army Base Workshop
Agra (U.P.)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-14011/3/2007-IR (DU) dated:
21.05.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
referred this industrial dispute between the General
Secretary, 509, Employees Union, Agra Office, 37/31, Buntu
Katra, Agra (U.P.) and the Commandant, 509 Army Base
Workshop, Agra (U.P.) for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER
THE
ACTION
OF
THE
MANAGEMENT OF 509 ARMY BASE WORKSHOP
IN NOT MAKING PROVISION FOR CRÈCHE, IN
SPITE OF HAVING OVER 30 FEMALE WORKERS,
IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT
RELIEF THE UNION/WORKMEN ARE ENTITLED
TO?”
3. It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite
party i.e. 509 Army Base Workshop is governed by the
Factory Act, 1948 (63 of 1948) and Section 48 of the Factory
Act, 1948 lays provision for Creches in every factory
wherein more than thirty women workers are ordinarily
employed. It is also admitted that presently the total
strength of employees of the Workshop as on 31.07.2007
was 1043 with overall strength of women employees to be
68.
4. It has been alleged by the workmen’s union that
the management of Workshop ‘intentionally’ did not make
any arrangement for Creches in violation to the Section 48
of the Factories Act, 1948 causing female workers problem
in upcoming their children as well extra financial burden
on them. Accordingly, the workman’s union has prayed
that the each worker be compensated to the tune of Rs.
400/- per month, for not setting up Creches by the
management.
5. The management of Workshop has denied the
allegation of workman’s union that it is ‘intentionally’ not
making provision of Creches. It is submitted that although
there are 68 women employees in the workshop; but there
are only 18 women in need of Creche facility; besides this
fact the efforts are being made for setting up ladies room
cum Creche and the women employees vide letter dated
20.09.2005 had been informed that the case to proved the
facility of Creche is under progress. Accordingly, it has
been prayed that the claim of the workman’s union be
rejected being devoid of any merit.
6. The workman’s union has field its rejoinder;
wherein it has reiterated the averments already made in
the statement of claim and has introduced nothing new.
7. The parties filed documentary evidence in support
of their rival contentions. The workman’s union has
examined Shri S.N. Singh, General Secretary of the union;
whereas the management examined Lt. Col. Ajit Singh in
support of their claim. The parties availed opportunity to
cross-examine the each other’s witnesses apart from
forwarding oral arguments.
8. Heard the representatives of the parties and
perused entire material on record.
9. The authorized representative of the workman’s
union has argued that the management of Workshop
deliberately did not make any arrangement for Creche, in
violation to Section 48 of the Factories Act, 1948; thereby
causing pecuniary loss to the workman, therefore, they
are required to be compensated.
10. Per contra, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that it made every sincere
effort to get the facility of Creche provided to the workmen;
but it could not be fructified yet. However, it has also
contended that although the Act has made provision for
setting up of a Creche in the establishment with female
strength of 30; but presently only 18 women employees
may be identified for the need of Creche facility.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions of the authorized representatives, pleadings
of the parties and entire evidence adduced by the either
parties, documentary as well as oral.
12. Admittedly, the case of the parties regarding
extending Creche facility to the female workers in a Factory,
rests on the statutory provisions provided under Section
48 of the Factories Act, 1948; which reads as under:
“48. Creches. – (1) In every factory wherein more
than thirty women workers are ordinarily employed there
shall be provided and maintained a suitable room or rooms
for the use o children under the age of six years of such
women.
(2)Such
rooms
shall
provide
adequate
accommodation, shall be adequately lighted and
ventilated, shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary
condition and shall be under the charge of women trained
in the care of children and infants.
5630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(3) The State Government may make rules –
(a)
prescribing the location and the standards in
respect of constructing, accommodation,
furniture and other equipment of rooms to be
provided under this section;
(b)
requiring the provisions in factories to which
this section applies of additional facilities for
the care of children belonging to women
workers, including suitable provision of
facilities for washing and changing their
clothing;
(c)
requiring the provision in any factory of free
milk or refreshment or both for such children;
(d)
requiring that facilities shall be given in any
factory for the mothers of such children to
feed them at the necessary intervals.”
From perusal of above statutory provision it becomes
crystal clear that in every factory where more than thirty
women workers are employed, the management of such
factory is required to maintain Creche for the use of children
of such women workers under the age of six years. It is
also provided in the statute that such Creche shall be
maintained in a clean and sanitary condition under
supervision of women, trained in the care of children and
infants. It also requires that facility of washing and
changing the clothes of children and free milk or
refreshment.
13. The management witness has admitted that under
provisions of Section 48 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948,
Creche facility should be provided in any Factory/
Workshop having more than 30 women employees. He
has stated vide para 2 of its affidavit that presently there
are 67 women employees (Industrial and non-industrial –
Class III and IV) in the workshop and despite this fact
only 21 women employees may be identified for need of
crèche facility.
The management of the workshop has tried to plead
that the Act provides that where more than 30 women
workers are working, provision for Creche is mandatory;
and although the strength of women employees at present
is 67, the number of women employees who are actually in
need of Creche facility only 21. It is also submitted that
the union’s case is also for 22 workers; hence the demand
of providing crèche facility is not legitimate nor covered
under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948.
Considering the above stand of management in the
context of provisions of Section 48 (1) of the Factories
Act, 1948, it becomes apparent that the Act provides for
making provision for Creche when more than 30 women
workers are there, it does not indicates for number of women
workers who actually in need of Creche facility. From
reading of Section 48 (1) of the Act, it comes out that once
the strength of workmen employees crosses 30, provision
of Creche has to be made, irrespective of number of women
who are actually in need of it.
14. The management witness has also admitted in
his cross-examination that in the year 2007 the case for
making provision for Creche was sent by Stn. HQ to UB,
Area HQ, Barielly. This goes to show that the management
is also in agreement that there should be provision of
Creche in their establishment and they are in process of
getting sanction of the Competent Authority in respect of
funds etc. He also admitted that in absence of Creche
facility the women workers are allowed to visit their homes
for 1-1/2 hours, for looking after their children during
working hours.
15. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the
case and statutory provision laid down in the Factories
Act, 1948, I am of opinion that the action of the management
of 509 Army Base Workshop in not making provision for
crèche, in spite of having over 30 female workers is neither
legal nor justified. Now the question arises as to what
relief could be extended to such women employees of the
Workshop who were in need of Creche facility.
16. The workman’s union has espoused cases of as
many as 22 female workers and it has prayed that each of
them may be compensated @ Rs. 4000/- to each of their
children up to the age of 06 years since their birth. In this
regard it has been prayed that each worker must be paid
Rs. 3450/- for servant and Rs. 550/- of other expenses,
including washing, cloth, soap, milk and refreshment etc.
In the statement showing consolidated demand for
monetary relief, the workman’s union has given details of
date of birth of children; but has not filed any cogent and
reliable evidence in support of its pleadings, like birth
certificate of children to prove their age and the number of
children. Apart from this the above statement has not
been proved by the union’s witness during their evidence
before this Tribunal. The workers whose causes has been
espoused have not come forward with the oral evidence
nor any details have been filed by the union that the
workers have engaged any servant or maid to look after
their children. Likewise no document has been filed
regarding expenses incurred on washing, cloth, soap, milk
and refreshment etc. as claimed by the workman’s union.
17. Therefore, in view of the discussions made
hereinabove, there is no reliable material on record to
ascertain that the workers have as many as children as
shown by them in the statement and they have actually
incurred the amount, claimed in the statement. Hence, the
union/workmen are not entitled for any relief.
18. The reference is answered accordingly.
Lucknow
09th July, 2014
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5631
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ 2014
dk-vk- 2173-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lqifjUVsUMsUV
vkWiQ iksLV vkWfiQfll ,.M vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&40012@45@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014
S.O. 2173.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2002)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court,
Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Superintendent of Post Offices & Others,
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/07/2014.
[No. L-40012/45/2007 - IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
LUCKNOW
Present:
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 57/2002
Ref. No. L-40012/45/2007-IR (DU) dated: 12.10.2007
Between:
Shri Yogender Singh S/o Shri Latoori Singh
Vill & PO: Dashera
Bulandshahar (U.P.)
AND
1.
The Supdt. of Post Offices
Department of Post,
Bulandshahar Division, HPO
Bulandshahar (U.P.) – 203 001
2.
The Post Master General
Agra Region, Department of Post
GPO Compound, Mall Road
Agra (U.P.)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-40012/45/2007-IR (DU) dated:
12.10.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
referred this industrial dispute between Shri Yogender
Singh S/o Shri Latoori Singh, Vill & PO: Dashera,
Bulandshahar (U.P.) and the Supdt. of Post Offices,
Department of Post, Bulandsahar Division, HPO,
Bulandshahar (U.P.) & the Post Master General, Agra
Region, Department of Post, GPO Compound, Mall Road,
Agra (U.P.) for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER
THE
ACTION
OF
THE
MANAGEMENT OF POST MASTER GENERAL,
AGRA, IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF
THEIR WORKMAN SHRI YOGENDER SINGH
W.E.F. 27.10.2004 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF
NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS
ENTITLED TO?”
3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,
Yogendera Singh had been engaged as Gramin Dak Sewak
w.e.f. 01.2.2003 and later on was appointed provisionally
vide order dated 09.08.2003 and his services were
terminated vide order dated 27.10.2004. Being aggrieved
from the termination, the workman preferred an original
application No. 283/2005 before CAT, New Delhi which
directed the management of Post Office vide order dated
23.02.2005 to consider the appeal of the workman against
his termination by a reasoned order. The management
vide order dated 11.05.2005 rejected the appeal of the
workman.
4. The workman has stated that after his initial
engaged on 01.02.2003, he applied against the
advertisement dated 08.05.2003 and after due selection, as
per process, he was appointed vide office order dated
09.08.2003. It is alleged by the workman that he worked
for more than 240 days in a year and the management
while terminating his services did not comply with the
provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 i.e. did not give any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof.
It is also alleged that in spite of directions of the CAT,
New Delhi, the management rejected the representation
preferred by him on 11.05.2005 in a very mechanical,
arbitrary and perverse manner without proper application
of mind. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that he be
reinstated with full back wages and other consequential
benefits.
5. The management of the post office while denying
the allegation has submitted that it is not an ‘industry’
within the purview of section 2 ‘j’ of the Act. It has also
submitted that the initial engagement of the workman on
01.02.2003 and subsequent appointment on 09.08.2003 was
irregular as the same was made by the ASPO, Khurja
5632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
without permission for engagement/appointment from the
Superintendent of Post Offices, Bulandshahar; hence the
workman was rightly been terminated. It is also submitted
that his representation was rejected after considering all
the aspects involved in the case. Accordingly, the
management has prayed that the claim of the workman be
rejected being devoid of merit.
6. The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein apart
from reiterating the averments already made in the
statement of claim, the workman has submitted that the
post office comes within the purview of ‘industry’ as
defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7. The parties filed documentary evidence in support
of their rival contentions. The workman examined himself;
whereas the management examined Shri P.K. Singh,
Superintendent of Post Offices in support of their claim.
The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the each
other’s witnesses apart from forwarding oral arguments.
8. Heard the representatives of the parties and
perused entire material on record.
9. The authorized representative of the workman has
argued that the workman had applied in pursuance to an
advertisement and after due selection; hence his
appointment was regular one and he worked from
01.02.2003 to 27.10.2004 continuously for more than 240
days in one calendar year, therefore, it was obligatory for
the management to comply with the provisions of Section
25 F of the I.D. Act i.e. giving notice or notice pay in lieu
thereof. It was contended that since the management failed
to do so therefore, the workman should be reinstated with
full back wages. Besides it was also submitted that the
department of Post Offices is an ‘industry’ as it is indulged
in commercial activity.
10. The argument for the management is that the
Post Office does not come within the purview of ‘industry’
as defined in Section 2 ‘j’ of the Act. It was argued that the
engagement/appointment of the workman was irregular as
the same was made by ASPOs, Khurja without approval of
the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bulandshahar and the
appointment process/formalities were not adopted as per
rules and regulations. It is also contended that since the
appointment of the workman was irregular one there was
no need to give him personal hearing or notice or notice
pay in lieu thereof.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions of the authorized representatives, pleadings
of the parties and entire evidence adduced by the either
parties, documentary as well as oral.
12. The case of the workman in nut shell is that he
was engaged/appointed vide order dated 09.08.2003
following due selection procedure and he had worked from
01.02.2003 to 27.10.2004 for more than 240 days in a calendar
year; but his services have been terminated without
following mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, which makes him entitled for
reinstatement in the services.
13. Per contra, the case of the management rests on
the plea that Post Office is not and industry and the
engagement/appointment of the workman as irregular as
the same was made without following Rules and approval
of the SPO, therefore, there was no need of complying
with any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
14. Hon’ble Apex Court in Banglore Water Supply &
Sewerage Board vs. A Rajappa & others (1978) 2 SCC 213
case has observed that
“absence of profit motive or gainful objective is
irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private
or other sector.”
Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that
“Where (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by co-
operation between employer and employee (the direct
and substantial element is commercial (iii) for the
production and/or distribution of goods and services
calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not
spiritual or religions but inclusive of material things
or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making on a
large scale Prasad or food) prima facie, there is an
industry in that enterprise.”
The management has contended that Hon’ble Apex
Court in State of U.P. vs. Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1 has
held that the Bangalore Water Supply case requires
reconsideration by a larger bench and accordingly prayed
the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger
Bench for reconsideration of the judgment in the case of
Bangalore Water Supply. But there is no evidence to show
that the Bangalore Water Supply case has been overruled
by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, the law laid down
by Hon’ble Apex Court in the Bangalore Water Supply
case still holds good.
In General Manager, Telecom vs. S. Srinivasa Rao &
others 1998 LLR 8; wherein it has been held by Hon’ble
Apex Court that the Telecommunication Department is an
‘industry within the definition of Section 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because it is engaged in a
commercial activity and is not discharging any of the
sovereign functions of the State.
It is well known that the Department of Post is
indulged in transporting letters, money orders, parcels
etc. from one place to another within the country and
overseas also and for this they charge fee in form of postage
stamp or in cash. Thus, the safe movement of articles
from one place to another could be done only when it is
systematic and there exists proper management/co-
operation between the employer and employee of the
department concerned. Further, the services provided by
the postal department are very much to satisfy the human
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5633
wants. Moreover, the activity run by the postal department
is not ‘sovereign’ in the nature.
Thus, in view of facts and circumstances of the case
and above legal prepositions, I am of opinion that the
opposite party management i.e. post office is at par with
the other courier companies, indulge in commercial activity
and not engaged in any sovereign function of the State;
and accordingly, come to the conclusion that the opposite
party is an ‘industry’ within the provisions of Section 2 (j)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
15. Now coming to the merit of the case, the main
contention of the workman is that he had been engaged
following selection procedure and worked continuously
from 01.02.2003 to 27.0.10.2004 for more than 240 days in a
calendar year but his services have been terminated in
violation to the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of
the Act. In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v.
Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon’ble
Apex Court came to the conclusion that the workman could
be entitled for the protection of section 25 – F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided he is successful in
establishing the fact that he had been in employment with
the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It
was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in such cases,
the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was
confined only to 12 months preceding the date of
termination to decide the question of the continuous
service for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
16. The management vide para 23 of its written
statement has admitted this fact that the workman had
rendered services from 01.02.2003 to 27.10.2004. It is
specifically stated in the written statement that the
workman worked as a substitute from 01.02.2003 to
18.08.2003 and from 19.08.2003 to 27.10.2004 as provisional
appointee. This amounts to admission that the workman
worked from 01.02.2003 to 27.10.2004 for 269 in total. Thus,
there is ample evidence to record this finding that the
workman had actually worked for 269 days in preceding
twelve months from the date of his alleged termination i.e.
27.10.2003 and oral termination of his services, without
any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof, was in violation of
the section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The Act provides that
when a person is engaged as a daily worker or casual
worker or temporary worker and he completes 240 days of
working in a year then while terminating his services
mandatory provisions of Section 25 F has to the followed
i.e. he should be given one months notice or notice pay in
lieu thereof prior to his termination. The Act does not
provide any discrimination regarding observance of
provisions of Section 25 F between such workers who
have been engaged/appointed either after following due
procedure or not.
17. Now, it is to be considered as to whether the
workman is entitled for reinstatement. From the evidence
produced by the workman it is not proved that his
appointment was as a regular worker. The appointment
order dated 09.08.2003, relied on workman, reads as under:
“No. B/GDS/Kisorepur/03
Dated: 09.08.2003
Whereas the post of GDS Kishorepur fallen vacant
due to appointment of Shri Ved Prakash GDS a BPM,
Kishorpur in performance ………………….
Shri Yogendera Singh son of Shri Latoor Singh VPO
Devsa, District – Bulandshahar is provisionally appointed
as GDS MP Kishorepur viz Shri Ved Prakash.
Shri Yogendera Singh should clearly understand that
he ill be terminated when Shri Ved Prakash will join back
on his own post at any time without notice. He will be
governed under GDS Conduct/recruitment Rule, 2001.
If these conditions are acceptable to said Shri
Yogendera Singh, he will sign on one copy of ……………
to his copy.
-Sd-
(××××××××)”
From perusal of above appointment order it is clear
that the appointment of the workman was ‘provisional’
with condition that the same will be terminated when Shri
Ved Prakash returns back on his post. The wokman had
full knowledge of his terms of appointment being
provisional one and he was in full agreement to the above
conditions. Therefore, the termination of the workman
vide order dated 27.10.2004 on joining back of Shri Ved
Prakash on the post cannot be held to be illegal. However,
the same was unjustified in view of non-compliance of the
mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Act, since he
was entitled for retrenchment compensation as he
completed 269 days of continuous working in twelve
preceding months from the date of termination i.e.
27.10.2004. Admittedly, the services of the workman were
terminated on 27.10.2004. In (2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005 SCC
(L&S) 716 between Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh
Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the question
regarding award of back wages has observed:
“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where
the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the
termination of service was in violation of section 25
F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded
………………………………….. However, where the
total length of service rendered by a workman is
very small, the award of back wages for the complete
period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of
the award, which our experience shows is often quite
large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another
important factor, which required to be taken into
consideration, is the nature of employment. A regular
service of permanent character cannot be compared
to short or intermittent daily wage employment
though it may be for 240 days in a calander year.”
5634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21. In 2008 (9119) FLR 877 Deepak Ganpat Tari vs.
N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Bombay High Court relying
on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in 2008 (117) FLR
1086 (SC) A P V K Brahmandandam 2008 (118) FLR 376
(SC) Telephone DM vs. Keshab Deb 2006 (111) FLR 1178
(SC) JDA vs. Ram Sahai, while awarding compensation of
Rs. 1,50,000/- to the concerned workman considering his
daily wages as Rs. 45/- in view of the fact that the workman
had put in about 3 years of service, has observed as under:
“It is apparent that termination of services of a daily
wager does not amount to retrenchment and for
violation of section 25 F in such circumstances, the
employee cannot be given benefit of reinstatement
with continuity and back wages. Hon’ble Apex Court
has hold that in such circumstance employee is
entitled to benefit of compensation only.”
22. Also, in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture
Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545:
Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v.
Santosh Kumar Seal and others (2010) 2 SSC (L&S) 309
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in
the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court
has consistently taken the view that relief by way of
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may
be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even
though the termination of an employee is in contravention
of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of
reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.
The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a
case where the workman has completed 240 days of work
in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly,
daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this
Court and instead compensation has been awarded.”
23. In the light of principle laid down in
aforementioned case laws, it would not be just and proper
to direct that the workman be reinstated in service. The
ends of justice would meet by paying compensation to
the workman instead in place of relief of reinstatement in
service.
24. Having regards to these facts that the workman
has worked as substitute on monthly payment of Rs. 2800
per month at the time of his alleged termination and
keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the law, the
interest of justice would be subserved, if, management is
directed to pay lump sum amount of compensation only.
25. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay
a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand
only) to the workman as compensation in lump sum for
termination of his services in violation of section 25 F of
the I.D. Act. The said amount shall be paid to the workman
within 08 weeks of publication of the award, failing which;
the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.
26. The reference is answered accordingly.
Lucknow
08th July, 2014
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2174-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ bathfu;j]
csrok fjoj cksMZ] >kWalh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 05@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 23@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42011@99@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2014
S.O. 2174.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court,
Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Chief Engineer, Betwa River Board, Jhansi
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/07/2014.
[No. L-42011/99/2006 - IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
Present:
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 05/2007
Ref. No. L-42011/99/2006-IR (DU) dated: 19.03.2007
Between:
Shri Mithlesh Kumar Sharma,
General Secretary
Workcharge Karmchari Sangh
Raj Ghat
Lalitput (U.P.)
(Espousing cause of Shri Ghanshyam Dass Ahirwar)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5635
AND
The Chief Engineer
Betwa River Board
Nandanpura Colony
Jhansi
AWARD
1. By order No. L-42011/99/2006-IR (DU) dated:
19.03.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
referred this industrial dispute between Shri Mithlesh
Kumar Sharma, General Secretary, Workcharge Karmchari
Sangh, Raj Ghat, Lalitput and the Chief Engineer, Betwa
River Board, Nandanpura Colony , Jhansi to CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER
THE
ACTION
OF
THE
MANAGEMENT OF BETWA RIVER BOARD,
JHANSI IN REFUSING PROMOTION TO SHRI
GHANSHYAM DASS AHIRWAR W.E.F. APRIL,
1995 I.E. THE DATE FROM WHICH HIS JUNIOR
SHI RAJAN SINGH JATAV WAS PROMOTED, IS
LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT
RELIEF THE WORKMAN CONCERNED IS
ENTITLED TO?”
3. The case of the union, in brief, is that the workman,
Ghanshyam Das was appointed by the opposite party on
22.09.80 on the post of clerk as time keeper in scale of
Rs. 270-5-320. It is alleged by the union that the opposite
party illegally promoted one Shri Ranjan Singh who was
junior to the workman w.e.f. 03.04.95, denying promotion
to the workman despite the fact that he was senior to the
one promoted and possessed requisite qualifications etc.
Accordingly, the union has prayed that the workman may
be promoted and allowed to resume the work w.e.f. 03.04.95
on the post of Karya Parveshak, Grade-I in the pay scale
of Rs. 1200-3-1560-EB-40-2040 with all consequential
benefits.
4. The opposite party, Betwa River Board has filed
its written statement, denying the allegations of the union
and has submitted that the question of promotion of
workman concerned was dependent upon the submission
of the certificates pertaining to educational qualification
by the workman and the same were not submitted by him
before the Scrutiny Committee dealing with the promotion;
which resulted into his non-consideration for promotion;
and also, for consideration of Shri Ranjan Singh for
promotion who had submitted all requisite documents with
respect to his education qualifications. The management
has further submitted that the workman was in full
knowledge that he is supposed to submit certificates
regarding his educational qualification before the Scrutiny
Committee.
5. The workman’s union has filed rejoinder; wherein
apart from reiterating submissions already made in the
statement of claim it has stated that after having
educational qualification of being Graduate he was given
appointment on 22.09.80 and this fact has been entered in
his Services Book. He has further submitted that all
documents/certificates pertaining to educational
qualifications were taken from him by the opposite party
before giving him joining at the time of his appointment
and on the basis of the same his Service Book was
prepared and all these were available with the Scrutiny
Committee then denial of promotion to him by the
management and promoting a person who was junior to
him is contrary to the Rules.
6. The parties have filed documentary evidence in
support of their respective claim. The workman’s union
has examined its General Secretary; whereas the
management has examined Shri O.P. Kalra, Assistant
Engineer in support of their stands. The parties cross-
examined the witnesses of each other as well as argued
their case.
7. Heard arguments of the parties and perused entire
evidence on record.
8. The workman’s witness in cross-examination has
stated that the workman had filed all the requisite
documents before the Scrutiny committee. Paper No. 4/6/
to 4/17 are photocopy of the documents filed by the
workman before Scrutiny Committee. It was further stated
that the said documents were already in possession of the
management.
9. Per contra, the management’s witness stated that
a Scrutiny Committee was constituted and all the officials/
officers were made aware of its constitution and work. He
further stated that the meeting of the said Committee held
on 16.1.95, 17.1.95, 2.2.95, 8.2.95 and 9.2.95; but the
workman neither produce any application nor appeared in
person before the Committee and accordingly, considering
the application before it, the Scrutiny Committee
recommended the promotion of other officials including
Rajan Singh; and accordingly, Rajan Sigh was promoted
vide letter dated 03.04.95 along with other officials. In
cross-examination he stated that the promotions were not
made on the basis of seniority only but also on the basis
of experience and work ability of the official. It was also
stated that had the workman submitted all papers he would
have entitled for promotion; and if the workman has not
been considered for promotion, it is because of his own
fault/negligence for which management cannot be held
responsible.
10. The authorized representative of the union has
argued that the management had all requisite documents
5636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
with them which were provided by the workman at the
time of his appointment and the management prepared his
service book with the help of those documents, then the
management cannot say that the certificates pertaining to
his educational qualification were not available with the
scrutiny committee. It was further argued that there was
no advertisement for promotion nor any application were
invited for the reasons that the promotion was required to
be done on the basis of seniority and documents available
in the Service Book. Therefore, the action of the
management for not promoting workman was illegal.
11. In rebuttal the management’s representative has
contended that the workman did not submit his educational
certificates before Scrutiny Committee, which resulted into
his non-consideration by the committee. He has argued
that the candidate who was promoted in workman’s place
was next in the seniority list and had submitted all requisite
educational certificates, hence he was considered and
subsequently recommended by the screening committee
for promotion.
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the parties and gone through evidence
forwarded by the parties, oral as well as documentary.
13. The case of the workman’s union is that the
workman produced all the requisite documents in respect
of educational qualifications before the Scrutiny
Committee and management promoted other employee who
was junior to him denying his promotion; whereas the
management has contended that the workman neither
moved proper application nor appeared before the Scrutiny
Committee, therefore, the workman was not considered
by the Scrutiny Committee for promotion.
14. The workman’s union has specifically pleaded
that the workman was given appointment on 22.09.80 on
having educational qualification of Graduation and this
fact has been entered in his Services Book and the same
was before the Scrutiny Committee. It is also pleaded by
the union that Rajan Singh was given appointment on
28.12.80 even not being Graduate. These facts are not
rebutted by the management in its evidence.
Further, from perusal of entire pleadings and
evidence led on behalf of the management it becomes
apparent that the promotion process under question was
sort of proforma promotion on the basis of seniority and
fulfillment of educational qualification. The basic feature
of the Departmental Promotion Committee or Scrutiny
Committee in the present case, may differ from department
to department; but it is very much essential that for
considering the suitability of any candidate the most
important document of an official is his Service Book and
Annual Confidential Report (ACR). The Service Book
has all details with respect to appointment, education
qualification of an official as well as different import
junctures in the course of his services. Likewise the ACR
provides a summary of annual performance and assessment
of the official by the Reporting Officer, this facilitates the
DPC/Scrutiny Committee to evaluate the capabilities of
the official. The contention of the management that all the
officials were called upon to produce their testimonials
before Scrutiny Committee seems irrational in view of the
fact that there was no need for calling such certificates as
the same are supposed to be in the Service Book of the
respective official. Moreover, the management could not
produce any notice/office memorandum purported to call
for filing of documents before the Scrutiny Committee by
the officials/officers.
From perusal of the minutes of the Scrutiny
Committee and page 02 (paper No. 13/6) it is very much
clear that the Scrutiny Committee gone through the Service
Book of the officials while considering their case, reference
is invited to the matter of one Shri R.S. Bakshi who was
demoted on the basis of entries in his Service Book.
15. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, I
am of the opinion that even if for the arguments sake it is
taken that the workman did not produced its certificates
pertaining to his educational qualification, then it hardly
matters for the Scrutiny Committee because copy of all
the certificates etc. is placed with the Service Book and
also their entry is made in the Service Book and a DPC/
Scrutiny Committee constituted for considering the
suitability of the officials is duty bound to go through
their Service Book and ACR, hence, non-production of
educational certificates should not have affected the case
of the workman adversely.
16. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the
action of the management of Betwa River Board, Jhansi in
refusing promotion to Shri Ghanshyam Dass Ahirwar w.e.f.
April, 1995 i.e. the date from which his junior Shi Rajan
Singh Jatav was promoted, is neither legal nor justified,
therefore, the workman concerned is entitled for promotion
from the date his junior Shri Rajan Singh Jatav was
promoted. Further, from the pleadings it is apparent that
there is only post of Karya Parveshak Grade – I and the
said post is occupied by Shri Rajan Singh Jatav, therefore,
the workman could not actually be promoted on the post
of Karya Parveshak Grade – I w.e.f. 03.04.1995 in the pay
scale of 1200-3-1560-EB-40-2040 for the reasons that there
is only one post of Karya Parveshak Grade – I and the
same is filled by promotion of Shri Rajan Singh and the
workman could only be promoted after demoting Shri Rajan
Singh. No adverse order, affecting interests of Shri Rajan
Singh could be issued in present industrial dispute as Shri
Rajan Singh has not been arrayed as party in this dispute.
17. In the circumstances, in my opinion the ends of
the justice would adequately be subserved if the workman,
Ghanshyam Dass Ahirwar is given all benefits attached to
the post of Karya Parveshak Grade – I, i.e. enhanced scale,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5637
seniority etc., w.e.f. 03.04.1995 without giving him actual
promotion on the said post. This Tribunal cannot pass
any direction which could adversely affect the cause of
Rajan Singh who has not been arrayed as a party in the
present industrial dispute. Accordingly, the workman, even
continuing his duties on the post of Time Keeper, shall be
entitled for getting salary in the enhanced scale from the
date of publication of this award. His seniority etc. shall
be counted against the post of Karya Parveshak Grade – I
w.e.f. 03.04.1995 and he will be senior to Shri Rajan Singh
Jatav and also, for the purposes of retrial benefits etc. it
shall be taken as if he had been promoted to the post of
Karya Parveshak Grade – I w.e.f. 03.04.1995. The workman
shall not be entitled for arrears of the salary for the period
03.04.1995 till the publication of this award for reasons not
having worked on the post of Karya Parveshak Grade – I.
18. The reference is answered accordingly.
Lucknow
11th July, 2014
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2175-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad
izcaèk&ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] eaqcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 09@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&12012@60@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2175.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 09/2013) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
No. Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workman, received by the Central Government on 25/07/2014.
[No. L-12012/60/2002 - IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,
MUMBAI
Present:
JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/9 OF 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Canara Bank
And
Their workman (Rajesh D.Chavala)
Appearances:
For the first party Management
:
Mr.Alva, Adv.
For the second party workman
:
None present.
State
:
Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 25th day of March, 2014
AWARD
1. The present reference has been made by the
Central Government by its order dated 07.2.2013 passed in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The terms of reference as
per the schedule to the said order are as under:
"Whether the action of the management of Canara
Bank in imposing the punishment of “Compulsory
Retirement from services” with immediate effect vide
Order dated 14.3.2005 on Shri Rajesh D.Chavala is
justified, legal, proper and in proportion to the
charges of misconducts? If not, then what relief the
workman is entitled to and from which date and what
other directions are necessary in the matter?”
2. By the order dated 27.2.2013 passed by this
Tribunal, notice was directed to be issued to the parties
fixing 8.4.2013.
3. On 8.4.2013 the workman was present. However,
none was present for the first party / Management despite
service of notice. The workman on the said date i.e.8.4.2013
prayed for time to file statement of claim. Accordingly, the
case was fixed on 17.5.2013.
4. On 17.5.2013, Shri Alva, Advocate was present on
behalf of the first party/ Management and filed
vakalatnama. However, none was present on behalf of the
second party / workman. In the circumstances, the case
was adjourned to 25.6.2013 for filing of statement of claim
on behalf of the second party / workman.
5. On 25.6.2013, Shri Alva, Advocate was present for
the first party / management. However, none was present
on behalf of the second party/ workman. In the
circumstances, the case was adjourned to 19.8.2013 for
filing of statement of claim.
6. On 19.8.2013, the post of Presiding Officer of this
Tribunal was vacant, however, Shri Alva, Advocate was
present for the first party / Management and the workman
was also present. The workman prayed for time to file
statement of claim. Accordingly, 1.11.2013 was fixed in the
5638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
matter for filing of statement of claim on behalf of the
workman.
7. On 1.11.2013, the post of Presiding Officer of this
Tribunal was vacant. Shri Alva, Advocate was present for
the first party / Management. However, none was present
for the second party / workman. In the circumstances, the
case was adjourned to 24.12.2013 for filing of statement of
claim on behalf of the workman.
8. On 24.12.2013, this Tribunal was functioning. On
the said date, Shri Alva, Advocate was present for the first
party / Management. However, none was present for the
workman. In the circumstances, the case was adjourned
to 17.2.2014 for filing of statement of claim on behalf of the
workman.
9. On 17.2.2014, Shri Alva, Advocate was present for
the first party / Management. However, none was present
on behalf of the second party / workman. In the
circumstances, the case was adjourned to 25.3.2014 i.e.
today for filing of statement of claim on behalf of the
workman.
10. The case has been taken up today. Shri Alva,
Advocate appearing for the first party / Management is
present. However, none is present on behalf of the
workman.
11. From the above narration of facts, it is evident
that despite repeated adjournments, no statement of claim
has been filed on behalf of the workman. Excepting on two
dates, the workman has not appeared in the matter. There
is thus no pleading or evidence filed on behalf of the
workman in support of his claim. No relief, therefore, can
be granted to the workman.
12. Reference made to this Tribunal is answered by
stating that no relief can be granted to the workman.
13. Award is passed accordingly.
Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2176-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy
cSad izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
11@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@07@2014
dks dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&12011@301@2003&vkbZvkj (ch-&II)]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2176.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 11/2004) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Punjab National Bank and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
25/07/2014.
[No. L-12011/301/2003 - IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA
Present:
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 11 OF 2004
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Punjab National Bank
And
Their workmen(Shri Sudhangshu Mahapatra)
Appearances:
For Punjab National Bank : Shri A Indwar, Manager
For Punjab National Bank : Shri S. Mukherjee, President
Employees Union
State
: West Bengal
Kolkata, dated 6th day of May, 2013
AWARD
This is a reference made by the Central Government
in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference given in the
schedule are as follows:
“Whether Mr. Sudhangshu Mahapatra, Special
Assistant, working at Medinipore Branch of Punjab
National Bank is entitled for a stagnation increment
of Rs.230/- in the pay scale of Rs. 900-2835 w.e.f.
1.11.1996 or not? If not, what relief he is entitled
to?”
2. According to the statement of claim filed by the
Union the workman Sudhangshu Mahapatra joined the
services of the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred
as the Bank) in April 1977 as a Clerk. As per promotion
policy of the Bank he became an officer in JMG Scale-I in
November, 1985 through process of selection and was
posted at a rural branch in Midnapur Region (West
Bengal). Because of his continuous illness he was unable
to discharge his duties properly and therefore he made a
representation for his reversion to the post of Clerk on
21.12.1987. The competent authority granted his prayer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5639
and posted him as Clerk at BO : Khajra in the district of
Midnapur vide letter dated 18.03.1988. He was then selected
as a Special Assistant and posted at Branch Office
Midnapur. As per norms he was entitled to stagnation
increment with effect from November, 1996 and accordingly
his case was recommended by the Branch Manager to the
Regional Office, Midnapur vide letter dated 07.02.1997.
Competent authority, however, disallowed his claim.
Aggrieved, he made a representation before the Regional
Manager, Midnapur which was rejected. He thereafter
raised an industrial dispute. The Union has prayed that
the workman Sudhangshu Mahapatra be given stagnation
increment.
3. According to the written statement filed by the
Bank as per the terms of Bipartite Settlement dated
14.02.1995 an employee is not entitled to any stagnation
increment if he seeks reversion after one year of the
acceptance of the promotion. In the instant case the
stagnation increment of the workman fell due in November,
1996 but as he sought reversion after one year of the
promotion he was not entitled for the same under the
Bipartite Settlement dated 14.02.1995.
4. The union did not file any affidavit of any witness.
The Bank, however, examined Rati Kanta Patnayak.
5. Heard Shri S. Mukherjee on behalf of the union
and Shri A. Indwar on behalf of the Bank.
6. The workman was promoted on 18.11.1985. After
one year of the promotion he sought reversion to the post
of Clerk on the ground of illness on 21.12.1987. The
workman’s reversion was allowed by the Bank by letter
dated 18.03.1988 and he was actually reverted to the post
of Clerk on 02.04.1988. The workman reached the maximum
of pay on 01.11.1993. His stagnation increment became
due on 01.11.1996.
7. The Bipartite Settlement dated 14.02.1995 was
made effective from 01.11.1992. Clause 5(c)(ii) of the
Settlement says that an employee shall not be eligible for
stagnation increment/s if he, after accepting promotion,
seeks, and is granted, reversion after one year from the
date of promotion.
8. I have no doubt that the Settlement dated
14.02.1995 which has been made applicable with effect
from 01.11.1992 applies in this case. Since the workman
sought and was granted reversion after one year from the
date of his promotion, he is not entitled to any stagnation
increment under Clause 5(c)(ii) of the Settlement dated
14.02.1995.
9. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
Award is passed accordingly.
Justice G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2177-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksydrk iru
U;kl ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2005)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@07@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&32012@08@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2177.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2005)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Kolkata Port Trust
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 25/07/2014.
[No. L-32012/08/2004 - IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 12 of 2005
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Kolkata Port Trust
AND
Their workmen
Present:
Mr. Justice MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
:
Mr. G. Mukhopadhyay,
Management
Industrial Relations Officer
On behalf of the
:
Mr. Animesh Bhadury,
Workmen
Executive Committee Member
of the workmen union.
State: West Bengal
Industry: Port & Dock
Dated: 8th November, 2011
AWARD
By Order No.L-32012/8/2004-IR(B-II) dated
21.04.2005 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
5640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Kolkata
Port Trust in awarding punishment of reducing pay
by three stages for a period of three years with
cumulative effect and not allowing to draw increment
for the above period in respect of Shri Rabin Kumar
Sidhanta is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2. One application has been filed today on behalf of
the workman concerned praying for disposal of the present
reference on his non-prosecution. It is submitted by both
the sides that the matter has been amicably settled out of
court.
3. The workman concerned who is personally present
has also submitted that his claim in the present dispute
has been met by the management and so at present there
is no dispute to be raised by him against the management
and so he does not want to proceed with the present
reference.
4. In view of the said submission of the workman
and also the contents of the application filed today, let the
present dispute be disposed of on non-prosecution from
the side of the workmen union as well as by the workman
concerned himself.
An Award is passed accordingly.
Dated, Kolkata
The 8th November, 2011
Justice MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2178-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksydrk iru
U;kl ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@07@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y- 32011@08@2003&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2178.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Kolkata Port Trust
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 25/07/2014.
[No. L-32011/08/2003 - IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA
Present:
Justice G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
Reference No. 37 of 2003
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Kolkata Port Trust
And
Their workmen(S/Shri Sajan Goar, Sahadev Panda And
Ganesh Mallick)
Appearances:
For Kolkata Port Trust :
Shri M.K. Das, Industrial
Relations Officer
For the Workmen
:
Shri A. Bhadury, Executive
Committee Member of the
Union
State
:
West Bengal
Kolkata, dated 13th day of February, 2013.
FINAL AWARD
This is a reference made by the Central Government
in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) of sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference given in the
schedule are as follows:
“Whether the action of the management of Kolkata
Port Trust in awarding punishment of reducing pay
by 5 stages for a period of 5 years with cumulative
effect and not allowing to draw increment for the
above period in respect of S/Sh. Sajan Goar, Sahadev
Panda and Ganesh Mallick is legal andjustified? If
not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled
to?”
2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts here as the
facts have been stated in detail in the order dated 09.04.2008
passed by this Tribunal.
3. By the said order this Tribunal has held that the
enquiry against the workmen is perfectly legal, proper and
valid and it does not suffer from any violation of the
principle of natural justice.
4. Now the question is that whether the punishment
imposed against the workmen is disproportionate to the
misconduct as has been proved in the enquiry held against
them.
5. Heard Shri A. Bhadury, authorized representative
of the workmen and Shri M.K. Das, authorized
representative of the management.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5641
6. The charge against the workmen was that they
consumed electricity by way of tapping from the main
source of supply and thereby caused loss to the
management. In the enquiry the charge of consumption of
electricity by way of tapping was proved but the charge
of causing financial loss to the management was not
established. The Disciplinary Authority awarded the
punishment of reducing pay by five stages for a period of
five years with cumulative effect and the workmen were
not allowed to draw increment for the above period.
7. Once there has been an enquiry in accordance
with the principle of natural justice and the findings
recorded at that enquiry are not frowned upon then this
Tribunal should not interfere with the quantum of
punishment unless the punishment is shown to be vitiated
by malafides. This certainly is not the position in the
present case.
8. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the
matter, I do not think that the punishment imposed against
the workmen is shockingly disproportionate to the charge
proved against them so as to warrant interference by this
Tribunal.
9. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.
10. Final Award is passed accordingly.
Justice G.S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2179-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 90@2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@07@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@25@95&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2179.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur 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
25/07/2014.
[No. L-12011/25/95 - IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/90/2003
Date: 17.04.2014
PARTY NO. 1:
The Zonal Manager,
Bank of India, S.V. Patel Road,
Nagpur-440001
Versus
PARTY NO. 2:
The Secretary,
Bank of India Workers’ Organization,
(Aff. To NOBW & BMS)
House No. 542, Dr. Munje Marg,
Congress Nagar, Nagpur
AWARD
(Dated: 17th April, 2014)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Bank of India and the Union, Bank of India
Workers Organization, for adjudication, to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as per letter No.L-12011/25/1995-IR(B-II)
dated10.02.1997, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India, Nagpur, in not confirming the seven workmen
(as per list attached) just after 6 months of their
initial appointment is proper, legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”
List of the workmen
1.
Sh. P.R.Modak
2.
Sh. P.R.Deshbhratar
3.
Sh. D.C.Motghare
4.
Sh. Wahan
5.
Sh. D.K. Paunikar
6.
Sh. V.V. Jumde
7.
Sh. P.G. Bhagadkar
Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this
Tribunal, for adjudication in accordance with Law, by the
Central Government.
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the union “Bank of
5642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
India Workers’ Organization”, (“the union” in short) on
behalf of seven workmen as mentioned above, ("the
workmen” in short), filed the statement of claim and the
management of Bank of India, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed
their written statement.
The case of the seven workmen as presented by the
union in the statement of claim is that the party no.1 is a
nationalized bank and its various branches in Nagpur and
Vidharbha Zones are directly under the administrative
control of the zonal office, Nagpur and the service
conditions of the employees of party no.1 are governed
by the Act and Bipartite Settlements and there was a
practice of party no.1 of maintaining a panel of Badli
employees, who were ordinarily drawn from the
Employment Exchange and such panel of Badli employees
intended to be maintained in order to meet the emergent
situations, such as unforeseen absence from duty by the
regular staff but party no.1 has been indulging into grave
unfair labour practice by getting regular and permanent
work done from the said Badli employees and thereby
robbing those Badli employees/daily wagers/temporary
workers of the status of permanent employees and
consequent benefits ensuing from such status.
The further case of the workmen as presented in the
statement of claim by the union is that the requirement of
the party no.1 to employ Badli employees is perennial and
the work being done by the Badli employees is not
occasional, casual or temporary and the work is a regular
work for which the party no.1 needs additional hands and
the seven workmen were drawn from the Employment
Exchange, Nagpur and employed after due interview and
medical examination and the workmen, Shri P.R. Modak,
Shri P.R.Deshbhratar, Shri D.C. Motghare, Shri Wahane,
Shri D.K. Paunikar, Shri V.V. Jumde and Shri P.G. Bhagadkar
were appointed on 12.04.1985, 14.03.1985, 02.02.1986,
02.02.1986, 02.02.1986, 02.02.1986 and 14.06.1985
respectively and they were given permanency from
15.07.1989 alongwith other daily wage workmen and as
per the own admission of party no.1, a person who has
been taken as Badli employee should as far as possible be
absorbed in regular service within one year and one of the
circulars issued by the party no.1 also directs that every
Badli Sub-staff, who has worked for 240 or more Badli
days in any block of consecutive 12 months and who was
denied to be engaged by the bank as Badli sub-staff on
the date of the circular was to be absorbed in the Bank’s
service and in terms of the declared policy of party no.1
and its own directions, each of the workmen was to be
regularized upon his completing the work for 240 Badli
days in a block of 12 consecutive months or immediately
after completion of 6 months of service, which was earlier
and even after completion of 240 days service in a block
period of 12 months by the workmen, the Party No.1 gave
artificial breaks in their services, which was not only
contrary to the declared policy, but also, the provisions of
section-25 F of the Act and the service conditions of the
bank employees are governed by Sastry Award, Desai
Award and the Bipartite Settlements and there is no
provision either in the Awards or Bipartite settlements
permitting the party no.1 to appoint badli workers/daily
wagers to work in the bank and the categories of the
employees described in the service conditions are
permanent, probationer and temporary employee and the
definition of temporary employee enumerated in the
Bipartite settlement says that he is the employee who has
been appointed for the work essentially of temporary nature
and the temporary increase in the work of permanent
nature, but there is a rider that such appointment should
not exceed more than three months and the party no.1 has
admitted before the ALC that the workman were engaged
for temporary increase in the workload and it is also the
admitted fact that all the workmen were used for more than
three months in contravention of the provisions of para
20 of the Bipartite settlement and as there were sufficient
number of permanent vacancies in the bank from 1984
onwards and the party no.1 used all the workmen to perform
the duties of permanent employees, which were of strictly
permanent nature, without giving them benefits of the
same, the workmen are entitled to be regularized in the
services of party no.1 after completion of six months of
service.
3. In the written statement the Party No.1 has
admitted the facts mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the
statement of claim. It is also admitted by the Party No.1
that the badli employees panel was intended to be
maintained in order to meet the emergent situations such
as unforeseen absence from duty by the regular staff.
However, it is denied by the Party No.1 that it indulged in
grave unfair labour practice by getting regular and
permanent work done from the badli employees and there
by robbing those badli/daily wagers/temporary workers
of the status of permanent employees and consequent
benefits ensuing from such status. The Party No.1 has
also denied all other adverse pleadings made in the
statement of claim and further pleaded that the seven
workmen were drawn from the Employment Exchange,
Nagpur and got employment after due interview and
medical examination by Bank’ Officials, but they were not
entitled for regularisation in service, on completion of six
months period from the date of their joining in the Bank or
on completion of 240 days work in a block period of 12
months and the workmen were made permanent from
15.07.1989 and its action was not in breach of the
provisions of section 25-F of the Act or Bipartite
settlements and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.
4. In support of the case, seven witnesses including
five workmen, namely, Pushaparao Ramchandra
Deshbhrater, Dilip Chudaman Motghare,Prakash
Govindrao Bhagadkar, Rambhan Santoshrao Wahane and
Goutam Mahadeorao Modak have been examined by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5643
Union. The other witnesses examined by the Union are
Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar and Shri Vinayak U. Joshi.
One Shri Rajkumar Tulsiram Naik has been examined
as the only witness by the party No.1.
Both the parties have also placed reliance on
documentary evidence.
5. The evidence of the five workmen examined by
the union is more or less the same and similar, except the
date of their respective joining in the service of the Bank
and the days of the work done by them in each calendar
year. All of them have claimed regularisation in service
from the initial date of joining service, claiming that they
had worked in clear vacancies and there were clear
vacancies in the Bank.
In their cross-examination, all of them have
categorically admitted that they were absorbed in the
permanent service of the Bank on 15.07.1989 and their
service from the initial date of their respective engagement
in the Bank till 14.07.1989 was on daily wages basis and
for the said period, they were paid wages by the Bank
regularly.
There is nothing in the evidence of the aforesaid
five workmen to show that they were entitled for permanent
absorption in service of party No.1 after working for six
months from their respective date of engagement by party
No.1 as daily wagers.
6. Witnesses, Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar and
Shri Vinayak U. Joshi in their entire evidence on affidavit
have not stated as to how and under what provisions, the
seven workmen were entitled for confirmation, just after
six months of their initial appointment, though they have
stated about the practice of the party No.1 engaging badli/
daily wagers/temporary workers in permanent work of the
Bank.
7. During the course of argument, it was submitted
by the union representative that the workmen were
appointed by the Bank after due interview and medical
examination after their names were sponsored by the
Employment Exchange and they performed the duties of
full time sub-staff, although they were paid on daily wage
basis and they worked continuously from the date of their
respective initial appointment and despite the existence
of permanent vacancies, Party No. 1 did not regularize the
workmen and there was violation of the mandatory
provisions of Sections 25-F of the Act and the Party No. 1
adopted unfair labour practice. It was further submitted
by the union representative that Party No. 1 has virtually
admitted the allegations made in the statement of claim, in
their written statement and from the oral evidence adduced
by the workman, which has not been challenged seriously
in the cross-examination, the documentary evidence
produced by the workmen and the admission of the
witnesses examined by the Party No. 1, it can be found
that the claim of the workmen has been fully proved and
as such, the workmen are entitled for confirmation just
after 6 months of their initial appointment.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the representative
for the Party No. 1 that the workmen were engaged on
purely casual basis temporally and their engagement was
as and when required basis, due to taking of leave by the
permanent Sub-staff or temporary increase of work load in
the branch and the workmen did not complete 240 days of
work in any 12 calendar months and the workmen have
admitted such facts and the evidence on affidavits of the
witnesses examined by the union are general affidavits
and no reliance can be placed on the same, as no document
has been produced by the workmen to demonstrate that
they had worked for 240 days in any 12 months and the
union and so also the workmen have failed to discharge
the burden of proving that in fact the workmen are entitled
for confirmation just after six months of their initial
appointments and Party No. 1 did not adopt any unfair
labour practice and the workmen are not entitled to any
relief.
9. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that
it is settled beyond doubt by the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in a string of decisions that the
Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is
limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication
and to matters incidental there to.
Though the reference has been made by the Central
Government for adjudication of the legality or otherwise
of the action of the management in not confirming the
seven workmen just after six months of their initial
appointment, the union, in the guise of raising the dispute
on behalf the workmen has tried to challenge the policy
adopted by the party No.1 of engaging persons on
temporary basis, inspite of having number of permanent
vacancies in the cadre of sub-staff at different branches
of the Bank. In view of the settled principles as mentioned
above, the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of
reference and in view of the specific terms of reference,
the only point to be consider is as to whether, the workmen
were entitled for confirmation just after six months of their
initial appointment.
10. On perusal of the materials on record and taking
into consideration the submissions made during the course
of argument by both the parties, it is found that the
workmen were engaged on daily wages basis at different
branches of party No.1 and they worked in the branches
intermittently in the leave vacancy of permanent Sub-staff
or when there was temporary increase of work in the branch.
The appointment of the workmen was not against any
permanent post. Neither the union nor the workmen have
been able to show any provision under which the workmen
5644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
were entitled for confirmation just after six months of their
initial appointment. It is found from the materials on record
that there is no merit in the case of the workmen and they
are not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and
against the workmen. The workmen are not entitled to
any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2180-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e]1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nkeksnj oSyh
dkjiksjs'ku ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
05@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014
dks dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42011@115@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2180.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2014)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Damodar Valley
Corporation and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-42011/115/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 05 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Damodar Vally Corporation
AND
Their workmen.
Present:
Justic APPOARANCE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
On behalf of the Management
:
None.
On behalf of the Workmen
:
None.
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Power.
Dated: 23rd July, 2014.
AWARD
By Order No.L-42011/115/2013-IR(DU) dated
21.01.2014 Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the demand of DVC Kamgar Sangh for
removal of anomaly in UCP on following points are
legal and/or justified?”
2. When the case is taken up today for hearing,
none appears on behalf of either of the parties. It appears
from the record that the parties are absent for the last two
consecutive dates.
3. Seen the previous orders. It appears that
opportunities were given to the union to appear before
the Tribunal and to file statement of claim but to no effect.
4. Considering the above facts and circumstances it
appears that the union is not interested to proceed with
this reference case. Perhaps the union has no grievance
against the management at present.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances,
instant reference is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute
Award”.
Dated, Kolkata
The 23rd July, 2014.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2181-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj caxky dsfedYl
,.M iQkekZL;qfVdYl fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42011@164@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2181.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/2014) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to tbe
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5645
management of Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-42011/164/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 29 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Bengal Chemicls & Pharmaceuticls Ltd.
A N D
Their workmen.
Present:
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
:
None
On behalf of the Workmen
:
None
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Port & Dock.
Dated: 17th July, 2014.
AWARD
By Order No.L-42011/164/2013-IR(DU) dated
06.03.2014 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Bengal
Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited in not
considering promotion of Madan Das as similarly
placed all SC/ST Certificate holders who have been
considered for promotion, is legal and/or justified?
If not what relief Shri Madan Das is entitled to?”
2. When the case is taken up today for hearing,
none appears on behalf of either of the parties. It appears
from the record that on the last date, i.e., on 28.05.2014
none appeared on behalf of either of the parties, inspite of
service of notice. Considering the above facts and
circumstances and the conduct of the parties, it may
reasonably be presumed that the parties are not interested
to proceed with the instant reference case further. Perhaps
the workman has no grievance against the management at
present.
3. Considering the above facts and circumstances,
instant reference is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute
Award”.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 17th July, 2014.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2182-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jhtuy eSustj]
lsaVªy os;jgkÅflax dkjiksjs'ku] paMhx<+ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 160@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42012@86@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 160/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation of
the management of Regional Manager, Central
Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh and their workman,
received by the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-42012/86/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-
LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 160 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/86/
2013-IR(DU) dated 28/01/2014
Sh. Bhola Sharma
S/o Sh. Baleshwar ,
Birbal Nagar, Narwana,
Jind (Haryana).
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh Region,
Bay No. 35-38,
Sector -4, Panchkula
(Haryana) - 134112
...Respondents.
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Proxy Counsel for Mr. Robin Dutt
5646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed On : 21 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-42012/86-2013/IR (DU) dated 28/01/2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether the action of the Management of Regional
Manager, CWC, Panchkula in terminating the
services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh. Bhola Sharma S/o
Sh. Baleshwar, workman of Narwana Depot is just
and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to ?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
21.07.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2183-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jhtuy eSustj]
lsaVªy os;jgkÅflax dkjiksjs'ku] paMhx<+ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 161@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@87@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 161/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Regional Manager, Central Warehousing
Corporation, Chandigarh and their workman, received
by the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-42012/87/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 161 of 2013, Reference no. L-42012/87/
2013-IR(DU) dated 28/01/2014
Sh.Pankaj
S/o Sh. Dani
R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,
Jind (Haryana).
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh Region,
Bay No. 35-38, Sector -4, Panchkula
Haryana-134119
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Proxy Counsel for Mr. Robin Dutt.
AWARD
Passed on:- 21 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-42012/87/2013-IR
(DU) dated 28/01/2014 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether the action of the Management of Regional
Manager, CWC, Panchkula in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh. Pankaj S/o Sh. Dhani,
workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to ?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
21.07.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5647
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2184-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jhtuy eSustj]
lsaVªy os;jgkÅflax dkjiksjs'ku] paMhx<+ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 162@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42012@88@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 162/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Regional Manager, Central Warehousing
Corporation, Chandigarh and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-42012/88/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 162 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/88/
2013/IR(DU) dated 28/01/2014
Sh.Madhu Sudan
S/o Banarsi Ram
R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,
Jind (Haryana).
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh Region,
Bay No. 35-38, Sector -4, Panchkula
(Haryana) -134112
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Proxy Counsel for Mr. Robin Dutt.
AWARD
Passed on : 21 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-42012/88/2013-IR (DU) dated 28/01/2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the Management of Regional
Manager, CWC, Panchkula in terminating the
services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh.Madhu Sudan S/o
Sh. Banarsi Ram, workman of Narwana Depot is just
and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
21-07-2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2185-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jhtuy eSustj]
lsaVªy os;jgkÅflax dkjiksjs'ku] paMhx<+ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 165@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42012@91@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 165/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-
I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between employers in relation to the management of
the Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-42012/91/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No. 165 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/91/
2013/IR(DU) dated 28/01/2014.
Sh. Jasvinder
S/o Kamal Singh
R/o V&PO Suraj Khera,
Teh Narwana, Jind (Haryana).
...Workman
5648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
The Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh Region,
Bay No. 35-38, Sector -4, Panchkula
(Haryana) -134112
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Proxy Counsel for Mr. Robin Dutt.
AWARD
Passed on : 21.07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42012/91/2013-IR (DU) dated 28/01/2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the Management of Regional
Manager, CWC, Panchkula in terminating the
services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh. Jasvinder S/o Kamal
Singh workman of Narwana Depot is just and
legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
21-07-2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2186-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jhtuy eSustj]
lsaVªy os;jgkÅflax dkjiksjs'ku] paMhx<+ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 168@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42012@94@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 168/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-
1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Regional Manager, Central Warehousing
Corporation, Chandigarh and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-42012/94/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 168 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/94/
2013/IR(DU) dated 28/01/2014.
Sh.Suresh
S/o Sh. Ram Dev
R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,
Distt. Jind (Haryana).
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh Region,
Bay No. 35-38, Sector -4, Panchkula
(Haryana) -134112
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Proxy Counsel for Mr. Robin Dutt.
AWARD
Passed on : 21 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-42012/94/2013-IR (DU) dated 28/01/2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the Management of Regional
Manager, CWC, Panchkula in terminating the
services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh. Suresh S/o Ram
Dev workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5649
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
21-07-2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2187-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jhtuy eSustj]
lsaVªy os;jgkÅflax dkjiksjs'ku] paMhx<+ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oaJe U;k;ky;&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 171@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42012@97@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 171/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-42012/97/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 171 of 2013, Reference no. L-42012/97/
2013/IR(DU) dated 28/01/2014.
Sh. Shera
S/o Sh Pillu Ram
R/o VPO-Gurdhli- Teh - Narwana,
Jind (Haryana). Jind
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation ,
Chandigarh Region,
Bay No. 35-38, Sector -4, Panchkula
(Haryana) -134112
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Proxy Counsel for Mr. Robin Dutt.
AWARD
Passed on : 21 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-42012/97/2013/IR (DU) dated 28/01/2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the Management of
Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in terminating
the services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh. Shera S/o Pillu
Ram workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
21-07-2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2188-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jhtuy eSustj]
lsaVªy os;jgkÅflax dkjiksjs'ku] paMhx<+ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 173@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42012@99@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2188.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 173/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-
1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Regional
Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh
5650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and their workman, received by the Central Government on
30/07/2014.
[No. L-42012/99/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No. 173 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/99/
2013/IR(DU) dated 28/01/2014.
Sh. Kulvinder
R/o Karamghad, Narwana,
Jind (Haryana). Jind
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation ,
Chandigarh Region,
Bay No. 35-38, Sector -4, Panchkula
(Haryana) -134112
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Proxy Counsel for Mr. Robin Dutt.
AWARD
Passed on : 21 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-42012/99/2013/IR (DU) dated 28/01/2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the Management of
Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in terminating
the services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh. Kulwinder
workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
21-07-2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2189-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jhtuy eSustj]
lsaVªy os;jgkÅflax dkjiksjs'ku] paMhx<+ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 201@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42012@1742013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2189.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 201/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in
the industrial dispute between the management of the
Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-42012/174/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 201 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/174/
2013/IR(DU) dated 26/02/2014.
Sh. Jadu
S/o Sh Ram Jatri
R/o VPO-Birbal Nagar- Teh - Narwana,
Jind (Haryana). Jind
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation ,
Chandigarh Region,
Bay No. 35-38, Sector -4, Panchkula
(Haryana) -134112
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Proxy Counsel for Mr. Robin Dutt.
AWARD
Passed on : 21 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-42012/174/2013/IR(DU) dated 26/02/2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5651
“Whether the action of the Management of
Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in terminating
the services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh. Jadu S/o Jutri
workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
21-07-2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2190-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj
,.M vnlZ Hkkjr bysDVªkWfuDl fyfeVsM] iapdqyk ds izca/ra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 202@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&14012@43@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 202/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of General Manager, Bharat Electronics Limited
& Others, Panckula and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-14012/43/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 202 of 2013, Reference No. L-14012/43/
2013/IR(DU) dated 26/02/2014.
Sh. Ishwar
S/o Sh Gobind
R/o H. No. 106, Indira Colony,
Sector-17, Panchkula (Haryana)
...Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited,
405 Industrial Area,
Phase-III, Panchkula (Haryana)
2.
The Chief Managing Director,
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited.
Head Office Outer Ringh Road,
Bangalore.
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Sh. N. K. Zakhmi
AWARD
Passed on : 15 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-14012/43/2013/IR (DU) dated 26.02.2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether relationship of employer and employee
exists between Sh. Ishwar S/o Sh. Govind and Bharat
Electronics Ltd. Panchkula? If yes, whether action
of the Bharat Electronics Ltd., Panchkula in
terminating the services of Ishwar S/o Govind w.e.f.
1.4.2013 is legally just and valid? If not, then to
what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
15.07.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2191-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj
,.M vnlZ Hkkjr bysDVªkWfuDl fyfeVsM] iapdqyk ds izca/ra=k ds
5652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 203@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&14012@44@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2191.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 203/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the General Manager, Bharat Electronics
Limited & Others, Panckula and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-14012/44/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 203 of 2013, Reference No. L-14012/44/
2013/IR(DU) dated 26/02/2014.
Sh. Dinesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Om Parkash
R/o H. No. 205, Indira Colony,
Sector-17, Panchkula (Haryana)
...Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited,
405 Industrial Area,
Phase-III, Panchkula (Haryana)
2.
The Chief Managing Director,
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited,
Head Office Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Sh. N. K. Zakhmi
AWARD
Passed on : 15 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-14012/44/2013/IR (DU) dated 26.02.2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether relationship of employer and employee
exists between Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash
and Bharat Electronics Ltd. Panchkula? If yes,
whether action of the Bharat Electronics Ltd.
Panchkula in terminating the services of Dinesh
Kumar S/o Om Parkash w.e.f. 1.4.2013 is legally just
and valid? If not, then to what relief the workman is
entitled to and from which date?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
15.07.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2192-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj
,.M vnlZ Hkkjr bysDVªkWfuDl fyfeVsM] iapdqyk ds izca/ra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 204@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&14012@45@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 204/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the General Manager and Others, Bharat
Electronics Limited, Panchkula and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-14012/45/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 204 of 2013, Reference No. L-14012/45/
2013/IR(DU) dated 25/02/2014.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5653
Sh. Nafa Singh,
S/o Sh. Chand
R/o H. No. 251, Indira Colony,
Sector-17, Panchkula (Haryana)
...Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited,
405 Industrial Area,
Phase-III, Panchkula (Haryana)
2.
The Chief Managing Director,
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited,
Head Office Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Sh. N. K. Zakhmi
AWARD
Passed on : 15 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-14012/45/2013/IR (DU) dated 25.02.2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether relationship of employer and employee
exists between Sh. Nafa Singh S/o Sh. Chand and
Bharat Electronics Ltd. Panchkula? If yes, whether
action of the Bharat Electronics Ltd. Panchkula in
terminating the services of Sh Nafa Singh S/o Chand
w.e.f. 17.3.2013 is legally just and valid? If not, then
to what relief the workman is entitled to and from
which date?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
15.07.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2193-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj
,.M vnlZ] Hkkjr bysDVªkWfuDl fyfeVsM] iapdqyk ds izca/ra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 205@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&14012@46@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 205/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the General Manager and Others, Bharat
Electronics Limited, Panchkula and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-14012/46/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 205 of 2013, Reference No. L-14012/46/
2013/IR(DU) dated 25/02/2014.
Sh. Shyam Lal,
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh
R/o H. No. 1297, Rajiv Colony,
Sector-, Panchkula (Haryana)
...Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited,
405 Industrial Area,
Phase-III, Panchkula (Haryana)
2.
The Chief Managing Director,
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited,
Head Office Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Sh. N. K. Zakhmi
AWARD
Passed on : 15 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-14012/46/2013/IR (DU) dated 25.02.2014
5654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether relationship of employer and employee
exists between Sh. Shyam Lal S/o Sh. Bhim Singh
and Bharat Electronics Ltd. Panchkula? If yes,
whether action of the Bharat Electronics Ltd.
Panchkula in terminating the services of Sh. Shyam
Lal S/o Bhim Singh w.e.f. 1.4.2013 is legally just and
valid? If not, then to what relief the workman is
entitled to and from which date?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
15.07.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2194-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj
,.M vnlZ] Hkkjr bysDVªkWfuDl fyfeVsM] iapdqyk ds izca/ra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 206@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&14012@47@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2194.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 206/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of General Manager and Others, Bharat
Electronics Limited, Panchkula and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-14012/47/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 206 of 2013, Reference No. L-14012/47/
2013/IR(DU) dated 25/02/2014.
Smt. Usha Rani,
W/o Sh. Surinder Kumar
R/o H. No. 474, Indira Colony,
Sector-17, Panchkula (Haryana)
...Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited,
405 Industrial Area,
Phase-III, Panchkula (Haryana)
2.
The Chief Managing Director,
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited,
Head Office Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Sh. N. K. Zakhmi
AWARD
Passed on : 15 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-14012/47/2013/IR (DU) dated 25.02.2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether relationship of employer and employee
exists between Smt. Usha Rani W/o Surinder Kumar
and Bharat Electronics Ltd. Panchkula? If yes,
whether action of the Bharat Electronics Ltd.
Panchkula in terminating the services of Smt. Usha
Rani W/o Surinder Kumar w.e.f. 1.4.2013 is legally
just and valid? If not, then to what relief the workman
is entitled to and from which date?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is
not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of
the above the present reference is disposed off for want
of prosecution.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5655
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
15.07.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 2195-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSusftax
Mk;jsDVj] rsveykls lfoZl izkbZosV fyfeVsM ,.M vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42011@15@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the management
of Managing Director, Teamlease Service Pvt Ltd & Others
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-42011/15/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR
COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 16th July, 2014
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 71/2013
[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. Team Lease Service
Pvt. Ltd and Trichy Tollway Private Ltd. and their workman]
Between:
Sri M. Pugazhmani
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Managing Director
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
M/s. Teamlease Services
Pvt. Ltd.
BMTC Commercial Complex
6th Floor, 80 Feet Road,
Koramangala
Bangalore-560095
2. The Director
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
M/s. Trichy Tollway
Private Ltd.
Sengurichy, Toll Plaza,
Ulundurpet Villupuram
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s. G. Shanmugam, Advocate
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
1st Management
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/
:
Set Ex-parte
2nd Management
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/15/2013-IR (DU)
dated 07.06.2013 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/Team
Lease Service Pvt. Ltd. and Trichy Tollway Private
Ltd., Contractors of National Highway Authority of
India Ltd., in dismissing Sri M. Pugazhmani w.e.f.
19.02.2011 without any enquiry is legal and justified?
To what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 71/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. The petitioner and the First Respondent had entered
appearance through their counsel and filed claim and
counter statement respectively. The second respondent
has been set ex-parte.
3. Even though the petitioner filed Claim
Statement no documents have been produced to
substantiate the case. Both the petitioner and the counsel
have been continuously absent. Today when the case
was called also both the petitioner as well as the counsel
were absent. There was no one available to represent the
petitioner also. The petitioner seems to be not interested
in pursuing the case. In the absence of any material the
case could not be proceeded with. Accordingly the ID is
closed.
5656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 16th July, 2014)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
None
Documents marked :
On the side of the Petitioner & Management :
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ 2014
dk-vk- 2196-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
VsyhdkWe] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] f'keyk ds izca/ra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 73@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y- 40012@30@2013&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2014
S.O. 2196.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd., Shimla and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 30/07/2014.
[No. L-40012/30/2013- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case ID No. 73 of 2013, Reference no. L-40012/30/2013-
IR(DU) dated 24/05/2013
Sh.Veer Chand
S/o Sh. Shankar Dass
R/o Vill Rouni
P.O. Dalash, Teh. Anni
Kullu (HP).
...Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager
Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Shimla Telecom District,
Block No.35, SDA Complex,
Kasumpati, Shimla
( Himachal Pradesh)-9
2.
M/s. Equinix Guards &
Security Services,
VPO Ambari Malan, Kangra.
3.
M/s. HP Ex-Servicemen Corporation,
Haripur, Distt. Hamirpur,(HP)
...Respondents.
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management :
Sh.D.R.Sharma for Respondent
No.1 None for Respondent
No. 2 & 3.
AWARD
Passed on:- 23 .07.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-40012/30/2013-IR (DU) dated 24/05/2013
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the Management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Shimla in terminating the services
of Sh. Veer Chand S/o Sh. Shankar Dass w.e.f.
31.1.2011 who was engaged by General Manager,
BSNL, Shimla through contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-
Servicemen Corporation Hamirpur is just and legal?
To what relief the workman is entitled to and what
directions are necessary in the matter?”
2. Today the case was fixed for filing of the claim
statement by the workman. The learned counsel Sh.
J.R.Syal who was appearing for workman pleads no
instructions already seven opportunities have been
allowed to the workman to file claim statement. No claim
statement has been filed by the workman. It appears that
the workman is not interested to pursue the present
reference. In view of the above the present reference is
returned for want of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
23-7-2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5657
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2197-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y- ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 92@2007) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@210@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2014
S.O. 2197.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 01/08/2014.
[No. L-22012/210/2007- IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
KANYAPUR, PO:- R.K.MISSION, ASANSOL,
DIST.-BURDWAN, PIN-713305, (W.B.)
Present:
SRI PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 92 OF 2007
PARTIES: The management of Satgram Project,
Devchandnagar, ECL.
Versus
Sri Kazi Asraf
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Shri P.K. Goswami, Ld.
Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Shri Sayantan Mukherjee,
Ld. Advocate
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated – 09.07.2014
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of
Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
210/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 24.10.2007 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
ECL to extend the Training period from 18 (eighteen)
months to 24 (twenty four) months and not
regularizing Shri Kazi Asraf w.e.f.19.08.2002 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman
entitled?’
Having received the Order No. L-22012/210/2007-
IR(CM-II) dated 24.10.2007 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 92 of
2007 was registered on 20.11.2007 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list
of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of
the said order notices by the registered post were sent to
the parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record, I find that my
predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) of
this Tribunal had reserved an award in this case because
Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, Assistant General Secretary of
the union submitted that the case might be closed as the
workman was no more interested to proceed with the case
further. Since the workman is no more interested to proceed
with the case further, the case is closed. As such the case
is closed and accordingly an order of “No Dispute” award
is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2198-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh- vkbZ-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
13@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22011@41@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
5658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2014
S.O. 2198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2009)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India and their workman, received by the Central Government
on 01/08/2014.
[No. L-22011/41/2009- IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case ID No. 13 of 2009. Reference No. L-22011/41/2009-
IR(CM-II)dated 13.10.2009 Read with Corrigendum dated
27.04.2010
Sh. Raman Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o Street No.1, Near Bus Stand
Basti Hazoor Singh, Fazilka
Punjab.
...Workman
Versus
1.
The District Manager
Food Corporation of India,
District Office, Malwal Road,
Ferozpur City, Punjab.
2.
The General Manager
Food Corporation of India,
R.O. Punjab, Sector-31
CHANDIGARH.
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi.
AWARD
Dated:-27.03.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-22011/41/2009-IR(CM-II)dated 13.10.2009
Read with Corrigendum dated 27.04.2010 has referred the
following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Term of Reference:
“Whether the action of the management of FCI,
Ferozpur in not giving compassionate appointment
to Sh. Raman Kumar S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal is legal
and justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled
for?”
2. The workman in his claim statement submitted
that his father late Sh. Sohan Lal was working as dusting
operator, at FCI, FSD, Fazilka and was a permanent
employee. He was expired on 19.12.1999. After his death
he left behind one son, two daughters and wife in the
family. After his death, the widow Sudesh Rani filed
application for GP fund and other benefits and also for a
job on compassionate ground to Raman Kumar her son.
She got the G.P. fund and other benefits but compassionate
appointment was not given to his son Raman Kumar. The
management was persuaded many times, every document
was complete. Every objection raised by the management
was removed. Despite reminders many times the applicant
Raman Kumar was not given compassionate appointment
although approximately 300 jobs available in the
department in the year 2011. The applicant was denied job
on compassionate ground and his application was rejected
for category IV post. The applicant is Msc and even eligible
for the post of AG-3 in the department. The applicant
stated in the claim statement that now his helpless widow
mother and one unmarried sister are dependant upon him.
His father was only earning hand.
3. It is submitted by the applicant that his family
facing acute penury. Despite the fact that jobs are lying
vacant in the management of FCI but applicant Raman
Kumar denied compassionate appointment though he fully
eligible for the post. It is prayed by the applicant that
directions may be given to the management for giving him
a job on a suitable post according to his qualification on
the compassionate ground in place of his father. Along
with claim statement, applicant annexed all the
correspondence certificate, affidavit sent to the
management.
4. Management filed written statement. Preliminary
objection has been taken that the claim of the applicant
does not fall within the ambit of any provision of the ID
Act. The claim of appointment on compassionate ground
for employment in place of his father does not constitute
industrial dispute. Therefore the present reference is
without jurisdiction and deserves to be dismissed. It is
further pleaded by the management that appointment on
compassionate ground can be made only to mitigate the
hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account
of unexpected death, only to alleviate the stress of the
family, but not at belated stage, as these grounds are no
more. After the death of the father of the applicant,
management released the ex-gratia payment of Rs.1500/-
and benevolent fund of Rs.5000/-. The gratuity amount of
Rs.5000/- and 35500/- on account of GIS were also released.
Balance of gratuity amounting to Rs.80755/- on the revision
of pay scale were also paid to the family of the deceased.
It is pleaded by the management that now there exist no
ground of hardship. Therefore present claim of the
applicant deserved to be dismissed. Smt. Sudesh Rani
widow of the deceased applied for employment on
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5659
compassionate ground for his son vide her application
dated 20.02.2000, which was sent to the Regional Office
by the District Manager. On account of discrepancies the
applicant was asked to remove the objection. After
removing the objections the application was again
submitted on 21.08.2000. The application was sent to the
Zonal Office and as per clarification of applicant he was
not considered by the Zonal Office, which was conveyed
to the applicant vide letter to the applicant vide letter dated
13.12.2006 by the Zonal Office. During the year 2000, 2001,
2002, 2003, the Zonal Empowered Committee examined the
case of the applicant, on merit his candidature was rejected
with the approval of the Competent Authority as no vacancy
within the ceiling limit of 5% direct quota exist. As per the
instructions of the FCI, the workman was not entitled for
the appointment on compassionate ground. On merits,
also the management denied the claim of the applicant
and prayed for dismissal of the reference.
5. The workman filed rejoinder, reiterating the claim
made in the claim statement.
6. The learned counsel for the workman on 29.08.2012
closed the evidence by making statement that he did not
want to lead evidence on behalf of the workman. The
management was directed to file their evidence. The
management filed one affidavit of Sh. Rahul Chandan, Area
Manager, FCI, Ferozepur, along with scheme of
compassionate appointment and other document. The
Applicant or his Counsel stopped coming on the hearing
of the case. The affidavit of the management goes
unrebutted.
7. Arguments heard on behalf of the management as
none appeared for the workman.
8. The learned counsel for the management submitted
during arguments that the case of the applicant does not
cover under any provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act.
Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this
reference. It is further argued that the applicant was not
entitled for compassionate appointment as per the scheme
of FCI which has been annexed with the affidavit of the
management. It is also submitted that during the year 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003 the candidature of the applicant was not
considered as there was no post exists. He was informed
in 2006 for being eligible for the post of class-IV, but as per
the scheme of the FCI, he was not entitled for this
compassionate appointment and there was no mitigating
circumstances existing then as compared to in the year
1999, when the father of the applicant was expired The
mother of the applicant was paid full amount of the dues
of his father.
9. The management has taken objection that the
applicant Sh. Raman Kumar is not a workman within the
definition Section 2 (s) of the ID Act,1947. It is admitted
case that Raman Kumar applicant has sought appointment
on compassionate ground due to the death of his father
Sohan Lal who was working as dusting operator a class IV
post and was a permanent employee of the respondent
Food Corporation of India. Learned counsel for the
respondent refer me to the provision 2 (k) of the ID Act
1947 which reads as under:
“2 (k) Industrial Dispute” means any dispute or
difference between employers and employers, or
between employers and workman, or between
workmen and workmen, which is connected with
the employment or non-employment or the terms of
employment or with the conditions of labour, of any
person;”
10. Thus the applicant Raman Kumar is not a
workman and dispute raised by Raman Kumar does not
fall within the ambit of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Besides this , management has filed the photocopy of the
letter dated 19.04.2002 addressed to Raman Kumar
applicant by Assistant Manager (E.IX) from the Zonal
Office which is as follow :
“ In this connection, you are informed that as per
information/qualification furnished by you, you are eligible
for appointment to the post of category IV.
It is however, regretted to inform you that because
of inadequate number of vacancies available, this office
is unable to consider your request for appointment on
compassionate grounds.”
11. This letter was sent by the respondent in the
month of April, 2002. Whereas this reference was initiated
by the applicant in the year, 2009 which is belated as the
same has been raised after a gap of seven years. Moreover,
the management also relied upon a communication from
the Govt.of India vide a letter no. 14014/19/2002-Estt.(D)
dated 5th May, 2003 para 3 of the above communication is
reproduced below:
“The maximum time a persons name can be kept
under consideration of offering compassionate
appointment will be three years, subject to the
condition that the prescribed committee has
reviewed and certified the penurious condition of
the applicant at the end of the first and second year.
After three years. If compassionate appointment is
not possible to be offered to the applicant, his case
will be finally closed and will not be considered
again.”
12. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of this case the present reference is not
covered under the definition of ‘Industrial Dispute’ as
defined under section 2(k) of the ID Act, 1947. Moreover
the present reference has been raised by the applicant
after a long gap of seven years which is belated and cannot
be considered. In view of the above the action of the
5660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
management of F.C.I., Ferozepur in not giving
compassionate appointment to Sh. Raman Kumar S/o Late
Sh. Sohan Lal is legal and justified and the applicant is not
entitled to any relief. The reference is answered
accordingly. Central Govt. be informed . Soft as well as
hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
27.3.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2199-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh- vkbZ-
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 429@2005) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@549@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2014
S.O. 2199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 429/
2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-
II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 01/08/2014.
[No. L-22012/549/1999- IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present:
Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 429/2005
Registered on 19.8.2005
Smt. Raj Rani Sharma
House No.1034, Sector 9
Huda, Karnal (Haryana).
... Petitioner
Versus
Sr. Regional Manager
FCI, Punjab Region, Sector 34-A
Chandigarh.
... Respondents
Appearances:
For the Workman
Sh. O.P. Batra Adv.
For the Management
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 23.6.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/
549/99/IR(CM-II) Dated 27.7/1.8.2000, by exercising its
powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and
Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the Management of FCI
represented by Distt. Manager, FCI, Rohtak and Sr.
R.M. FCI, Haryana Region, Sector 17, Chandigarh in
terminating the services of Smt. Raj Rani Sharma
w.e.f. 22.1.91 is fair and just? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?”
The facts in brief are that the workman was employed
as Assistant Grade-II with the respondent management
where she joined on 10.5.1979. She did not attend to her
duties after 5.6.1987 despite issuance of several letters
and even publication of notice in The Daily Hindi Tribune
dated 27.9.1990; and her services were dispensed with in
view of the provisions of Regulation No.63(ii) of the FCI
Staff Regulations, 1971.
Now according to the workman she was suffering
from Acid Ailment and got treatment from Hisar from
1.6.1987 to 30.6.1989 where her husband was posted. He
was transferred to Bhiwani and she started getting
treatment from Dr. R.C. Pandey there. She used to inform
the office at Rohtak about her illness through letters and
by verbal information. That her services were terminated
illegally without holding any inquiry.
The stand of the management is that since the
workman was willfully absent from her duty, her services
were rightly dispensed with under Regulation No. 63(ii)
and the order is legal and valid. It is further pleaded that
workman already filed a Civil Suit which was decided
against her and therefore the present claim made by her is
barred by the principle of res judicata.
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
In support of her case, the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed her affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand, the management examined Sh.
Surinder Singh, Area Manager, who filed his affidavit
reiterating the stand taken by the management in the written
reply.
I have heard Sh. O.P. Batra counsel for the workman
and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5661
Section 5 of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 deals
with penalties providing the minor and major penalty to
be imposed and further provides under Regulation No.58,
the procedure to be followed for imposing major penalty.
Regulation No.63 provides for a special procedure and it
read as follows:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation
58 to Regulation 62:
(i)
Where any penalty is imposed on an employee
on the ground of conduct which has led to his
conviction on a criminal charge, or
(ii)
Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied
for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that
it is not reasonably practicable to hold an
inquiry in the manner provided in these
regulations.
(iii)
Where the Board is satisfied that in the
interest of security of the State, it is not
expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner
provided in these regulations,
The disciplinary authority may consider the
circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon
as it deems fit.
Learned counsel for the workman has argued that
when the due procedure is not to be followed for holding
the inquiry, then the disciplinary authority is required to
record the reasons in writing that it is not reasonably
practicable to hold an inquiry before imposing the
punishment and the perusal of the impugned order shows
that the disciplinary authority did not record any reason
in this respect and therefore the impugned order is illegal
and void. He has further argued that according to the
management it issued letters to the workman to attend
duties from 14.3.1985 to 17.2.1987 at different times whereas,
its case is the workman was absent w.e.f. 5.6.1987 and
therefore the case of the management is fabricated one
and the impugned order passed on false allegations is
liable to be set aside.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel. The definite case of the management is that the
workman remained absent w.e.f. June, 1987 till the passing
of the impugned order in January, 1991. The workman did
not deny these allegations and rather herself pleaded that
she was sick and remained under treatment at Rohtak from
1.6.1987 to 30.6.1989 and thereafter at Bhiwani. But there
is no evidence on the record that she was ever sick during
the impugned period. She admits during cross-examination
that she has received the telegrams and letters prior to
June 1987. Meaning thereby, that she was in the habit of
remaining absent even prior to June, 1987 and after June
1987, she did not join the duties at all. A notice was duly
published in The Daily Hindi Tribune dated 27.9.1990, the
photocopy of which is on the file and the correctness of
the same is not disputed. It is specifically mentioned
therein that if she failed to join her duties, her services
would be terminated under Regulation No.63(ii) of the FCI
Staff Regulations, 1971. But even than she did not care to
join her duties and thereafter the impugned order was
passed. Since she was absent for years together and
therefore the holding of the inquiry do not arise and the
competent authority rightly passed the order under
Regulation No.63(ii) of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971. In
the circumstances, the punishing authority was not
required to record any specific reasons which are otherwise
evident from the circumstances.
It may also be added that the workman filed Civil
Suit No.1232 on 22.1.1993 and decided on 13.12.1994 and
is clear from the copy of judgment against her dismissal in
which issue No.1 and Issue No.5 are framed as follow:-
Issue No.1
Whether the termination order dated 21.1.1991 is
illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside, as alleged?
OPP
Issue No.5
Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try
the present suit? OPD
The learned court recorded the findings in Issue
No.1 as follows:-
In the present case also, the plaintiff has been found
guilty of misconduct and remained absent from duty.
Accordingly, the order of termination dated 21.1.1991 is
legal.
The learned Court again recorded finding on Issue
No.5 as follow:-
Admittedly, the plaintiff is the workman and her claim,
if any, could only be settled under provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
specifically debarred. The learned counsel for the
defendant has relied upon AIR, 1975, S.C. 2238 Premium
Auto Mobile Vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and Others.
In view of the referred authority, the civil court has got no
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The issue is
answered in favour of the defendants and against the
plaintiff.
Thus, the Civil Suit has given a definite finding that
the termination of the services of the workman was legal
and valid and the same is binding on the workman. Here it
was submitted that since the civil suit has no jurisdiction
to try the suit and therefore this finding carry no value.
Findings of the learned court regarding its jurisdiction
may or may not be correct, but its finding that the
termination order is legal is binding on the workman and
the workman cannot agitate the matter time and again and
therefore the present reference stands barred by the
principle of res judicata. Thus seen from any angle, the
impugned order cannot be termed as illegal and unfair.
5662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In result, it is held that the action of the management
in terminating the services of the workman is fair and just
and she is not entitled to any relief. The reference is
accordingly answered against the workman. Let hard and
soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government
for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2200-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y-
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 07@2008)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@389@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2014
S.O. 2200.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2008)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 01/08/2014.
[No. L-22012/389/2007- IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT KANYAPUR,
PO:- R.K.MISSION, ASANSOL, DIST.-BURDWAN,
PIN-713305, (W.B.)
Present:
SRI PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 07 OF 2008
Parties: The management of Madhabpur Colliery, ECL.
Vs.
Shri Matla Majhi
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management
:
Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman) :
Shri M.K. Bandopadhyay,
Ld. Advocate
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated – 09.07.2014
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-22012/
389/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 05.03.2008 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
ECL in dismissing Shri Matla Majhi w.e.f. 12.02.2007
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled?”
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/389/2007-
IR(CM-II) dated 05.03.2008 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 07 of
2008 was registered on 14.03.2008 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list
of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of
the said order notices by the registered post were sent to
the parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record, I find that my
predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) of
this Tribunal had reserved an award in this case because
the workman was neither appearing nor taking any step
after 16.02.12. Several adjournments were granted but to
no effect. It seems that the workman is now not at all
interested to proceed with the case. As such the case is
closed and accordingly an order of “No Dispute” award is
hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2201-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y-
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 64@2007)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@166@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5663
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2014
S.O. 2201.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 01/08/2014.
[No. L-22012/166/2007- IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present:
SRI PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 64 OF 2007
Parties: The management of Chapuikhas Colliery of
M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Sadhan Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P.K. Goswami, Ld.
Advocate
For the union (workman)
:
None
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated – 10.07.14
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/
166/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 07.08.2007 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
Chapuikhas Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing
Shri Sadhan Bouri w.e.f. 05.03.2005 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
Having received the Order of Letter No.L-22012/166/
2007-IR(CM-II) dated 07.08.2007 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 64 of
2007 was registered on 04.09.2007 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list
of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of
the said order notices by the registered post were sent to
the parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record, I find that my
predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) of
this Tribunal had reserved an award in this case because
neither the union nor the workman appeared and took any
step after 02.06.10 in spite of several opportunities. It seems
that the workman/union is now no more interested to
proceed with the case further. As such the case is closed
and accordingly an order of “No Dispute” award is hereby
passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as “No
Dispute” existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful
information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2202-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y- ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 107@1999) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@453@1998&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2014
S.O. 2202.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 107/
1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 01/08/2014.
[No. L-22012/453/1998- IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
5664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present:
SRI PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 107 OF 1999
Parties: The management of Madhavpur Colliery of
M/s. ECL,
Vs.
Sri Bindheswari Thakur
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman) :
Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld.
Representative
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated – 10.07.14
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/
453/98-IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.1999 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
Madhavpur Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s. ECL in not
forwarding the age dispute to the Age Determination
Committee in respect of Sh. Bindheswari Thakur,
Clip man for assessment of his age is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief is the workman
entitled?”
Having received the Order of Letter No.L-22012/453/
98-IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.1999 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 107 of
1999 was registered on 18.08.1999 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list
of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of
the said order notices by the registered post were sent to
the parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record, I find that my
predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) of
this Tribunal had reserved an award in this case because
the workman in spite of direction through union’s
representative did not appear before the court. With
consent of the both parties the case was closed. As such
the case is closed and accordingly an order of “No
Dispute” award is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as “No
Dispute” existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful
information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2203-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y- ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@1991) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@96@1991&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2014
S.O. 2203.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/1991)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 01/08/2014.
[No. L-22012/96/1991- IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present:
SRI PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 31 OF 1991
Parties: The management of Jaykaynagar (R) Colliery of
M/s. ECL,
Vs.
Sri Bhairo Hela & 13 others
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5665
For the union (Workman) :
Sri S. Mukherjee, Ld.
Advocate
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated – 15.07.14
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/
96/91-IR(CM-II) dated 29.07.1991 has been pleased to refer
the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
Jaykaynagar (R) Colliery under Satgram Area of
M/s. E.C.L. in not taking the following 14 workmen
on permanent roll of the company as sweepers, was
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen
are entitled and from what date?”
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/96/
91-IR(CM-II) dated 29.07.1991 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 31 of
1991 was registered on 07.08.1991 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list
of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of
the said order notices by the registered post were sent to
the parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record, I find that my
predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) of
this Tribunal had reserved an award in this case because
the workman despite several opportunities neither
appeared nor filed his evidence on affidavit. It seems that
the workman has lost all its interest to proceed with the
case further. As such the case is closed and accordingly
an order of “No Dispute” award is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as “No
Dispute” existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful
information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2204-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y- ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@1996) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@10@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2014
S.O. 2204.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/1996)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 01/08/2014.
[No. L-22012/10/1996- IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present:
Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 47 OF 1996
Parties: The management of Kendra Colliery of
M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Jogendra Mondal
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman) :
None
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated – 15.07.14
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/
10/96-IR(C-II) dated 19.11.96 has been pleased to refer the
following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of the
Kendra Colliery, Pandaveshwar Area of M/s. ECL,
PO: Pandaveshwar, Distt. Burdwan (W.B.) in
5666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dismissing Sh. Jogendra Mondal, Timber Mazdoor
w.e.f. 24.03.92 is justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/10/
96-IR(C-II) dated 19.11.96 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 47 of
1996 was registered on 26.11.96 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list
of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of
the said order notices by the registered post were sent to
the parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record, I find that my
predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) of
this Tribunal had reserved for award in this case because
the workman was neither appearing nor taking any step
since 09.12.2009 despite registered notice. I also find no
reason to keep this old record pending as the workman is
not taking any step since long. As such the case is closed
and accordingly an order of “No Dispute” award is hereby
passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as “No
Dispute” existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful
information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2205-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fVLdks fyfeVsM
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2004)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012@182@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2205.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 20/2004) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Tisco Ltd.
and their workman, received by the Central Government
on 04/08/2014
[No. L-20012/182/2003- IR (C-I)]
M. K.SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT
DHANBAD
Present:
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d)
of the I.D.Act.,1947.
REFERENCE NO 20 OF 2004
Parties :
The Gen.Secretry,
Colliery Karmchri Sangh, at Nunudih,
PO : Patheridih, Dhanbad.
Vs.
General Manager (Collieries)
M/s. TISCO Ltd.
At PO : Jamadoba, Dhanbad.,
Ministry’s Order No.L-20012/182/2003-IR(C-I)
dt.24.12.2003.
Appearances :
On behalf of the workman/:
Mr. A.D. Choudhary, Union
Union
Rep.-cum-Ld.Advocate
On behalf of the
:
Mr D. K. Verma,
Management
Ld. Advocate.
State Jharkhand
:
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th June, 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-20012/182/2003-IR(C-I) dt.24.12.2003.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of
Bhelatand Colliery of M/s. Tisco in dismissing Sri
Nirmal Mahato w.e.f. 25.10.2002 from the services of
the company is fair and justified? If not, to what
relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/182/2003-IR(C-I)
dt.24.12.2003 of the above mentioned reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5667
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference
Case No.20-2004 of was registered on 12.01.2004 and
accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue
notices through the Registered Posts to the parties
concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the
date fixed, and to file their written statements along with
the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,
notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties
concerned.
Both the parties made their appearances and filed
their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The
Union and the O.P./Management through their
Representatives/Advocate, and contested the case,
respectively.
2. The case of the sponsoring Colliery Karmchari
Sangh for workman Nirmal Mahato is that when he went
to mark his attendance for his work in ‘B’ Shift on 12.06.02,
he was not allowed to do so as per the instruction of the
Personal Officer, Manik Sinha as told by the Clerk Rai.As
the Personnel Officer was not present on that day. On his
visit to the Personnel Officer, Manik Sinha, on the following
13th June, 2002, Mr. Sinha directed him to manipulate the
land of Plot No.531 with his brother Nilkanth Mahato,
otherwise no permission to mark his attendance, and he
would face ultimate action. Similarly, Manager
L.S.Diwakaran had threatened him to give the plot to the
company on one month prior to the issuance of the charge.
The charge dt.13.06.02 issued to him on 17.06.02 related
to the presence of the workman at the plot of altercation
on the said plot land at 8.00 a.m. as stated by Sri A.N.
Sarkar, and to stopping of the Company’s work along with
the workman and then the land plot belonged to the
Company simultaneously, he was suspended w.e.f.
13.06.02.Though it was imposed on 12.06.2002 without
any reason, the subsistence allowance Rs.7,2000- at one
time was paid on 2.9.2002.The charge is absolutely
baseless against him.When the Management’s all tricky
plans even with one factor of conflict between both
separate brothers to acquire the said plot land in
collusion failed, the workman was dismissed as per the
letter dt.22/23.10.2002 w.e.f. 25.10.2000 based on the
perverse and prejudiced enquiry report. The enquiry was
quite illegally, as no copy of enquiry proceeding or
statement along with second show cause was supplied to
him, resulting him of deprivation of proper opportunity
for a complete reply. The workman was taken into service
in place of the Land of Sijua Khata No.38, but the plot
No.531 of Khata No.2 of Bhelatand in which he has no
share belongs to his brother Nilkanth Mahato.If the plot
of land belonged to the company why management
unsucceeded in building its stowing plant, but it had to
dismantle /destroy the quarters, and then built the plant.
The action of the management in dismissing the workman
is not justified. He is entitled to reinstatement in service
with full back wages and all due benefits.
3. The Union Representative in the rejoinder for the
workman has specifically denied the allegations of the
O.P./Management, and stated that the workman had got
the service in lieu of the 2.03 Acres land under Khata No. 38
at Sijua Mauza but in the present land in issue, there are
numerous disputes still pending between Sri Nilkanth
Mahato and the TISCO Management, whose several claims
rejected by the Court. Since the signature drawn on duress
and the witnesses of the workman were disallowed by the
Enquiry Officer, the enquiry was itself defective and
malafide. Earlier the workman was issued a letter of the
charge instructing him to fill up the “Goaf” in other persons’
lands which did not belong to the Company. The charge
was dropped and no enquiry was conducted into the
charge dt. 31.3.2001 for not allowing the instruction of
Sri A. K.Thakur on 17.05.2001.The present charge with
suspension also refers to Sri A.K.Thakur, along with
Sri Manik Sinha, L. S. Diwakaran, Sri Sanak Ghosh and
several others Authorities involved in directing the
workman for manipulation of the plot land of his brother.
4 Whereas categorically denying all the allegation
of the workman, the pleaded case of the O.P./Management
is that the industrial dispute raised by the Union concerned
without its locus standi is unmaintainable.On 16.12.2002,
the workman concerned forcibly stopped the company’s
work at Plot No.531 at Bhelatnd Mauza.The above act of
the workman amounted to the misconduct causing the
damage to work in progress of the Company under the
clause 19(9) of the Company’s Certified Standing Orders.
He was issued the chargesheet as per the charge sheet
dt.13.06.2002 for his misconduct. He also submitted his
reply dt.20.06.2002 to it. Finding the reply of the workman
unsatisfactory, the Management constituted the
departmental enquiry, by appointing the Enquiry Officer
to hold it as per the principle of natural justice. After
accordingly conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report, by holding the charges established
against the workman beyond reasonable doubts. On
overall consideration of the charge sheet, reply, enquiry
proceeding and enquiry report, the Management dismissed
the workman w.e.f. 25.10.2002. Permission sought by the
O.P./Management to prove the enquiry on merits, if it was
decided as unfair at the preliminary issue.
The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has
categorically denied all the legations of the workman as
baseless and incorrect, and stated that the workman was
given full opportunity for his defence; the enquiry report
is based on evidence.
FINDING WITH REASONS
5. In the present reference, on consideration of the
materials produced by the O.P./Management at the
preliminary issue, the Tribunal as per the Order No.26
dt.07.2.12 has held the domestic enquiry fair and legal in
accordance with the principle of natural justice. So it
5668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
directly came upon for hearing the final, argument of both
the parties on merits.
Mr. A. D. Choudhary,the Union Representative cum
Ld.Advocate for the Union/workman as per his written
argument as well submits that workman Nirmal Mahato
was given the service in M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. in lieu of the
Land given to it measuring 2.03 acres under Khata No.38
of Sijua Mauza in the year 1992, but he was issued the
chargesheet by the Management for his alleged forceful
stopping the company’s work at Plot No.531 Bhelatand
Mauza from 12.6.2002 amounting to a misconduct of
causing damage to work in progress of the Company under
clause 19(9) of the Company’s Certified Standing Order;
simultaneously with his suspension, during the workman
also submitted his reply on 20.6.2002 (Ext.M.2) that the
land of said plot was not his, rather it was in the share of
his Nilkanth Mahato who was separate; on the enquiry
report of the Enquiry Officer concerned holding the charge
levelled as established against the workman (Ext. M.3)
after the enquiry. The workman also represented his
aforesaid status in respect of the disputed plot which was
claimed by his Brother Nilkanth Mahato who was separate
from his all along (his reply to the 2nd Show Cause Extts.
M.7 & 6 respectively).Even then the workman was
dismissed from the service as per letter dt.22/23.10.2002 of
the Management (M.8) which was very harsh in view of
the nature of alleged misconduct. Mr.Choudhary has
emphatically submitted that his dismissal appears to be
quite illegal, arbitrary and motivatedly. So it is liable to be
set aside and the workman be reinstated with all the
benefits and full back wages.
On the other side, M.D.K.Verma, the Ld.Advocate
of the O.P./Management has contended that the plot
No.531 belongs to Sri Nilkanth Mahato, his brother
workman prevented the work in the progress of the
Management so the misconduct was serious in nature,
and accordingly he has been rightly awarded with the
punishment of his dismissal by the Management for his
misconduct.
On the perusal of the materials available on the case
record, it appears that the workman has been punished for
his alleged preventive action in the work progress of the
Management over the disputed of his brother. The
employment of the work by the management in lieu of his
2.03 acres land of Mauza Sijua under Khata No.38 is also
beyond dispute but the nature of misconduct for his
alleged preventive act of the workman over the disputed
plot appears to be not so serious as to warrant him his
dismissal from his service out right It smacks a malafide
motivation towards the workman clearly. The punishment
of dismissal to the workman for his minor misconduct is
quite disproportionate to the nature of his alleged
aforesaid misconduct. It is liable to set aside.
Considering all the aforesaid factors of the reference,
it is hereby responded and accordingly awarded in the
reference that the action of Management of Bhelatand
Colliery of M/s. Tisco in dismissing Sri Nirmal Mahato
w.e.f. 25.10.2002 from the services of Company is quite
unfair and unjustified. Hence, the workman concerned is
entitled to reinstatement in his service with 50% back
wages and its other benefits.
The O.P./Management is directed to implement the
order within one month from the receipt of the Award
following its publication in the Gazette of India by the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
New Delhi.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2206-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y- ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 54@1998) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012@459@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/1998)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. ECL and their workman,
received by the Central Government on 04/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/459/1996- IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2),
AT DHANBAD.
Present:
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.
REFERENCE No. 54 OF 1998
Parties :
Shri Md. Anawarul Hodda,
Secreatry, Rastriya Koyla Mazdoor Congress,
Rajmahal Area, Lalmatia, Godda.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5669
Vs.
General Manager
Rajmahal Area of ECL,
PO:Lalmatia, Distt: Godda.,
Ministry’s Order No.L-20012/459/96-IR(Coal-I)
dt.11.03.1998.
Appearances :
On behalf of the workman/
:
None
Union
On behalf of the Management :
Mr Amarjeet Kumar
Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dhanbad, dated the 19th June, 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-20012/459/96-IR(Coal-I) dt.11.03.1998.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of E. C. L. Management of in
delaying absorption of Shri Dinbandhu Pandit & 84
others in Category III (Excavation Grade- D) from
the initial date of appointment is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are
entitled to and from which date?”
Neither any Representative for the Rastriya Colliery
Mazdoor Congress,Godda nor any workman Dinbandhu
Pandit & 84 others appeared nor any witness on their
behalf produced. Mr.Amarjeet Kumar, Ld. Advocate for
the O.P./Management presents.
The perusal of the case record reveals that the case
has been all along pending for the appearance of the Union
Representative of the workmen. In the reference, there
was no list of the workmen for their claim of absorption in
Cat.III (Excavation Gr.III) so it has been also pending for
awaiting the list of the workmen from the Ministry of labour,
Government of India, New Delhi , for which despite repeated
reminders no list of workmen could be furnished nor the
Union Representative appeared and produced any witness
on behalf of the workmen pending since 13.3.2008.
Under these circumstances, the Union Representative
as well as the workmen by their conducts appear to be
reluctant in pursuing their case for finality. Hence the case
is closed as’ No Industrial dispute’ existent between both
the parties. Accordingly an order of ‘No Industrial Dispute’
Award is passed.
KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2207-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;u ,vj
ykbZUl fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
255@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
04@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20013@02@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2207.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 255/
2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-
II, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Indian Air
Lines Ltd. and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 04/08/2014.
[No. L-20013/02/2014- IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present:
Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated this the 13th day of May, 2014.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 255/2004.
Between:
Sri V. Viswanatham,
S/o Late Velayudham
R/o 3-5-480, Vittalvadi,
Narayanaguda
Hyderabad-500 029.
...Petitioner
And
1.
Chairman and Managing Director,
Indian Air Lines Ltd., Head Quarters,
New Delhi.
5670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Commercial Director,
Indian Air Lines Ltd.,
113, Gurudwara, Rakubgunj Road,
New Delhi.
3.
The Regional Director,
Indian Air Lines Ltd.,
Southern Region, Air Lines House,
Meenam Bakam, Channai-600 027.
4.
The Commercial Manager,
Indian Air Lines Ltd., Southern Region,
Airlines House, Meenabakam,
Chennai – 600 027.
5.
The Manager ( Personal Services),
Indian Airlines, Begumpet,
Hyderabad.
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. V.Narasimha Goud, E. V.
Laxmi & E. Baburao, Advocates
For the Respondent :
M/s. K. Srinivas Murthy, V.
Umadevi, G.Praveen Kumar & J.
V. Prasad Advocates
AWARD
This is a petition filed by Sri V.Viswanadham, the
workman, invoking Section 2-A (2) of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 seeking for setting aside the order
of removal from service dated 19/20-10-1992 passed
by the 4th respondent which was confirmed by the 3rd
Respondent vide order dated 13/14-12-1993, as illegal
unjust and arbitrary consequently directing the
Respondents to reinstate the workman in service and to
grant consequential benefits including back wages.
2. The averments made in the petition in brief are
as follows :
The workman joined in service of Respondent
Organization on 17-5-1985 as loader and continuously
worked till he was removed from service by 4th Respondent
i.e., on 19/20-10-1992 on untenable grounds. The last drawn
basic by him was Rs.1,040-. While he working as loader
under the control of Station Manager, Hyderabad Air Port
in the month of December, 1991, the said Station Manager
served a memo on him on 18-12-1991 alleging that he ran
away from the spot when the Officer has asked him to
proceed to duty on 12-9-1991, not signed the Attendance
Register at the closure of duty and also that he refused to
give a statement at about 18-30 hours on 12-9-1991 and
did not respond to the letter dated 13-9-1991 to meet the
Senior Security Officer and that the same would constitute
misconduct under the standing orders. On 12-11-1991
workman’s Cousin came to see him to invite him to his
wedding which was take place on 18-11-1991, they were
talking about the marriage arrangements near the parking
place of the Aircraft Trolley and Scooter. While so one
Security Officer Assistant by name Sri D.S. Rao, insulted
the workman in the presence of his cousin stating, “how
they were near the Baggage”. The workman explained
stating that other security personnel were allowed to Rome
Air Port Jeep in terrace near and a prone area since then he
developed grudge against the workman which resulted
into present proceedings. The entire charges are a measure
of victimization. The items referred in the charges how
fallen from the card board boxes in the bulk hold and
workman has given them to Sri Sazid Khan informing him
about the same and requesting him to acknowledge to the
said effects. The said items were also displayed and on
showing identification concerned passenger was
allowed to claim by the security officer and the items
were handed over by the Security Officer without taking
any statement from him. On this issue Sri J.
Satyanarayana has become serious over Sri Sazid Khan
to avoid complication. Sri Sazid Khan has implicated the
workman in this case by fabricating the passenger’s
statement after lapse of 5 months. In regard to non
tendering of statement the workman requested for giving
him in writing about the statement, but the same was not
given. It is well established in mandatory practice when
ever any luggage of the passenger was stolen to note of
which in the log book on the complaint of respective
passenger. In this case since there was no complaint from
the passenger, there is no entry in the log book. The entire
charges are based on untenable and unbelievable grounds.
Hence, the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated.
However an enquiry was ordered appointing one Sri Sunil
Kishan, the Asst. Commercial Manager, as enquiry officer.
The work made a protest against the appointment of the
said enquiry officer since he got no faith that the said
would conduct fair enquiry, as he is Officer bearer of
Officers’ Association of Indian Air Lines. But, it was
rejected. The enquiry officer has no appreciated the
evidence given by the Management witnesses as well
as defence witnesses properly and has submitted the
report holding the workman guilty of the charges. His
report is basing on hearsay evidence. The passenger
has been examined to prove that his luggage was
pilfered. 4th Respondent without giving any opportunity
on the enquiry procedure and findings of the enquiry to
the workman came to the conclusion that the workman is
responsible for the charges. It amounts violation of
principals of natural justice. However, the workman
submitted his explanation explaining the mitigative
circumstances, but in vain. The impugned Order of
Removal from service has been passed in obituary manner.
The workman preferred an appeal against the same when
4th Respondent refused to reconsider the matter when
requested for. The said mercy appeal has not been
answered in spite of repeated requests and also a
comprehensive letter come review dated 17-09-1994
addressed to the 4th Respondent as well as Respondents
1 and 2. Hence, the petition.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5671
3. The averments made in the counter filed by the
Respondents in brief are as follows:-
The workman who was working as loader in the
Commercial Dept. of Indian Air Lines Ltd. at Hyderabad
Air Port had committed a serious misconduct of theft of
some items from the Registered baggage of an International
Passenger who arrived at Hyderabad by flight A1-806 of
13-9-1991 from Riyadh. The passenger by name Sri Attar
Khaja Khan who traveled by the same flight had handed
over baggage for carriage before he had boarded the Air
Craft. The said baggage along with registered baggage of
other passenger was loaded in bulk load container and
was carried in the Air Craft. When the Air Craft landed at
Hyderabad, the workman who was on duty near the Aircraft
entered the passenger bulk load container and took out a
coat from a Card Board box by forcibly opening it. This
fact was witnessed by Sajid Khan, Security guard who
was on duty near the Air Craft. He caught the workman
red-handedly and made a search of the person of workman
and found one Torch Light and one bed sheet in side the
coat. On recovering the said stolen items from the workman,
the said security guard took the workman along with him
to the passengers bulk load container and asked the
workman to show him the box from which he has stolen
the said items. The time then was early hours of 13.9.1991.
The customs officials who were on duty at the Airport
were also present then. When the workman asked to give
his statement regarding the incident he ran away from the
spot when he again came to the office at 18-30 hours on
13-9-1991 he was again advised to give a statement
regarding the incident, he refused to do so. The passenger
who had lost the items subsequently identified the same
when displayed before the passenger and also has given
a statement to the effect that a bed sheet, one torchlight
and one coat were stolen from the cardboard box belonging
to him. When the said items were restored to him he
received them and also requested the management to take
action against the person who had stolen the things. The
averments made by the petitioner contra to the incident
happened are all false. He made an attempt to confuse the
matter by narrating various things, which are not
connected to the misconduct alleged against him. When
the charge memo was issued against the workman alleging
the misconduct under the standing orders 1, 16(4), 16(13)
and 16(29), he sought for personal hearing vide letter dated
4-3-1992. He was accorded permission for the personal
hearing by the competent authority advising him to appear
before the Station Manager at 11 hours on 28-4-1992. After
giving personal hearing and considing his pleadings the
competent authority decided to order for an enquiry and
appointed Sri Sunil Kishan, the Asst. Commercial Manager
as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has given ample
opportunity to the workman to defend his case through
out the enquiry proceedings. He was permitted to take the
assistance a friend also during the enquiry. One T.R.
Hemanth Kumar, Traffic Superintendent assisted the
workman. The workman was given opportunity to cross
examine all the managing witnesses and to examine defence
witnesses. He was allowed to verify the documents filed
by the management. The enquiry was conducted in fair
manner complying the Principles of Natural Justice. On
fair analysis of evidence adduced on record the Enquiry
Officer has given the report finding the workman guilty of
misconduct under standing orders 1, 16(4), 16(13) and
16(29). The Contra Allegations by the workman are not
correct. The workman was issued with a show cause notice
dated 12-8-1993 proposing to impose the punishment of
removal from service in view of gravity of misconduct
proved against him. The workman has requested for
extension time for giving reply and subsequently gave his
reply vide letter dated 10-9-1993. The competent authority
considered the same and also considered the past conduct
of the workman and imposed the punishment of removal
from service vide proceedings dated 20-10-1993. A
reference relating to Air Corporation Employees Union
which was representing the workman was pending before
the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai and a approval
application was filed by the management u/s 33 (2) (b) of
Industrial Dispute Act before the said form seeking for
approval for the action taken by the management
removing the workman from service. The National
Industrial Tribunal decided to hold hearing at Hyderabad
to facilitate the workman and issued notices to him. The
said Tribunal has given full opportunity to the work in the
said proceedings and delivered judgment on 4-5-1994
according approval to the action of management in
removing the workman from service after holding Dept.,
enquiry. While so, the National Industrial Tribunal has
arrived at independent conclusion that the charged levelled
against the workman were most serious and that the
penalty imposed on him cannot be considered as harsh
disproportionate. The workman has made false allegations/
averments in his petition in the present proceedings. When
the matter has been raised before the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) for consideration. The Asst.
Labour Commissioner passed an order on consideration
all the facts that the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai
has conducted a full trail of the case and passed an order
upholding termination order of management and thus no
further intervention is required from the Conciliation Officer
and closed the matter. Thereafter the workman has
preferred an appeal against the order of punishment. The
appellate authority duly considered the same and rejected
it vide a speaking order dated 14-12-1993. The matter
does not deserve any further consideration. Petition is
not justified and is liable to the dismissed.
4. After hearing both the workman and Management
regarding the validity of domestic enquiry vide order dated
3-4-2013 this court held that the domestic enquiry
conducted in this case is valid.
5672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. Heard the arguments either party u/s 11(A) of
Industrial Dispute Act,1947.
6. The points that arise for determination are :-
I. Whether the order of removal from service dated
20-10-1993 passed by the 4th Respondent and
which was confirmed by the 3rd Respondent is
liable to be set a side ? If so on what grounds?
II. To what relief the workman is entitled to?
7. Point No.I:- the Charges levelled against the
workman are theft of articles belonging to the Airlines
Passenger and thus fraud and dishonest behavior as well.
These are very grave charges. A departmental enquiry
has been duly conducted in this case since as already
observed above, after due enquiry, this court found that
the Departmental enquiry conducted in this case is valid.
After giving due opportunity and applying the principles
of natural justice, the Departmental enquiry has been
conducted. The workman has utilized the opportunity
given to him by cross examining all the management
witnesses and also examining his own witnesses, taking
the assistance of one of his colleagues.
8. As can be gathered from enquiry report, the
enquiry officer has considered the entire evidence placed
before him in proper perspective and gave well reasoned
findings. Various circumstances like the workman leaving
the work place after the incident and his not signing out
the attendance register after his duty on 13-9-91 and the
workman avoiding to give written statement inspite of
asking him to give the same time and again are also well
considered. The consistent and corroborative evidence
of material witnesses in this case also has been duly
considered. The flimsy grounds of the defence raised by
the workman were duly discarded. The enquiry report is
well balanced and well reasoned report. The motives
attributed to the security guard and others by the workman
which are not substantiated, clearly show that the
workman is trying to wriggle out of the situation some
how or other and for this purpose he is not hesitating to
make grave allegations against the material witnesses and
also the enquiry officer unscrupulously.
9. Thus the disciplinary authority cannot be and
need not be find fault with for accepting the finding of the
enquiry officer. Further the records shows that while
considering the enquiry report, the workman has been
given due opportunity to make his submission. Even
regarding the punishment proposed, an opportunity has
been given to the workman to have his say. The
Disciplinary Authority, while taking decision, has duly
considered all his pleadings.
10. As far as the punishment of dismissal from
service, awarded to the workman by the Disciplinary
authority and which has been confirmed by the appellate
authority and which has been approved by the National
Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, is certainly not a
disproportionate punishment to the proven charges
against the workman. Considering the fact that the proven
charges against the workman make out the dishonest
conduct of the workman which involved moral turpitude,
an organization like Indian Air Lines Ltd., who is to function
upkeeping the faith the public got in them, cannot be find
fault with for dispensing with the services of such a
workman. As already held above, the punishment awarded
is not at all disproportionate to the charges proved against
the workman.
11. In view of the foregone discussion it can safely
be held that the order of removal of the workman from
service dated 20-10-93 which has been confirmed by the
Appellate Authority and approved by the National
Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, does not warrant any
interference and thus it is to be confirmed.
This point is answered accordingly.
12. Point No.II: - In view of the finding given in
point No.1 above, the workman is not entitled for any of
the relief sought for.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result:-
In the result, petition is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by L.D.C.-cum-Typist and
correct by me on this the 13th day of May, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the Petitioner
the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2208-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-
,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 75@2012)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012@70@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5673
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2208.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 75/2012) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/70/2012- IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
Present:
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.
REFERENCE NO. 75 OF 2012.
Parties :
The Gen. Secretary,
United Coal Workers Union,
P. C. Road, Gandhi Nagar, Dhanbad.
Vs.
General Manager,
Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL,
PO : Kusunda, Dhanbad.
Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/70/2012-IR (CM-I)
dt.16.10.2012.
Appearances :
On behalf of the Workman/
:
None
Union
On behalf of the
:
Mr. U. N. Lal,
Management
Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th June, 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-20012/70/2012-IR (CM-I) dt.16.10.2012.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of
Gondudih Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not paying the
IR. @ 15% for the period from 1.7.2006 to March,
2008 in respect of Sri Basdeo Singh, Ex-Mining Sirdar
is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman
concerned entitled?”
2. Neither the Union Representative for the United
Coal Workers Union, Dhanbad, nor workman Basdeo Singh
appeared nor any documents filed on his behalf since long
despite three Regd.Notices dt. 27.1.2014, 12.3.2014 and
02.05.2014 issued for it. Mr. U. N. Lal, Ld.Counsel for the
O.P./Management is present and submits that all the
differences of wages etc. for the period from July, 2006 to
June, 2008 as per the Chart dt. 12.1.2009 have been paid to
the workman who had retired. The differences of wages
also include I. R. (Interim Relief) from April to June, 2008
July paid to him.
Perused the case record, I find that the present
Reference relates to the claim of workman for payment of
I.R.@ 15% from 1.7.2006 to March, 2008 which seems to
be satisfied as per the chart of the Management for the
workman specifying the payment of due I.R. upto June,
2008. Under these circumstances, it stands clear that no
Industrial Dispute exists. Hence, the case is closed as No
Industrial Dispute existing. Accordingly an order of No
Industrial Dispute existent is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2209-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-
,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 63@2012)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012@111@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2209.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2012)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/111/2011- IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
5674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 63 OF 2012.
Parties :
The Vice President,
Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Vihar Building,
Jharia (Dhanbad).
Vs.
General Manager,
Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL,
PO: Kusunda, Dhanbad.
Ministry’s Order No.L-20012/111/2011-IR (CM-I)
dt. 06.09.2012.
Appearances :
On behalf of the Workman/Union :
None
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. S. N. Ghosh,
Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th June, 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-20012/111/2011-IR (CM-I) dt. 06.09.2012.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda
Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing employment
to Shri Kapildeo Buia, the dependant son of Late
Sahdeo Bhuia under the provisions of NCWA ( after
a lapse of more than 18 years from the date of death)
is fair and justified? To what relief Sri Kapildeo Bhuia,
the dependant son of Late Sahdeo Bhuia is entitled?”
2. Neither any Advocate nor Union Representative
for the Janta Mazdoor Sangh nor petitioner Kapil Deo
Bhuia, the dependant son Late Sahdeo Bhuia, appeared
nor any written statement with any document filed on his
behalf despite three Regd Notices. Similarly Mr. S.N.
Ghosh, Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Management not
appeared.
Perused the case record. I find that the case has
been all along pending for filing of written statement with
the document on behalf of the petitioner who has sought
for his employment right from the very beginning, i.e.,
since 7th Sept, 2012..Though three Regd. Notices dt.
30.10.2012, 08.04.2013 and 18.01.2014 were issued to the
Vice President of the Union concerned on his address
noted in the reference itself, no response from either of
the Union Representative or the petitioner himself. The
Union Representative and the petitioner by their own
conducts seem to be quite reluctant/unwilling to pursue
the case for finality. So there is no longer any Industrial
dispute existent for the aforesaid reason. Hence the case
is closed and an accordingly an order of “No Industrial
Dispute” existing is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2210-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-
,y- izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
101@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
04@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012@102@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2210.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-
II, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/102/2012- IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2)
AT DHANBAD
Present:
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.
REFERENCE NO. 101 OF 2013
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5675
Parties :
The Executive Member,
Jharkhand Colliery Sharmik Union,
Vinod Market, Near Randhir Verma Chowk,
Dhanbad.
Vs.
General Manager
Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL,
PO: Kusunda, Dhanbad.,
Ministry’s Order No.L-20012/102/2012-IR (CM-I)
dt.01.03.2013.
Appearances :
On behalf of the workman/Union :
None
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr U. N. Lal Ld.
Advocate
State : Jharkhand Industry
:
Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th June, 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-20012/102/2012-IR (CM-I) dt. 01.03.2013.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda
Area of M/s. BCCL in not providing employment to
Smt.Laxmi Devi, dependnt wife of Late Ram Gopal
Yadav under the provisions of NCWA is fair and
justified? If not, to what relief Smt.Laxmi Devi,
dependant wife of late Ram Gopal Yadav is entitled?”
2. Neither any Representative for the Jharkhand
Colliery Sharmik Union nor petitioner Lakshmi Devi,
dependant wife of Late Ram Gopal Yadav appeared nor
any written statement along with any documents filed on
her behalf in spite of three Regd.Notices issued to the
Union concerned for it. But Mr.U.N Lal, Ld.Advocate for
the O. P./Management is present as usual.
On perusal of the case record, I find the case has
been pending all along for filing a written statement with
documents on behalf of the petitioner, for which three
Regd.Notices dt. 07.05.2013, 28.01.2013, and 14.03.2014
were issued to the Executive Member of the Union
concerned on his address noted in the reference itself, yet
no response came from the Union Representative or from
the petitioner herself. The very conducts of the Union
Representative as well as of the petitioner clearly indicate
that they are not willing to pursue the case for its finality.
Under these circumstances, I find no Industrial dispute as
bought by the Union concerned exists; so the case is
closed; and accordingly an order of ‘ No Industrial Dispute’
existent is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2211-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-
,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 46@2012)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012@152@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2211.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 46/2012) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
04/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/152/2011- IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2),
AT DHANBAD.
Present:
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d)
of the I.D.Act.,1947.
REFERENCE NO. 46 OF 2012
Parties :
The Executive Member,
Jharkhand Colliery Shramik Union,
Vinod Market, Near Randhir Verma Chowk, Dhanbad.
Vs.
General Manager
Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL,
PO : Kusunda, Dhanbad.
Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/152/2011-IR (CM-I)
dt.11.07.2012.
Appearances :
On behalf of the workman/Union :
None
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld.
Advocate
5676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 23rd June, 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-20012/152/2011-IR (CM-I) dt.11.07.2012.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Godhur
Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Badri Bhuia,
M/Loader from the services of the Company vide
Order dated 23.10.2006 is fair and justified? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled?’
2. Neither any Representative for the Jharkhand
Colliery Sharmik Union nor workman Badri Bhuia,
M/Loader appeared, nor written statement with documents
filed on his behalf despite four Regd. Notices to the Union
concerned for it. Mr D.K.Verma, the Ld.Advocate for the
O.P./Management is present as usual.
From the perusal of the case record, it stands clear
that the present case has all along been pending for filing
written statement with the documents on behalf of the
workman for which four Regd. Notices dt. 27.08.12,
15.4.2013, 21.01.2004 and lastly 11.03.2014 were issued to
the Union on the addresses noted in the reference itself.
The Union Representative and the workman by their
conduct appear to be quite uninterested or unwilling in
proceeding with the case which is related to the matter of
his dismissal as per the reference. In this circumsatances,
the case is closed as no Industrial Dispute existent; and
accordingly, an order of ‘ No Industrial Dispute’ existent
is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2212-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-
,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012@140@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2212.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
04/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/140/2002- IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2),
AT DHANBAD.
Present:
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under
Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.
REFERENCE NO. 37 OF 2003
Parties : Shri Churaman Bhuia At Chandmari Colliery,
PO : Dhansar, Dhanbad,
Vs.
Project Officer, Bhowra (S) Colliery, of M/s. BCCL,
PO : Bhowra, Distt: Dhanbad,
Ministry’s Order No.L-20012/140/02-IR(C-I) dt.11.9.2002
Appearances :
On behalf of the workman/Union : Mr. S. N. Goswami
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr U. N. Lal Ld.
Advocate
State : Jharkhand Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 13th June, 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-20012/140/02-IR(C-I) dt.11.9.2002.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Bhowra
(S) Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Churaman
Kumar Bhuia from service since 18.10.2000 is legal,
proper and justified? If not, what relief the workman
is concerned is entitled?”
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/140/02-IR(C-I)
dt.11.9.2002.of the above mentioned reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5677
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference
Case No.37-2003 of was registered on 22.05.2003 and
accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue
notices through the Registered Posts to the parties
concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the
date fixed, and to file their written statements along with
the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,
notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties
concerned.
Both the parties made their appearances and filed
their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The
Union and the O.P./Management through their
Representatives and the Joint Legal Adviser appeared in,
and contested the case, respectively.
2. The case of workman Churaman Kumar Bhuia as
stated in his written statement is that he was a permanent
M/Loader at Bhowra (South) Colliery under Bhowra Area
IX of M/s. BCCL since his employment on 01.09.1997. He
had unblemished record of his continuous service of long
tenure accordingly. As he was not allotted any Quarter/
House accommodation under the colliery, he used to come
to report for regular duty from Chandmari (Dhanbad) about
25 K.ms far away from the duty place. In course of his
employment, he fell ill of T.B., for which he had undergone
the treatment at Bhowra Colliery Hospital during the period
from 1997, so could not report for his duty for which he
remained suspended for some time, but thereafter, he
resumed on his duty till 02.02.2000.But due to his health
too bad, he could not report his duty on and form 3.3.2002,
as he had been under treatment of T.B. under Dr. A.K.
Singh till 6.2.2002.As per his letters dt. March 2, July 5, 11
Nov. 2000, Feb. 4, June 2, Dec.10, 2001 and Jan. 7, 2002, he
intimated of his inability to report his duty due to his ill
health and treatment. On recovery, the workman submitted
his Medical Certificate and requested the Management
for duty, but he was disallowed to résumé duty, and was
dismissed from the service of the Company w.e.f.
18.10.2000 for alleged unauthorized absentism from
03.02.2000 without any opportunity for defence and appeal.
Neither the charge sheet dt.11.7.2000 nor show Cause
Notice dt.14.9.2000 was served upon him by any Regd.
Post nor it was published in the local daily, nor any copy
of the enquiry proceeding supplied to him. Yet the ex-
parte enquiry was concluded adversely against him. The
Project Officer is neither the Appointing Authority nor the
Disciplinary Authority, so the dismissal letter dt.11.7.2000
issued by the Project Officer just as the charge sheet was
contrary to the Certified Standing Order and the Mines
Act 1952.The dismissal letter being void abinitio is liable
to be set aside. He had not lost his lien on his employment.
In that regard, as per the decision of the central
Consultative Committee of M/s. BCCL, Koyla Bhawan on
30.04.1994, the case of the dismissed workman may be
taken back in employment after reconsideration. Besides,
his dismissal by the Management from 18.10.2000 without
complying with mandatory provision under Sec.25 F of
the I.D.Act. 1947 is illegal, so the workman is legally entitled
to reinstatement in his service with full back wages, as the
punishment of his dismissal is quite perverse and
shockingly disproportionate to the nature of his
misconduct. The action of the Management in dismissing
him is unjustified.
The workman in his rejoinder has specifically denied
the allegations of the O.P./Management.
3. Whereas categorically denying all the allegations
of the workman, the case of the O.P./Management is that
workman Churaman Kumar Bhuia, Ex-M/Loader was a
permanent employee of Bhowra (S) Colliery. But he was
issued the charge sheet dt.11.7.2000 for his unauthorized
absence, misconduct under clause 26.1.1. of the Certified
Standing Order of the Company. Consequent upon the
appointment of Sri R.D.Tripathy, Dy.P.M. as the Enquiry
Officer and Sri Rameshwar Singh as the Management
Representative as per the Office letter dt.13..7.2000 of the
Manager concerned, despite several dates fixed for enquiry,
the workman did not appear in it, so the Enquiry Officer
had decided to hold the enquiry ex parte on 6.09.2000
wherein the statements were recorded in presence of the
presenting Officer, who had also submitted the last 3 years
Attendance of the workman: 24,95 and 84 days in the years
1997-99 respectively. Previously the workman was issued
a charge sheet for his unauthorized absence from
17.08.1998 and after enquiry, he was allowed to resume his
duty from 29.12.1998 with a warning subject to the approval
of the competent Authority. Accrdingly, he was also
punished with stoppage of one SPRA for his another
unauthorized absence from 16.081999 after due enquiry.
After due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his
enquiry report, holding the charge fully established against
the workman. Upon the Second Show-Cause as per the
letter dt.14.9.2000, the Disciplinary authority decided to
impose the penalty of dismissal on the wokman. In result
he was dismissed from the service of the company as per
the Order dt.18.10.2000 after its due approval of the General
Manager, so the action of the Management in dismissing
the workman is just, and legal. The workman was a habitual
absentee as per his past records. So he is not entitled to
any relief.
The O.P./Managment in its rejoinder has
categorically denied the allegations of the workman.
FINDING WITH REASONS
4. In the instant reference, since Mr.S.N.Goswami,the
Learned Counsel for the Union/workman on 11.10.2011
has accepted the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the
Tribunal accordingly held the enquiry as fair, proper at
preliminary issue; and it directly came for hearing final
argument on merits.
5678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mr. S. N. Goswami, Ld. Advocate for the workman
as per written argument submits that the workman was a
permanent M/Loader of Bhowra (S) Colliery of M/s. BCCL
but due to his illness of T.B. and his long treatment for it
under Dr.A.K.Sinha from 3.2.2000 to 06.02.2002,he could
not report for his regular duty to the Management, as his
absentism was due to his prolonged illness beyond his
control, though he had intimated Management of his
inability to report his duty as per his representation (Extts.
W.1 series in five sheets).The Management did not allow
him to join his duty on his application along with the
Medical Fitness Certificate dt.6.1.2002 (Extt.M.1/6 and W.2)
respectively. Further it is also submitted that he was
dismissed from service of the company w.e.f. 18.12.2000
without providing him any opportunity for his defence or
appeal on the basis of ex parte enquiry .He was illegally
dismissed (Extt.W.3), and that the order of dismissal from
his service is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of
the misconduct. Absentism, so the workman is entitled to
reinstatement in his service with full back wages and other
reasonable benefits.
On the other hand, the contention of Mr. U. N. Lal
Ld. Counsel for the O.P./Management is that since the
workman was issued the charge sheet dt.11.7.2000 for his
unauthorized absentism w.e.f, 3.2.2000 (Ext.M.1)but when
he did not respond to any of the Enquiry Notices (Ext.M.4
series in three sheets), the domestic enquiry was ex parte
held by Sri R.D. Thripathy, Dy. Personnel Manager as the
Enquiry Officer in presence of Shri Rameshwar Singh as
Management Representative as per the office order
dt.13.7.2000 of the Manager (Ext.M.3) as per the enquiry
proceedings (Ext.M.5);the Representative of the
Management had also submitted the Attendance record
of the workman for the past three years 1997 to 1999 merely
his attendance 24, 95 and 84 days respectively before the
Enquiry Officer just as he was also earlier issued twice
charge sheets for his unauthorized absences w.e.f.
17.8.1998 and 16.8.1999, for which he was given warning
and the stoppage of SPRA respectively taking a lenient
view. The Enquiry Office submitted his enquiry report,
holding the charges as proved against him. The
Disciplinary Authority submitted his report (Ext.M.5).The
Disciplinary Authority issued the Show-Causes Notice
dt.14.9.2000 (Ext.M.6) to the workman with a copy of
Enquiry Report, but it also remained unresponded by the
workman. Taking into accounts all the facts and past
attendances of the workman, the Disciplinary authority as
per the Dismissal Order dt.18.10.2000 (Ext.M.8) rightly
awarded the workman with penalty of his dismissal for his
service which is just and proper; thus woman is not entitled
to any relief.
On perusal and consideration of the materials made
available by both the parties on the case record, I find the
following facts:
(1)The status of the workman as a permanent
M/Loader (MCL) at Bhowra (S) Colliery of the M/s. BCCL
is indisputable.
(2)Non- consideration of the two representations
of the workman duly under receipt on behalf of the
Management, Bhowra Colliery dt. 2.3.2000 and 5.7.2000
(Extt.W.1 and W.1/1 respectively) about his sickness and
his continued treatment by the Doctor prior to his charge
sheet dt.10.7.2000 for his absentism from 3.2.2000 as
contrasted with the consideration of the employer about
his past three years attendances for the year 1997,1999 is
nothing but a motivating factor of the Management
towards the workman. The penalty of dismissal as awarded
to the workman Churaman Kumar Bhuia appears to be to
harsh and disproportionate to the nature of misconduct
of absentism .So it is liable to be set aside in eye of law.
In result, it is hereby responded and accordingly
awarded in the terms of Reference that the dismissal of the
workman Churaman Kumar Bhuia w.e.f. 18.10.2000 by the
Management of Bhowra (S) Colliery of M/s. BCCL is neither
legal and nor proper nor just. Hence, the workman is entitled
to reinstatement in his services with 50% back wages and
its incidental benefits.
The O.P./Management is directed to implement the
order within a month from the date of its receipt following
its publication in the Gazette of India by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2213-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-
,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
5@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012@102@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2213.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2006)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
04/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/102/2005- IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5679
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. 05 OF 2006
Parties :
The Vice President,
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,
R/O Oam Bhawan,
VIP Colony, Dhanbad.
Vs.
The Project Officer,
Patherdih Colliery of
M/s. BCCL, PO; Patheridih,
Distt; Dhanbad.
Ministry’s Order No L-20012/102/2005-IR(C.I) dt.23.1.2006
Appearances :
On behalf of the workman/Union : Mr. P. N. Singh. Ld.
Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. S. Singh, Ld.
Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th June, 2014
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L-20012/
102/2005-IR(C.I) dt.23.1.2006.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Rastriya Colliery
Mazdoor Congress from the Management of BCCL,
Patherdih Colliey, that the pay of Sh.Bhuneshwar
Pandey upon grant of SLU w.e.f. 1.1.2002 be fixed at
Rs.7442/- instead of 7262/- is justified? If so, to what
relief is the workman entitled?”
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/102/2005-IR(C.I)
dt.23.1.2006 of the above mentioned reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference
Case No. 05 of 2006 was registered on 6th Feb.,2006 and
accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue
notices through the Registered Posts to the parties
concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the
date fixed, and to file their written statements along with
the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,
notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties
concerned.
Both the parties made their appearances and filed
their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The
Union and the O.P./Management through their own
Advocates appeared in, and contested the case.
2. The case of workman Bhuneshwar Pandey as
sponsored by the Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress
(RCMC) is that he is the Store Keeper at Patheridh Colliery,
Eastern Jharia Area of M/s. BCCL, Dist. Dhanbad. The 1st
January his been his usual annual increment date. The
employer has upgraded the workman to Tech.Grade ‘A”
pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2002 from the Spl.Gr. (Clerical) as per
the clause 2.11.1. of the NCWA VI,the bilateral agreement.
As per the Guide line of the I.I.No. 3 dt.14.08.1999 in respect
of the fixation of pay on upgradation (SLU) lays down:
“Upgradation does not mean fixation in the higher
scale with an increment as in the case of normal
promotion, but fixation only in the nearest stage in
the higher category/grade.”
The I.I.No.17 also lays down:
“Increment after up- gradation is to be granted on
the normal date due for the employees.”
The Basic pay of the workman fixed Rs.7262- in Tech
Grade A ought to have added with his due increment of
Rs.180/-for the total amount of his basic pay as Rs.7442-
w.e.f. 01.01.2002.But the Management wrongly fixed his
basic (On SLU along with the amount of the annual
increment) at Rs.7262 by causing recurring loss of Rs.180-
per month since 1.1.2002 resulting in the cumulative loss
in fitment of the wages as per the NCWA VIII till the date
since then. According to the revised rate of the basic of
the workman as on 1.1.2002 as per the prevailing NCWA
VIII enforced from 1.7.2001 would have been Rs.10, 897
(by fixation in tech G.’A” on account of SLU) and after
addition of annual increment Rs.235/-, his basic would
have been Rs.11, 114/- payable per month from 1.1.2002 to
31.12.2002. Thus the workman should have been paid his
basic rate per month during the calendar years 2002 to
2006 as stated in his written statement. On his occasional
protest letters of the workman to it, the employer
persistently refused to add his wrongly fixed basic pay at
Rs.7262 inclusive of the annual increment due on 1.1.2002,
voluntarily violating the mandatory provision under
Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The workman has
claimed for the relief of the payment of his due differences
of wages from 01.01.2002 till the date (subject to conversion
to the wage rate of NCWA-VII) with the compensation for
the monetary loss etc.
5680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Union Representative in the rejoinder for the
workman has denied all the allegations of the O.P./
Management specifically, accepting in its para 4" But the
mention of SLUs granted by the Management as per rules
are not denied.”
3. Whereas the contra case of the O.P./Management
is that the reference is unmaintainable in law and facts as
well. The past record of the workman is very bad. His
initial appointment on 8.8.1977 was as a clerk at Koyla
Bhawan.In the year, he was posted as a Store Keeper at
North Tisra Colliery under Lodna Area where he was
dismissed from service for the charge of theft etc. after
due departmental enquiry. He had raised an Industrial
Dispute as the reference No.71/1994, which resulted in
“No dispute Award” passed by the CGIT No.1, Dhanbad,
following a settlement on his request for his reinstatement
but without back wages in view of his family aspect and of
allowing him one chance to mend himself. After allowing
him duty, the Management sympathetically gave him his
due promotion upgrdation etc. so as to mend himself and
to be a good citizen. The workman was upgraded in special
Clerical Grade after completion of 10 years in Grade I
w.e.f.1.7.1993 under the Service Linked Upgradation
(SLU).He was again upgraded in T & S Grade ‘A ‘under
SLU w.e.f. 1.1.02.As the date of annual increment and that
of upgradation fell on the same day of Jan.1, 2002, the
fixation of his basic as per the rule accordingly was made
as under:
(a)
Basic pay under Spl. Gr. on 1.1.02(SLU)
Rs.7, 087.00
(b)
Add one increment as his Annual Increment
falls on 1.1.02 Rs.7, 257.00
(c)
By upgradation his basic pay fixed at
Rs. 7,362.00 (digit 3 typthographically wrongly
typed in place of 2 in hundredth)
The rule provides for one increment in the old rate,
then the promotional benefit of fitment at the coincidence
of both the dates of annual increment and promotion on
the same day of any workman. Thus the basic pay of the
concerned workman has been correctly fixed on
1.1.2002.He is not entitled to any further benefit on the
date. The case of the workman has no merits.
FINDING WITH REASONS
4. In the reference,WWI Bhuneshwar Pandey,the
workman himself as the Sr.Store Keeper,WW2 Babban
Singh,Retd.Employee of M/s. BCCL for the Union
concerned have been examined and cross examined by
the O.P./Management .But despite ample opportunity, no
Management could examine any witness on its behalf.
Mr. P. N.Singh, Learned Counsel for the workman as
per his written argument as well submits that workman
Bhuneshwar Pandey, a permanent workman of M/s.
BCCL,was posted as ‘Store Keeper’ at Patherdih
Colliery,E.J.Area of it, he was granted S.L.U. with his
upgrdation in Tech.Grade ‘A(Pay Scale) w.e.f. 01.01.2002
from his Grade /pay scale of “Spl” Grade (Clerical)
prevailing as on 31.12.2001 as per the office Order No.780
dt.30.3./1.4.2002 (neither filed nor proved, though Ext.W.1
refers to it) but as per the SLU Upgradation Basic Fixation
Chart dt.11.4.2002 (Ext.W.1),his basic was Rs.7,084 as per
31.12.2001 and basic pay Rs.7262 as on 1.1.02 without
adding his annual 1st increment in consonance with the
1.1.17 of the 4th JBCCI, resulting in his annually recurring
loss since then till then, so the workman is entitled to
fixation of his basic Rs.7442/- in place of Rs.7262 from
1.1.2002 as fixed by the O.P./Management in violation of
the said rule.
Further Mr. Singh, Learned Counsel for the workman,
has advanced his argument in favour of the workman that
the employee K.D.Roy under Sl.No.4 of the Fixation Chart
Clerk Gr.I on 31.12.2001 had basic Rs.6528,but on
upghradation,his basic pay was firstly fit to higher slab at
Rs.6577- and thereafter annual increment Rs.170- was
added to it rendering his final basic pay Rs. 6747 as evident
from the Fixation Chart (Ext.W.1).But the plea of the learned
Advocate appears to be based on misconception, as the
very chart clearly bears the correction of aforesaid higher
slab Rs.6,577- of Sri K.D,.Roy as Rs.6,747 as on 1.1.2002 as
his basic also as on 1.4.2002.The workman as S/Keeper
being in Gr.Spl.upgraded in T/S Gr.A with S.L.U. w.e.f.
1.1.2002 as on 31.12.2001 which on addition of Rs.175-
increment came to his fixed basic Rs7,262 as on 1.1.2002 as
also on 01.04. 2002 basically as per the Fixation Chart itself.
So far as the Implementation Instruction No.17
dt. 28.12.1989 is concerned, the basic of the workman as
Rs.7087 appears to have added with his increment Rs.170
(not old increment Rs.155 as alleged by him)resulting his
Fixed Basic Rs.7262/- as on 1.1.2002,also as basic as on
1.4.2003 since thereafter he had already been paid normal
increment of T/S Gr.A from 1.1.2003- Rs.180 per year under
SLU as evident from the O.P./Management’s comments
dt.9/8.3.2004 before the ALC©,Dhanbad in the Industrial
Dispute. It also reveals his previous upgradation in Clerical
Special Grade under SLU w.e.f. 1. 7.1993; he never raised
any such issue at the relevant time nor furnished any
reasonable and probable explanation to that effect. So the
Labour Court presumes the compliance of the I.I.No.17
then applicable to his case at the relevant time in view of
the common course of natural events under Sec.114 of the
Evidence Act. Moreover, the admission of the workman:
his reinstatement in service without back wages on account
of the settlement in his previous Ref.No.71/94 in the CGIT
-LC(1),Dhanbad, brought by him against his dismissal for
theft, and passing of the Award against him in his another
Ref.No.61/2004 by the present Tribunal-Labour Court
No..2, Dhanbad against his dismissal as well as for his
back wages and financial benefits- manifest the litigatious
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5681
attitude of the workman working on the brain child of an
experienced person for undue advantage for his self
without merits.
Considering the aforesaid facts, it is, in view of the
terms of the reference, hereby, awarded that the demand
of the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress from the
Management of BCCL, Patheridih Colliery, that the pay of
Shri Bhuneshwar Pandey upon grant of SLU w.e.f. 1.1.2002
be fixed at Rs.7, 442 instead of Rs.7,262 is totally unjustified.
So the workman is not at all entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2214-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks- ,u- th-
lh- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
33@1997) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@08@2014
dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&30012@31@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2214.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/
1997) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of ONGC and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 04/08/2014.
[No. L-30012/31/1996- IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 33 of 1997
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
O.N.G.C., Kolkata
A N D
Their workmen
Present:
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
:
Mr. S. K. Karmakar,
Management
Ld. Advocate.
On behalf of the
:
None
Workmen
State: West Bengal
Industry : Petroleum.
Dated : 22nd July, 2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-30012/31/96-IR(C-I) dated 14.08.1997
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of
its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC in
not enlisting and regularizing the services of Shri
Manik Chakraborty as a regular driver is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief is the workman
entitled?”
2. When the case is taken up today for hearing,
none appears on behalf of the union/workmen though the
management is represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears
from the record that previously the union appeared through
its Ld. Counsel.
3. Subsequently, notice was issued upon both the
parties and on receiving such notice management
appeared through its Ld. Counsel. But the notice in respect
of the union was returned unserved with an endorsement
“Left”. It is also surprising to note that the union before
leaving its office did not even consider it necessary to
intimate the Tribunal regarding the new address of its
office. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it
may reasonably be presumed that the union is not
interested about the case and does not want to proceed
with the instant reference case further. Perhaps the union
has no grievance against the management at present.
4. Considering the above facts and circumstances,
instant reference is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute
Award”.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Kolkata,
The 22nd July, 2014.
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2215-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-
,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012@98@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
5682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 9, 2014/SRAVANA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2014
S.O. 2215.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
04/08/2014.
[No. L-20012/98/2012- IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2)
AT DHANBAD
Present:
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act,1947.
REFERENCE NO. 18 OF 2013.
Parties :
The Area Secretary,
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,
Nithitpur Colliery Branch,
PO : Bansjora, Dhanbad.
Vs.
General Manager,
Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL,
PO : Sijua, Dhanbad.
Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/98/2012-IR(CM-I)
dt.08.01.2013
Appearances :
On behalf of the workman/Union : None
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D. K. Verma Ld.
Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dhanbad, the 3rd June, 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-20012/98/2012-IR(CM-I) dt. 08.01.2013.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Sijua
Area of M/s. BCCL in not promoting Sri Ramadhar
Singh in the post of Welfare Inspector is legal and
justified? To what relief is the workman concerned
entitled?”
None appeared for the Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor
Sangh nor workman Ramadhar Singh appeared nor any
written statement along with any documents filed on his
behalf.Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate for the O.P/
Management is present.
Perused the case record. The Reference relates to
an issue concerning promotion of the workman to the post
of Welfare Inspector. It reveals that neither the Union
Representative nor the workman ever appeared in the case
which has been pending for filing the Written statement
with the documents on behalf of the workman, for which
three Regd. Notices dt.2.4.2013, 19.09.2013 and 05.03.2014
were issued to the Area Secretary of the Union on the
address noted in the Reference itself. But till now none
appeared nor written statement on behalf of the workman
filed. The Union Representative and the workman by their
own conducts clearly appear to be reluctant in pursuing
the case for its final disposal. Hence it prima facie appears
that no Industrial Dispute exists. So the case is closed as
no Industrial dispute existent; accordingly an Order of No
dispute is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2014
dk-vk- 2216-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh MsoyiesaV
vFkkWfjVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2013)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@08@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&42011@160@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2014
S.O. 2216.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 15/2013) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Delhi,
now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
Delhi Development Authority and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 04/08/2014.
[No. L-42011/160/2012- IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 9] [email protected] 18] 1936
5683
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II,
DELHI
Present:
Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ID No. 15/13
Smt. Birmate W/o Late Sh. Kishan,
Through General Secretary,
Nagar Nigam Karmchari Sangh,
Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624, Sultanpuri,
Delhi.
Versus
Delhi Development Authority,
New Delhi.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No.L-42011/160/2012-(IR(DU) dated
25.02.2013 referred the following industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of DDA
in not providing compassionate appointment to
Smt. Birmati W/o Sh. Kishan, a regular Beldar is fair
and justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled for?"
On 05.04.2013 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 15/13 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of
witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant
Smt. Birmati not filed claim statement but management
instead of filing response filed written submissions.
Wherein it mentioned as follows :-
1.That the management received a notice of
appearance for 29.04.2014 from the Hon’ble Tribunal in
the above matter. That the management through its A/R
appeared and requested for supply of statement of claim
filed by workman. That the A/R for management appeared
on each hearing before the Hon’ble Tribunal but neither
the workman appeared nor filed any claim statement. It is
submitted that in the absence of claim statement the
Hon’ble Tribunal has directed the management to file
comments.
2. That as per section 10-B(1)&(2) of the Industrial
Dispute (Central) Rules 1957 “While referring an industrial
dispute for adjudication to a Labour Court, Tribunal or
National, the Central Government shall direct the party
raising the dispute to file a statement of claim complete
with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses
with the Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal within
fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference and
also forward a copy of such as statement to each one of
the opposite 3 parties involved in the dispute.?
3. That as per section 10-B (1) of the Industrial
Dispute (Central) Rules 1957 the workman has not filed
any claim statement before the Hon’ble Tribunal. Hence
the management is not able to file any comments/WS in
the absence of claim statement.
In view of above , the workman is not entitled for
any relief from the Hon’ble Tribunal and the present
dispute is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The
proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded further.
Hence proceeding of the case are liable to be dropped and
no dispute award is liable to be passed.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-17/07/2014
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.