4038 GI/2014
(6891)
dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;
(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2758-—fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e]
1946] (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /
kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
dsUnz ljdkj dsjy jkT; ljdkj x`g (,e) foHkkx] fr:ouariqje
dh lgefr ls fnukad 26 vizSy] 2014 dh vf/lwpuk th-vks-
(,e,l-) la- 80@2014@x`g ds rgr dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks dh
bZ&esy vkbZMh dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsjy fuoklh Jh lnkuanu ds
lkFk /ks[kk/M+h ls tqM+s vijk/ksa ds laca/ esa ekeyk ntZ djus ,oa
vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh
'kfDr;ksa ,oa U;k;kf/dkj {ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ dsjy jkT; ij
djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 228@23@2014&,ohMh&IIº
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 13th October, 2014
S.O. 2758.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25
of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department,
Thiruvananthapuram vide Notification G. O. (Ms.) No. 80/
2014/Home dated 26 April, 2014, hereby extends the powers
and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala to register
a case and to investigate the offences involved in the
cheating of Sh. Sadanandan, a resident of Kerala, using
the e-mail ID of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
[F. No. 228/23/2014-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 43]
ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 19—vDrwcj 25] 2014] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 27—dkfrZd 3] 1936
No. 43]
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 19—OCTOBER 25, 2014, SATURDAY/ASVINA 27—KARTIKA 3, 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
6892
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2759-—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;sa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, bEiQky fLFkr ef.kiqj mPp
U;k;ky; esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk (ds-v- C;wjks) }kjk tkap
fd, tk jgs ekeyksa vFkok muls mRiUu vU; ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu]
vihysa ,oa iqujh{k.ksa ds lapkyu ds fy, Jh dsbZle iznhi flag]
vf/oDrk dks fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk (dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks)
dh vksj ls fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 225@26@2014&,ohMh&IIº
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th October, 2014
S.O. 2759.—In exercise of th 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 Keisam Pradeep Singh, Advocate as
Special Public Prosecutor of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the
Manipur High Court at Imphal for conducting the
prosecution, appeals, revisions or other matters arising
out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (CBI).
[F. No. 225/26/2014-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2760-—fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e]
1946] (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /
kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
dsUnz ljdkj dsjy jkT; ljdkj x`g (,e) foHkkx] fr:ouariqje
dh lgefr ls fnukad 26 twu] 2014 dh vf/lwpuk th-vks- (,e,l-
) la- 129@2014 x`g }kjk Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kjk 465] 468]
417] 471] 419 ,oa 201 ,oa ikliksVZ vf/fu;e] 1967 (1967 dk
vf/fu;e la- 15) dh /kjk 12 dh mi&/kjk 1 ds [kaM ([k) ,oa
(?k) ds vèkhu ikykjhokÙkkse] iqfyl LVs'ku] iqukZdqye esa iathd`r
vijk/ la- 2228@2011 esa 'kfey vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k ds fy,
fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa U;k;kf/dkj
{ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ dsjy jkT; ij djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 228@49@2014&,ohMh&IIº
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014
S.O. 2760.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department,
Thiruvananthapuram vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 129/
2014/ Home dated 26th June, 2014, hereby extends the
powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala to
investigate the offences involved in Crime No. 2228/2011,
registered under sections 465, 468, 417, 471, 419 and 201 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and
clauses (b) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the
Passport Act, 1967 (Act No. 15 of 1967), at Palarivattom
Police Station, Ernakulam.
[F. No. 228/49/2014-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2761-—fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e]
1946] (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /
kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
dsUnz ljdkj eè; izns'k jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] ea=kky;] Hkksiky
dh lgefr ls fnukad 17 tqykbZ] 2014 dh vf/lwpuk }kjk Jh
fot; enu yky pkS/jh vkSj ;wfu;u cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds nks cSad
vf/dkfj;ksa ds fo#¼ rFkk mi;qZDr mijk/ ds laca/ esa vFkok ls
lac¼ iz;kl djus] nq"izsj.k djus vkSj "kM~;a=k djus ds fo#¼ iqfyl
LVs'ku iykfl;k] ftyk bankSj (eè; izns'k) esa ntZ fd, x, vijk/
ekeyk la- 499@2011 ds laca/ esa Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860
(1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 406] 420] 467] 468] 471
,oa 120 [k ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/ksa dh tkap djus ds fy,
fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kfèkdkj
{ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ eè; izns'k jkT; ij djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 228@71@2013&,ohMh&IIº
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2014
S.O. 2761.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25
of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Bhopal vide Notification No. F. 12-98/2013/B-
1/(Two) dated 17th July, 2014, hereby extends the powers
and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment to the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh
for investigation of offences punishable under sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) relating to criminal Case No. 499/
2011 registered at Police Station Palasiya District Indor
(Madhya Pradesh) against Shri Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary
and two Bank officers of the Union Bank of India and
attempts, abetment and conspiracies in relation to or in
connection with the above mentioned offence.
[F. No. 228/71/2013-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6893
ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2762-—fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e]
1946] (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /
kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
dsUnz ljdkj egkjk"Vª jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] lsaVj&1] eqEcbZ dh
lgefr ls fnukad 25 tqykbZ] 2014 dh vf/lwpuk
lhvkj,e&2012@lhvkj- 136@ihvks,y- 11 ds rgr Hkkjrh; naM
izfØ;k lafgrk] 1860 (1860 dh vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 419]
420] 464] rFkk 471 ds rgr /kjkoh iqfyl LVs'ku esa lh-vkj- la-
365@2013 ds varxZr ntZ vijk/ksa ds laca/ esa iz;Ru] voizsj.k rFkk
"kM;a=kksa ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa
,oa U;k;kf/dkj {ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ egkjk"Vª jkT; ij djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 228@58@2014&,ohMh&IIº
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014
S.O. 2762.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Center-1,
Mumbai vide Notification No. CRM-2012/CR. 136/Pol. 11
dated 25th July, 2014, hereby extends the powers and
Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment to the whole of the State of Maharashtra for
investigation of the case, registered at Dharavi Police
Station vide C. R. No. 365/2013 under sections 419,420, 464
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)
and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to
the above mentioned offences.
[F. No. 228/58/2014-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
uohu vkSj uohdj.kh; ÅtkZ ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2763-—fganh dsanzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk (la?k ds
jktdh; iz;kstuksa ds fy,) fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k
esa uohu vkSj uohdj.kh; ÅtkZ ea=kky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu
miØe Hkkjrh; lkSj ÅtkZ fuxe] ubZ fnYyh] dks ftlds 80% ls
vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]
vfèklwfpr djrh gSA
¹la- 11011(1)@2014&fganhº
oh.kk HkVukxj] mi&funs'kd (jk-Hkk-)
MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014
S.O. 2763.—In Pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Language (Use for Official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies
Solar Energy Corporation of India, New Delhi, an
undertaking under the administrative control of Ministry
of New & Renewable Energy, more than 80% Staff where of
have acquired a working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 11011 (1)/2014-Hindi]
VEENA BHATNAGAR, Dy. Director (OL)
okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=kky;
(okf.kT; foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2764-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr (DokfyVh) fu;a=k.k
vkSj fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e (2) ds lkFk
ifBr fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k vkSj fujh{k.k) vf/fu;e] 1963
(1963 dk 22) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSallZ bUlisDVksjsV fxzfiQFk bafM;k dEiuh
izkbosV fyfeVsM] ikjknhi] ,pvkbZth&34] xkSjo fcgkj] e/qou]
ikjknhi&754142] dks bl vf/fu;e dh /kjk 7 dh mi/kjk (1)
ds iz;kstu ds fy, bl vf/lwpuk] ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh
rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT;
ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la- dk-vk- 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965
vkSj dk-vk- 3978 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 ls layXu vuqlwph esa
fofufnZ"V [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa (xzi&I) vFkkZr~] ykSg v;Ld vkSj
xzqi&II vFkkZr~ Økse v;Ld Økse ldsafnzr lfgr fujh{k.k ds fy,
Øe'k% fu;kZr ls iwoZ mDr [kfut vkSj v;Ld dks fuEufyf[kr
'krks± ds v/hu ikjknhi] esa ekU;rk nsrh gS] vFkkZr~%
(i)
eSllZ bUlisDVksjsV fxzfiQFk bafM;k dEiuh izkbosV fyfeVsM]
ikjknhi] ,pvkbZth&34] xkSjo fcgkj] e/qou]
ikjknhi&754142] [kfut vkSj v;Ld xzqi&I dk fu;kZr
(fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1965 vkSj [kfut vkSj v;Ld xzqi&II
dk fu;kZr (fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds vèkhu
muds }kjk viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k dh i¼fr dh tkap djus
ds fy,] bl fufer fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefufnZ"V
vf/dkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/k,a nsxh_ vkSj
(ii)
eSllZ bUlisDVksjsV fxzfiQFk bafM;k dEiuh izkbosV fyfeVsM]
ikjknhi] ,pvkbZth&34] xkSjo fcgkj] e/qou]
ikjknhi&754142] bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu vius d`R;ksa
ds ikyu esa funs'kd (fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=k.k)
fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa fn,
x, ,sls funsZ'kksa ls vkc¼ gksaxsA
¹iQk- la- 4@4@2014&fu;kZr fujh{k.kº
,- ds- f=kikBh] la;qDr lfpo
6894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2764.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes
M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Private Limited, Paradip,
HIG-34, Gourav Bihar, Madhuban,Paradip-754142, as an
agency for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of
the Act for a period of three years from the date of
publication of this notification, for the inspection of
Minerals and Ores (Group-I) namely, Iron ore and Group-II
Chrome Ore including chrome concentrates, specified in
the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government
of India in the Ministry of Commerce vide number S.O.
3975, dated the 20th December, 1965, and S.O. 3978, dated
the 20th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the
said Minerals and Ores at Paradip, subject to the following
conditions, namely :—
(i)
that M/s Inspectorae Griffith India Private Limited,
Paradip, HIG-34, Gourav Bihar, Madhuban,
Paradip-754142, shall give adequate facilities to
the officers nominated by the Export Inspection
Council in this behalf to examine the method of
inspection followed by them in carrying out the
inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals
and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and
the Export of Minerals and Ores, Group-II
(Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
(ii)
that M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Private Limited,
Paradip, HIG-34, Gourav Bihar, Madhuban,
Paradip-754142, in the performance of their
function under this notification shall be bound
by such directions as the Director (Inspection
and Quality Contral), Export Inspection Council
may give in writing from time to time.
[F. No. 4/4/2014-Export Inspection]
A. K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2765-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr (DokfyVh) fu;a=k.k
vkSj fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e (2) ds lkFk
ifBr fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k vkSj fujh{k.k) vf/fu;e] 1963
(1963 dk 22) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ lqifjUVsaMsal dEiuh bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM]
IykV ua- 545@1707 (f}rh; ry)] lathouh vLirky ds lehi]
fyCl jksM] Hkqous'oj&751002] Hkkjr esa fLFkr gS] dks bl vfèklwpuk]
ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy,
Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=kky;] dh vf/lwpuk la- dk-vk- 3975
rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 vkSj dk-vk- 3978 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj]
1965] dh vf/lwpuk esa mikc¼ vuqlwfp;ksa esa fofufnZ"V [kfut
vkSj v;Ld] lewg&1] cDlkbM rFkk [kfut vkSj v;Ld lewg&II]
vFkkZr~ ftad dUlsuVsªV dks Øe'k% fu;kZr ls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr 'krks±
ds v/hu mM+hlk] ikjknhi esa mDr [kfut vkSj v;Ld ds fujh{k.k
djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk nsrh gS] vFkkZr~%&
(i)
eSllZ lqifjUVsaMsal dEiuh bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] IykV
ua- 545@1707 (f}rh; ry)] lathouh vLirky ds lehi]
fyCl jksM] Hkqous'oj&751002] [kfut vkSj v;Ld xzqi&I
dk fu;kZr (fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1965 vkSj [kfut vkSj
v;Ld lewg&II dk fu;kZr (fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1965 ds
fu;e 4 ds v/hu muds }kjk viukbz xbZ fujh{k.k dh
i¼fr dh tkap djus ds fy,] bl fufer fu;kZr fujh{k.k
ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefufnZ"V vf/dkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfoèkk,a
nsxh_ vkSj
(ii)
eSllZ lqifjUVsaMsal dEiuh bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] IykV
ua- 545@1707 (f}rh; ry)] lathouh vLirky ds lehi]
fyCl jksM] Hkqojs'oj&751002] bl vf/lwpuk ds vèkhu
vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd (fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh
fu;a=k.k) fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ le;≤ ij fyf[kr
esa fn, x, ,sls funs'kksa ls vkc¼ gksaxsA
¹iQk- la- 4@3@2014&fu;kZr fujh{k.kº
,- ds- f=kikBh] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2765.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes M/
s Superintendence Company of India Private Limited, Plot
No. 545/1707 (2nd floor), Near Sanjeevni Hospital, Lewis
Road, Bhubaneswar-751002, as an agency for the purpose
of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act for a perod of
three years from the date of publication of this notification,
for the inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group-I) namely,
Iron Ore and Group-II Chrome Ore including chrome
concentrates, specified in the Schedule annexed to the
notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Commerce vide Number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December,
1965, and S. O. 3978, dated the 20th December, 1965
respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores
at Paradip, subject to the following conditions, namely:—
(i)
that M/s Superintendence Company of India
Private Limited, Plot No. 545/1707 (2nd floor), Near
Sanjeevni Hospital, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar-
751002, shall give adequate facilities to the officers
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6895
nominated by the Export Inspection Council in
this behalf to examine the method of inspection
followed by them in carrying out the inspection
under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores,
Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and the Export
of Minerals and Ores, Group-II (Inspection) Rules,
1965; and
(ii)
that M/s Superintendence Company of India
Private Limited, Plot No. 545/1707 (2nd floor), Near
Sanjeevni Hospital, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar-
751002, in the performance of their function under
this notification shall be bound by such directions
as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control),
Export Inspection Council may give in writing from
time to time.
[F. No. 4/3/2014-Export Inspection]
A. K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2766-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k
vkSj fujh{k.k) vf/fu;e] 1963 (1963 dk 22) dh /kjk 7 dh
mi&èkkjk (1) ds lkFk ifBr fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k vkSj fujh{k.k)
fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e (2)] ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ bZVkySc izkbosV fyfeVsM] yksVl dksVZ]
rhljh eafty] iqjkuk ua- 165] u;k ua- 338] FkEcw pSV~Vh LVªhV
pSUubZ& 600001 dks bl vf/lwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu
o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=kky; dh
vfèklwpuk la- dk-vk- 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 ls mikc¼
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V [kfut vkSj v;Ld] xzqi&I] vFkkZr~ ykSg
v;Ld dk fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds vè;/hu jgrs gq, mDr] [kfutksa
vkSj v;Ldksa dk pSUubZ esa] fu;kZr ls iwoZ fujh{k.k djus ds fy,
,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk iznku djrh gS] vFkkZr~%&
(i)
eSllZ bZVkySc izkbosV fyfeVsM] yksVl dksVZ] rhljh eafty]
iqjkuk ua- 165] u;k ua- 338] FkEcw pSV~Vh LVªhV pSUubZ&
600001] [kfut vkSj v;Ld xzqi&I dk fu;kZr (fujh{k.k)
fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds v/hu fujh{k.k djus ds
fy, muds }kjk viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k dh i¼fr dh tkap
djus ds fy, bl fufer fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk
ukefufnZ"V vf/dkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/k,a nsxh_
(ii)
eSllZ bZVkySc izkbosV fyfeVsM] yksVl dksVZ] rhljh eafty]
iqjkuk ua- 165] u;k ua- 338] FkEcw pSV~Vh LVªhV pSUubZ&
600001] bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu
esa funs'kd (fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=k.k) fu;kZr
fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa fn, x, ,sls
funsZ'kksa ls vkc¼ gksaxsA
¹iQk- la- 4@2@2014&fu;kZr fujh{k.kº
,- ds- f=kikBh] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2766.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964 the Central Government hereby recognizes M/
s Italab Private Limited, Lotus Court, 3rd Floor, Old No.
165, New No. 338, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-600001
as an agency for a period of three years wit effect from the
date of publication of this notification, for inspection of
Minerals and Ores (Group-I), Namely, Iron ore as specified
in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number
S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December 1965, prior to export of
the said Minerals and Ores at Chennai, subject to the
following conditions, namely:—
(i)
that M/s Italab Private Limited, Lotus Court, 3rd
Floor, Old No. 165, New No. 338, Thambu Chetty
Street, Chennai-600001, shall give adequate
facilities to the officers nominated by the Export
Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the
method of inspection followed by them in carrying
out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of
Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules,
1965;
(ii)
that M/s Italab Private Limited, Lotus Court, 3rd
Floor, Old No. 165, New No. 338, Thambu Chetty
Street, Chennai-600001, in the performance of their
function under this notification shall be bound
by such directions as the Director (Inspection
and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council,
may give in writing from time to time.
[F. No. 4/2/2014-Export Inspection]
A. K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;
(vk;q"k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2767-—fnukad 25 vxLr] 2014 dh lela[;d
vfèklwpuk ds Øe esa] Jh t;izdk'k vxzoky] vè;{k] lw;Z
iQkmUMs'ku] ubZ fnYyh dks ns'k esa lexz LokLF; dh ladYiuk ds
lao/Zu dh laHkkO;rk dk irk yxkus ds fy, xfBr lfefr ds lnL;
ds :i esa 'kfey fd;k x;k gSA
2- vf/lwpuk dh vU; 'krs± ;Fkkor jgsaxhA
¹la- tsM&28015@124@2014&ih ,aM lhº
vfuy xusjhokyk] la;qDr lfpo
6896
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of AYUSH)
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014
S.O. 2767.—In continuation of Notification of even
number dated 25th August, 2014. Shri Jaiprakash Agarwal,
Chairman, Surya Foundation, New Delhi has been included
as a Member of the Committee constituted to explore the
possibility of promoting the concept of Holistic Health in
the country.
2. Other terms and conditions of the Notification will
remain the same.
[No. Z-28015/124/2014-P&C]
ANIL GANERIWALA, Jt. Secy.
ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;
(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)
(jktHkk"kk ;wfuV)
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2768-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e 4
ds vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky; (Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa
lk{kjrk foHkkx) ds varxZr dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu (eq[;ky;)]
ubZ fnYyh ds fuEufyf[kr 8 dsUnzh; fo|ky;ksa dks] ,sls dk;kZy;ksa
ds :i esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjh&o`Un us fgUnh dk
dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gS%
1-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ,u,iQlh] foKku fogkj (izFkeh iky)]
fudV foosd fogkj iqfyl LVs'ku] fnYyh&110092
2-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] 'kkyhekj ckx (f}rh; ikyh)] ,-,u CykWd]
fnYyh&110088
3-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] lSfud fogkj] (f}rh; ikyh)] jkuh ckx]
ubZ fnYYh&110034
4-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] lSDVj&2] vkj- ds- iqje (f}rh; ikyh)]
ubZ fnYyh&110022
5-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ,aMª;wt xat] (izFke ikyh)] ubZ
fnYyh&110024
6-
dsUnzh fo|ky;] efLtn eksB] (f}rh; ikyh)] lkfnd uxj]
lSDVj&3] ubZ fnYyh&110049
7-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] fodkliqjh (f}rh; ikyh)] gLrlky xkao]
mÙke uxj] ubZ fnYyh&110059
8-
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] fp=kdwV] jSu clsjk] lhrkiqj] ftyk&fp=kdwV
(m-iz-)&210204
¹la- &11011&3@2014&jk-Hkk-,-º
lq[kchj flag la/w] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Higher Education)
(O.L. Unit)
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2014
S.O. 2768.—In pursuance of sub. rule (4) of rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the following 8 Kendriya Vidyalayas of Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan (HQ), New Delhi under the Ministry of Human
Resource Development, (Department of School Education
& Literacy) as offices, whose more than 80% members of
the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:
1.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, NFC, Vigyan Vihar (First Shift),
Near Vivek Vihar Police Station, Delhi-110092
2.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shalimar Bagh (Second Shift),
Delhi-110088
3.
Kendriya Vidyalala, Sainik Vihar (Second Shift), Rani
Bagh, New Delhi-110034
4.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector 2, R. K. Puram (Second
Shift), New Delhi-110022
5.
Kendriya Vidyalala, Andrews Ganj (First Shift), New
Delhi-110024
6.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Masjid Moth, (Second Shift),
Sadiq Nagar, Sector-3 New Delhi-110049
7.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Vikaspuri (Second Shift), Hastal
Village, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
8.
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chitrakoot, Rain Basera, Sitapur,
Dist. Chitrakoot (U.P.)-210204
[No. 11011-3/2014-O.L.U]
SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2769-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut
ikbiykbZu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]
1962 (1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa
mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu gfj;k.kk jkT; ,oa jk"Vªh; jkt/kuh {ks=k
fnYyh ds Hkhrj xsy (bf.M;k) fyfeVsM dh lHkh ikbiykbZuksa ds
fy;s l{ke izkf/dkjh ds dk;ks± dk fuoZgu djus] ds fy;s
Jh cyjkt flag Mkaxh rglhynkj] gfj;k.kk ljdkj dks fnukad
08-09-2014 ls izkf/d`r djrh gSaA
¹iQk- la- ,y&14014@35@2014&th-ih-&IIº
,l- ih- vxzoky] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6897
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 21st October, 2014
S.O. 2769.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2
of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Central
Government hereby authorizes Sh. Balraj Singh Dangi,
Tehsildar, Government of Haryana to perform the functions
of Competent Authority for all pipelines of GAIL (India)
Limited, under the said Act, within Haryana State and
National Capital Territory of Delhi w.e.f. 08.09.2014.
[F. No. L-14014/35/2014-G.P.-II]
S. P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.
dks;yk ea=kky;
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2770-—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl)
vfèkfu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu
tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad dk-
vk- 3907 (v)] rkjh[k 30 fnlEcj] 2013] ftls Hkkjr ds jkti=k]
vlk/kj.k] Hkkx&II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii)] rkjh[k 30 fnlEcj]
2013 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph
esa of.kZr 158-28 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 390-95 ,dM+ (yxHkx)
eki okyh Hkwfe esa (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k
gS) Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk
10 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj]
vkr;afrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS] fd lsaVªy
dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] jkWaph] >kj[kaM (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS)] ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dk ftUgsa
dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/jksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu
djus ds fy, jtkean gSA
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj
fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS] fd
158-28 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 390-95 ,dM+ (yxHkx) bl izdkj
fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkj
dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,] rkjh[k
30 fnlEcj] 2013] ls fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/hu
jgrs gq, ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %&
(1) ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/ksa ds v/hu
;Fkk vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh
ckcr fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh_
(2) 'krZ (1) ds v/hu] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr
vfèkfu;e dh /kjk 14 ds v/hu ,d vf/dj.k dk xBu fd;k
tk,xk rFkk ,sls fdlh vf/dj.k vkSj mDr vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk
djus ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/ esa mixr lHkh O;;]
ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr
Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds fy, ;k muds laca/ esa lHkh
fof/d dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh
}kjk ogu fd, tk,axs _
3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa dh]
,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/ esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh tks bl izdkj
fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo:¼ fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa
ds laca/ esa vko';d gks_
(4) ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] mDr Hkwfe vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds
vf/dkjksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha
gksxh_ vkSj
(5) ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu djsxh
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds
fof'k"V {ks=kksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/jksfir fd, tk,aA
¹iQk- la- 43015@12@2012&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
ORDER
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2014
S.O. 2770.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal number S.O. 3907(E), dated the 30th December, 2013,
in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, section 3,
sub-section (ii), dated the 30th December, 2013, issued
under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Acres
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land measuring
158.28 hectares (aproximately) or 390.95 acres
(approximately) as all the rights in or over the said land
described in the Schedule appended to the said notification
(hereinafter referred to as the said land) are vested
absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the
said Act.
And whereas, the Central government is satisfied
that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand
(hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is
6898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the
Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.
New, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Coal bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central
government hereby directs that the all rights of 158.28
hectares (approximately) or 390.95 acres (approximately) in
or over the said land so vested shall with effect from
30 December, 2013 instead of continuing to so vest in the
Central Government, vest in the Government company,
subject to the following terms and condidtions, namely :—
(1) the Government company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like as determined
under the provisions of the said Act;
(2) a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14
of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts
payable to the Central government by the said Government
company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred
in connection with any such Tribunal and persons
appointed to assist the said Tribunal shall be boine by the
said Government company and similarly, all expenditure
incurred in respect of all legal proceedings for or in
connection with the rights, in the said lands so vesting
shall also be borne by the government company;
(3) the government company shall indemnify the
Central Government or its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any
proceedings by or against the Central Government or its
officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so
vested;
(4) the Government company shall have no power to
transfer the said land and the rights in or over the said land
so vested to any other person without the prior approval
of the Central Government; and
(5) the Government company shall abide by such
direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by
the Central Government for particular areas of the said land
as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/12/2012-PRIW-I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2771-—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl)
vfèkfu;e 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 9 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu
tkjh Hkkjr ds jkti=k] vlk/kj.k] Hkkx&II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii)]
rkjh[k 10 tqykbZ] 2014 esa ftls Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky;
dh vf/lwpuk dk-vk- la[;kad 1726(v)] rkjh[k 26 ekpZ] 2014
esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] mDr vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa
of.kZr 292-26 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 722-17 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki
okyh Hkwfe esa (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS) ;k
ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk
(1) ds v/hu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSaA
vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS] fd osLVuZ
dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ukxiqj] egkjk"Vª (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
ljdkjh daiuh dgk x;k gS)] ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dk ftUgsa
dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/jksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu
djus ds fy, jtkean gSaA
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj
fodkl) vf/fu;e 1957 dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd 292-26 gsDVs;j
(yxHkx) ;k 722-17 ,dM+ (yxHkx) mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds
lHkh vf/dkj dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds
ctk,] rkjh[k 10 tqykbZ] 2014 ls fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks±
ds v/hu jgrs gq,] ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%&&
(1) ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/ksa ds v/hu
;Fkk vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enks dh
ckcr~ fd, x, lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh_
(2) 'krZ (1) ds v/hu ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr
vfèkfu;e dh /kjk 14 ds v/hu ,d vf/dj.k dk xBu fd;k
tk,xk vkSj ,sls fdlh vf/dj.k vkSj mDr vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk
ds fy, fu;qfDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/ esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh
daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k
ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds fy, ;k muds laca/ esa lHkh fof/d
dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr~ mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk
ogu fd, tk,axs_
(3) ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k muds in/kfj;ksa dh]
,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/ esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl izdkj
fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds ckjsa esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo:¼ fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa
ds laca/ esa vko';d gks_
(4) ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk mDr Hkwfe vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds
vf/dkjksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha
gksxh_ vkSj
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6899
(5) ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu djsxh]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds
fof'k"V {ks=kksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/jksfir fd, tk,aA
¹iQk- la- 43015@7@2010&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
ORDER
New Delhi, the 27th October, 2014
S.O. 2771.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, number S.O. 1726(E), dated the 26th March, 2014, in
the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, sub-
section (ii), dated the 10th July, 2014, issued under sub-
section (1) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, (20 of 1957)
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land measuring
292.26 hectares (approximately) or 722.17 acres
(approximately) as the rights in or over the land described
in the Schedule appended to the said notification
(hereinafter referred to as the said land) are vested
absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the
said Act.
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied
that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur, Maharashtra
(hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is
willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the
Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confered
by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central
Government hereby direct that the 292.26 hectares
(approximately) or 722.17 acres (approximately) in or over
the said land so vested shall, with efect from 10th July,
2014, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central
Government, vest in the Government company, subject to
the following terms and conditions, nemely:—
(1) the Government company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined
under the provisions of the said Act;
(2) a Tribunal shall be constituted under Section 14
of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts
payable to the Central Government by the Government
company under conditions (1), and all expenditure incurred
in connection with any such Tribunal and persons
appointed to assist the said Tribunal shall be borne by the
said Government company and similarly, all expenditure
incurred in respect of all legal proceedings for or in
connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so
vesting shall also be borne by the said Government
Company;
(3) the Government company shall indemnify the
Central Government or its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any
proceddings by or against the Central Government or its
officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so
vested;
(4) the Government company shall have no power to
transfer the said land and the rights in or over the said land
so vested to any other person without the prior approval
of the Central Government; and
(5) the Government company shall abide by such
directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by
the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands,
as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/7/2010-PRIW-I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2772-—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl)
vfèkfu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu
tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad
dk-vk- 1104(v)] rkjh[k 15 vizSy] 2014 ftls Hkkjr ds jkti=k]
vlk/kj.k] Hkkx&II] [kaM&3] mi&[kaM (ii)] rkjh[k 17 vizSy]
2014 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph
esa of.kZr 178-74 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 441-49 ,dM+ (yxHkx)
eki okyh Hkwfe esa (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k
gS) Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk
10 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj]
vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSaA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd lsaVªy
dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] jkaph] >kj[kaM (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS)] ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dk ftUgsa
dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/jksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu
djus ds fy, jtkean gSA
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj
fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd 178-74
gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 441-49 ,dM+ (yxHkx) bl izdkj fufgr
mDr Hkwfe esa vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkj dsUnzh;
6900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,] rkjh[k 17 vizSy]
2014 ls fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/hu jgrs gq, ljdkjh
daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%&
(1) ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/ksa ds v/hu
;Fkk vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh
ckcr fd, x, lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh_
(2) 'krZ (1) ds v/hu ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr
vfèkfu;e dh /kjk 14 ds v/hu ,d vf/dj.k dk xBu fd;k
tk,xk vkSj ,sls fdlh vf/dj.k vkSj mDr vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk
ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/ esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh
daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k
ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds fy, ;k muds laca/ esa vihy vkfn lHkh
fof/d dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh
}kjk ogu fd, tk,axs_
(3) ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa dh]
,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/ esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl izdkj
fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#¼ fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa
ds laca/ esa vko';d gks_
(4) ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] mDr Hkwfe vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds
vf/dkjksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha
gksxh_ vkSj
(5) ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu djsxh]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds
fof'k"V {ks=kksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/jksfir fd, tk,aA
¹iQk- la- 43015@18@2012&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
ORDER
New Delhi, the 27th October, 2014
S.O. 2772.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal number S.O. 1104(E), dated the 15th April, 2014, in the
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, sub-section
(ii), dated the 17th April, 2014, issued under sub-section (1)
of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred
to as the said Act), the land measuring 178.74 hectares
(approximately) or 441.49 acres (approximately) as all the
rights in or over the said land described in the Schedule
appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to
as the said land) are vested absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section
(1) of Section 10 of the said Act.
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied
that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand
(hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is
willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the
Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confered
by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central
Government hereby direct that the 178.74 hectares
(approximately) or 441.49 acres (approximately) the said
land and the rights in or over the said land so vested shall,
with effect from 17th April, 2014, instead of continuing to
so vest in the Central Government, vest in the Government
company, subject to the following terms and conditions,
nemely:—
(1) the Government company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined
under the provisions of the said Act;
(2) a Tribunal shall be constituted under Section 14
of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts
payable to the Central Government by the Government
company under condition (1), and all expenditure incurred
in connection with any such Tribunal and persons
appointed to assist the said Tribunal shall be borne by the
said Government company and similarly, all expenditure
incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals,
etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said
land, so vested shall also be borne by the said Government
Company;
(3) the Government company shall indemnify the
Central Government or its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any
proceedings by or against the Central Government or its
officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so
vested;
(4) the Government company shall have no power to
transfer the said land and the rights in or over the said land
so vested to any other person without the prior approval
of the Central Government; and
(5) the Government company shall abide by such
directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by
the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands,
as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/18/2012-PRIW-I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6901
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2773-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 64@2000) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@528@99&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014
S.O. 2773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/
2000) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of ECL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
14.10.2014.
[No. L-22012/528/99-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 64 OF 2000
PARTIES:
The management of Jhanjra 1/2 Incline of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Md. Sobhan Mia and 13 others
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management
:
Sri. P.K. Das, Ld. Adv.
For the Union (Workman)
:
None
INDUSTRY : COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 24.09.14
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/
528/99-IR(CM-II) dated 13.07.2000 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Jhanjra
1/2 Incline of M/s. ECL in reduction of wages of Md.
Sobhan Mia and 13 others (list enclosed) on transfer
from Kumardih ‘B’ Colliery to Jhanjra 1/2 Incline is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled ?”
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/
528/99-IR(CM-II) dated 13.07.2000 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 2000 was registered on 01.08.2000 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.) had
reserved this case for an award because the workman
neither appeared nor took any step since long despite
registered notices. It seems that the workman has now no
more interest left to proceed with this case further. The
case is also too old – in the year 2000 and I find no reason
to keep this old record pending without any result. As
such the case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute
Award’ may be 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] 14 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2774-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-bZ-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 206@1997)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-10-2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@164@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
6902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014
S.O. 2774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 206/
1997) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 14.10.2014.
[No. L-22012/164/1997-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/206/97
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
Secretary,
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (UTUC),
J & K Area, Lusai Camp,
Post Kotma,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Hasdeo Area of SECL,
Post South Jhagrakhand Colliery,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of September, 2014
1.
As per letter dated 22-7-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
22012/164/97-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Mines
Rescue Station, SECL, Mahendragarh in dismissing
Shri Dilip Kumar Bannerjee, Cashier Grade-I from
service w.e.f. 25-12-95 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief is the workmen entitled and from which
date?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
2/1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that vide order dated 25-12-95,
he was dismissed from service. He was working as Cashier
Grade I in Mines Rescue Station, Mahendragarh.
Chargesheet was issued to him on 5-10-94 for allegations
of tampering, manipulating original computerized statement
submitted to Bank for salary of August 1994. Charge was
also in connivance with other employees Vivekanand Ram
and Bijoy Kumar. That they had misappropriated amount
more than One Lakh.
3.
After appointing Enquiry Officer and Presenting
Officer, enquiry was conducted. Enquiry Officer submitted
his finding that charges were proved. Disciplinary
Authority without considering his submissions, issued
order of his dismissal. Workman submits Enquiry Officer
was biased. He was not allowed opportunity for his
defence. Other co-accused were protected. During
pendency of enquiry, amount was recovered from
subsistence allowance. Workman was not allowed to
cross-examine witnesses of the management. The findings
of Enquiry Officer are perverse. On such ground, workman
prays for his reinstatement with back wages.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/29. It is submitted that workman was working as cashier
in Mines Rescue Station, Hasdeo Area. It was his duty to
observe rules and regulations. He was authorized to make
payment only on basis of passed order and instructions.
Workman was to keep records of specimen signatures of
authorized officers. After receiving chargesheet, enquiry
was conducted against workman. The witnesses of
management were cross-examined by his co-worker.
Opportunity for his defence was given. The misconduct
conducted by workman is of serious nature. It is dangerous
to continue him in employment. If enquiry is vitiated,
management be allowed to prove misconduct by adducing
evidence. It is reiterated that enquiry conducted against
workman is proper. Showcause notice is issued to workman,
other employees were also issued chargesheet. They were
reinstated after settlement.
5.
Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/6
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
Management also filed rejoinder at Page 0/3 to 10/7.
6.
Enquiry conducted against workman is found
vitiated as per order dated 20-12-2010 by my predecessor.
Management was permitted to prove misconduct in Court.
7.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the management of Mines
Rescue Station, SECL, Mahendragarh in dismissing
Shri Dilip Kumar Bannerjee, Cashier Grade-I from
service w.e.f. 25-12-95 is legal and justified? In
Negative
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per final order.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6903
REASONS
8.
As discussed above, enquiry conducted against
workman is found illegal. Management was permitted to
prove misconduct in Court. Management filed affidavit of
witness Shri Shambhu Sharan. Witness of management
stated that wages of workman was disbursed through Bank
account. The documents in respect of wages, check list
for rescue employees were prepared through computer.
Chargesheet Exhibit M-1 was issued to workman. Charges
were of tampering, manipulating original computer
statement etc. workman had embezzled company’s money
Rs. 4224.83 and deposited in his name. amount Rs.6983/-
in name of Vivekanand Clerk Grade-II- Rs.6911.83, Shri Vijay
Kumar s.5000.27 & Shri A.K.Mukherjee Rs. 904.83 in name
of Grade I clerk. The excess payment was deposited with
accounts of workman as well as above persons. Workman
Shri D.K.Bajjerjee was paid excess amount Rs. 11,353.81 in
June and July 1993. Workman forged signature of Suptd.
of mines. Amount Rs. 66427.11 was unauthorisely drawn
in excess by workman. Excess amount was paid to Shri
B.N.Roy to disburse amount to the workers at rescue
station. Shri B.N.Roy was not having Bank Account. Other
details are given by the witness.
9.
Management witness in his cross-examination says
tampering had not occurred in his presence. As per
procedure payment is made through account. If any
overwriting is made, signature of competent authority is
required. The documents for which tampering was
committed those original documentos are not produced.
He could not say who committed tampering. He claims
ignorance whether opinion of handwriting expert was
taken. Chargesheet was issued to Shri Vivekanand, vijay
Kumar, A.K.Mukherjee. he was unable to tell what
punishment was imposed against him if all of them were
reinstated. Management’s witness was unable to tell the
amount of any employee . After tampering, amount was
deposited by workman in his account. Management did
not examine any other witness. Documents alleged to have
tampered are not produced. The evidence of management’s
witness is not sufficient to prove the charges against
workman. The amount alleged to have been embezzled is
also not proved. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No.1 in Negative.
10.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,
charges alleged against workman are not proved by
management, question arises whether workman is entitled
for reinstatement with full back wages. As charges against
workman are not proved, the punishment of his dismissal
cannot be sustained. Workman is therefore entitled for
his reinstatement. With regard to claim for back wages,
there is no cogent evidence adduced by either parties
whether workman was in gainful employment when no
cogent evidence is adduced by workman about his
unemployment during whole period. Considering above
aspects, in my considered view reinstatement of workman
with 50 % back wages would be appropriate. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No.2.
11.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Mines Rescue
Station, SECL, Mahendragarh in dismissing Shri Dilip
Kumar Bannerjee, Cashier Grade-I from service w.e.f.
25-12-95 is not legal and proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service with 50 % back wages.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to
workman within 30 days from the date of notification of
award. In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest
per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2775-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ
dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 247@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 14-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@351@1998&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014
S.O. 2775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 247/
1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of WCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14.10.2014.
[No. L-22012/351/1998-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/247/99
PRESIDING OFFICER:
SHRI R. B. PATLE,
The Secretary,
RKKMS(INTUC),
Po Chandametta,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
...Workman/Union
6904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
Manager,
Ambara Colliery of WCL,
PO Ambara,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of September 2014
1.
As per letter dated 7-7-99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/
351/98-IR (CM-II).The dispute under reference relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Western
Coalfields Ltd. Kanhan Area i.e. Manager, Ambara
Colliery, WCL, Kanhan Area PO Ambara Distt.
Chhindwara (MP) in not giving notional fixation to
Shri Chetanram S/o Roopram, Exposive Carrier of
Ambara Colliery (declared medically unfit for tub
loader job) as per settlement dated 2-11-92 arrived at
before RLC, Nagpur is justified? If not, to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at page 3/1 to 3/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he is
employed as explosive career in Category II as per NCWA.
Previously workman was working as tub loader in Ambara
Colliery of WCL. As per NCWA, job description of the
post of tub loader is piece rated job and loaders used to
work in groups and are being paid group wages. The Tub
loaders get basic as well as emoluments more than the
workers working in Category I, II or III of NCWA. The tub
loader was getting wages of Group V. workman was
drawing wages of tub loader. On 13-6-89, workman was
employed in 3rd shift of Ambara underground mine. During
course of employment, he suffered mining injury, fracture
to right leg ankle. Workman was referred to WCL Hospital,
Kanhan Area. Thereafter he was referred to Permanand
Rehabilitation Centre at Chhindwara. Workman was
receiving treatment for 18 months and discharged from
rehabilitation centre on 10-10-90. Permanent disability of
workman was assessed 8 %. He was paid compensation
under workman Compensation Act and clause 9.21 of
NCWA.
3.
That workman was referred to Medical Board for
assessing his fitness for alternate job. Workman was found
unfit for loaders job. He was recommended light job on
surface as General Mazdoor Category I. workman was
declared fit for alternate job. He was allowed conversion
from piece rated to time rated in Category I from 9-1-91.
That as per NCWA, the employees declared medically unfit
from the post is converted from one category to other. His
basic wage is protected. Workman was denied protection
of wages of tub loader after his conversion to Category I
Mazdoor. Thereafter workman was promoted as Explosive
Career Category II on 9-1-94. Workman submits as per
settlement dated 2-11-92, he is entitled for pay protection.
He was denied notional fixation of Category I taking group
wages of tub loader. On such ground, workman is praying
that he may be granted notional fixation after he was
declared medically unfit for job of tub loader.
4.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to
5/6. Claim of workman is denied. IInd party submits that
workman was working as tub loader in Ambara Colliery,
Kanhan Area. He met with an accident on 15-6-89.
Workman was provided medical treatment at expense of
the company. He was examined by Medical Board. His
permanent disability was assessed 7 %. Workman had
executed memorandum of agreement in Form
L. workman received compensation. He had submitted
application giving option for alternate employment.
Workman was deployed as General mazdoor because of
the option given by him. Workman was promoted as
Explosive career Category II from 9-1-94. Workman is paid
wages of said category. It is reiterated that workman was
working as tub loader. He suffered with accident and after
examination by Medical Board, his permanent disability
was assessed 7 %.
5.
Claim of Ist party workman as per settlement dated
2-11-92 is denied. It is submitted that said subject matter
was discussed in conciliation proceedings with reference
to piece rated workers, time rated jobs. The note of
discussion is reproduced . That all such piece rated
workman given option for time rated, monthly rated jobs
will be fixed in the middle of commensurate category for
which they ought. No personal pay is allowed. Such piece
rated workman may put in time rated monthly rated in future
by managerial decision. Rest of the contentions of
workman are denied.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
management of Western
Coalfields Ltd. Kanhan
Area i.e. Manager, Ambara
Colliery, WCL, Kanhan Area
PO Ambara Distt. Chhindwara
(MP) in not giving notional
fixation to Shri Chetanram
S/o Roopram, Exposive Carrier
of Ambara Colliery (declared
medically unfit for tub loader
job) as per settlement dated
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6905
2-11-92 arrived at before RLC,
Nagpur is justified?
In Negative
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?”
order.
REASONS
7.
Ist party workman has raised dispute for denial of
notional fixation of his wages after he was declared unfit
for tub loader job and conversion allowed for job of General
Mazdoor. The claim is denied by IInd party.
8.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions in statement of claim. That he was working
as tub loader. He suffered minor injury on 13-6-89. He was
receiving treatment in rehabilitation centre for 18 months.
He was discharged on 9-10-90. He was examined by
Medical Board and found unfit for job of tub loader. He
was allowed conversion to the post of General Mazdoor.
Notional fixation was not allowed to him. On 9-1-94, he
was promoted as explosive career Category II. In his cross-
examination workman says he is working as Explosive
Career Category IV. He was appointed as tub loader
working underground. It is heavy work. Job of General
Mazdoor is light, work of tub loader is piece rated. After
accident on 14-6-89, he was admitted in hospital. He was
examined by Medical Board- permanent disability of 8 %
was considered. He was allowed alternate job as General
Mazdoor. He was promoted as Explosive career category
II on 9-1-94. At the time of conversion, his wages for tub
loader were not considered.
9.
The documents produced by workman Exhibit
W-1 to W-7 are relating to his treatment and injury reports.
Exhibit W-8 is certificate of medical board. Workman was
found fit for alternate job on surface as General Mazdoor
on 9-2-91. Workman was found unfit for job of loader.
Exhibit W-9 is order of promotion of workman and others
dated 9-1-94. Exhibit W-10 is copy of settlement dated
1-10-92 settled before ALC. Demand No.1 agreed between
Union and management provides that management shall
provide alternate job to the employees particularly loaders
who are physically week due to their old age, sickness
irrespective of vacancies. Clause 1.3 reads management
shall on conversion from PR to TR/MR will fully protect
the group wages including SPRA wherever applicable. The
basic pay so fixed in the TR/MR category grade if exceeds
the maximum of the category grade, the balance will be
treated as personal pay to the person concerned which
shall be adjusted in the subsequent revision of pay/
promotion. Exhibit W-10 is admitted by management.
Workman was denied its benefit.
10.
The evidence of management’s witness Shri P.K.
Tripathi supporting contentions of management.
Management’s witness stated w.e.f. 9-9-94, on completion
of date of regularisation, workman is paid wages of
Category II. The modification will be prospective and piece
rated workman who had come in time rated monthly rated
category have already been paid till 30-10-95. According
to Tripartite settlement dated 2-11-92 with RKKMS, note
of discussion dated 17-7-93 will continue to be paid as per
item No. 1.3 of settlement. Management’s witness in his
cross-examination says he ws not working in Ambara Sub
area during 84 to 94. The provisions of NCWA are
applicable to IInd party. Workman is promoted as Explosive
career Category II from 19-1-94. Workman was paid wages
of said category. Workman was not allowed pay protection
at the time of conversion.
11.
Management produced documents Exhibit M-2 to
M-7. Workman had given consent vide Exhibit M-1. That
he was ready to work as General Mazdoor. That he had no
objection receiving basic wages of Category I. when
document Exhibit W-10 clearly provides for protection of
wages at time of conversion obtaining such undertaking
from workman by management cannot be said proper. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
negative.
12.
Point No.2- from evidence of workman and
documents Exhibit W-10 reproduced supra, workman is
entitled to protection of wages of the post of tub loader.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
13.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Western Coalfields
Ltd. Kanhan Area i.e. Manager, Ambara Colliery,
WCL, Kanhan Area PO Ambara Distt. Chhindwara
(MP) in not giving notional fixation to Shri Chetanram
S/o Roopram, Exposive Carrier of Ambara Colliery
is not legal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to allow protection of wages
of post of tub loader of workman from the date of his
conversion to post of General Mazdoor Category I.
Difference of wages be paid to workman within two
months from date of publication of award.
In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest
per annum from the date of award till its realization.
14.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2776-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
6906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 92@2000) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@524@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014
S.O. 2776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2000)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of ECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14.10.2014.
[No. L-22012/524/99-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. 92 OF 2000
PARTIES:
The management of Parasia O.C.P of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Pradeep Kundu
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management
:
Sri. P.K. Das, Ld. Adv.
For the Union (Workman)
:
None
INDUSTRY : COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated – 25.09.14
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/
524/99-IR(CM-II) dated 19.09.2000 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in dismissing the
services of Sh. Pradeep Kundu, U.G. Loader, is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled ?”
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/
524/99/IR(CM-II) dated 19.09.2000 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 2000 was registered on 27.09.2000 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.) had
reserved this case for an award because the union neither
appeared nor took any step since long despite registered
notices. It seems that the workman is now no more
interested to proceed with the case further. The case is
also too old - in the year 2000. I find no reason to keep this
old record pending. As such the case is closed and
accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ may be 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] 14 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2777-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 86@2000) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@48@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014
S.O. 2777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/
2000) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of ECL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
14.10.2014.
[No. L-22012/48/2000-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6907
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 86 OF 2000
PARTIES:
The management of Shyamsunderpur Colliery,
Bankola Area of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Koyala Mazdoor Congress
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri. P.K. Das Ld. Adv.
For the union (Workman)
:
S. K. Pandey, Gen. Secy.
of the union
INDUSTRY : COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 22.09.14
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/
48/2000/IR (CM-II) dated 12/15.09.2000 has been pleased
to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of
Shyamsunderpur Colliery of Bankola Area of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in not fixing the workload/
rate of tramming and not reviewing the same
periodically as per clause 3.7.1 of NCWA V is legal
and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled ?”
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/48/
2000/IR (CM-II) dated 12/15.09.2000 of the above said
reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference
Case No. 86 of 2000 was registered on 27.09.2000 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.
Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Adv. for the management and
Sri S. K. Pandey, representative of the union are present.
Both of them pray to close this case as the workman do
not want to proceed with the case further. On perusal of
the case record I find that a petition has been filed on
behalf of the workman with the request to close the case.
As such the case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute
Award’ may be 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] 14 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2778-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 40@1999) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@280@1998&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014
S.O. 2778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/
1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of ECL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
14.10.2014.
[No. L-22012/280/1998-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. 40 OF 1999
PARTIES:
The management of Khas Kajora Colliery, ECL
Vs.
Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian
6908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P. K. Das, Ld.
Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri S. K. Pandey,
General Secretary
INDUSTRY : COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 18.09.2014
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/
280/98/IR (CM-II) dated 05.05.1999 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Khas
Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s. ECL in not
providing employment to the dependent of Late Smt.
Bijali Mejhain, Ex-Wagon Loader, is legal and
justified ? If not, to what relief is the dependent of
the ex-workman entitled ?”
Having received the Order No. L-22012/280/98/IR
(CM-II) dated 05.05.1999 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 40 of
1999 was registered on 07.06.1999. 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. Both the parties appeared in the
Tribunal, through their representative.
Written statement filed by the dependent of Late
Smt. Bijali Mejhian, he has stated that Smt. Bijali Mejhian
was a permanent employee of Khas Kajora Colliery, having
her designation as Wagon Loader, Identity Card No. 13597
Form ‘B’ No. 548 and CMPF A/C. No. B/593160. Late Smt.
Bijali Mejhian died on 21.12.1995 while she was in service.
Deputy Medical Superintendent of Khas Kajora Colliery
has issued Death Certificate of Smt. Bijali Mejhian on
21.12.1995. In terms of provisions contained in clause 9.4.2
of NCWA-IV and NCWA-V. As per NCWA agreement the
dependent of deceased employee is entitled for
employment in the company and accordingly her son Sri
Deb Prasad Manjhi applied for employment and submitted
all relevant papers and documents. The husband of Late
Smt. Bijali Mejhain named Bijoy Prasad pre-deceased her
on 26.06.1989. Except Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi no other
member is dependent on Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian. After
laps of 2 years, offer of employment not given to the
dependent of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian. Therefore Koyala
Mazdoor Congress, being a registered trade union raised
an Industrial Dispute before the ALC(C), Raniganj on
17.02.1998. The said dispute failed. It has been prayed the
Tribunal may kindly direct the management of Khas Kajora
Colliery to provide employment to Sri. Deb Prasad Manjhi
the dependent of the deceased and management should
also be directed to pay adequate compensation for the
abnormal delay in disposing the claim.
On other hand management has stated in his written
statement that instant reference is bad in the eye of law.
The reference is entirely misconceived one and cannot
constitute any industrial dispute. Management has
stated in his written statement that Late Smt. Bijali
Mejhian was a permanent employee of the Khas Kajora
Colliery, she was working as ex-wagon loader in the said
colliery. Smt. Bijali Mejhian during her service submitted
an application for V.R. under F.V.R. scheme in January 1995,
nominating a person alleging him to be Sri Deb Prasad
Manjhi as her son. In the meantime another person
claiming himself to be Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi applied for
employment. His application forwarded to the Chief
Vigilance Officer, ECL HQ, and the matter was taken by the
Vigilance department. Meantime Smt. Bijali Mejhian expired
on 21.12.1995. After her death union has raised an Industrial
Dispute before the ALC(C), Raniganj, on behalf of said Sri
Deb Prasad Manjhi for payment of gratuity. As per
direction of controlling authority the gratuity and L.C.S.
of late Smt. Bijali Mejhian was paid to aforesaid Sri Deb
Prasad Manjhi. Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi could not establish
relationship with Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian. He failed to
establish proper identification as such the claim for
employment was not considered and was rejected at
screening level for want of sufficient proof. The
management have or had no obligation to provide
employment to a fake person whose relationship was at a
great doubt and suspicious. The demand of the union is
purely based on misrepresentation of the fact. It is denied
the offer of employment was illegally denied by the
management. Management has or had no liability to
provide employment to the dependent of Late Smt. Bijali
Mejhian in terms of provision of class 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV.
The action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery,
ECL, is totally justified in not providing employment to
the dependent of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian.
Union has produced 10 Xerox copies of the
documents. Dependent of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian, Sri Deb
Prasad Manjhi has examined himself as witness. Neither
any document has been filed nor any oral evidence has
been adduced by the management.
I have heard the argument of Sri S. K. Pandey on
behalf of the union/workman and Sri P. K. Das, Ld.
Advocate on behalf of the management.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6909
It is not disputed that deceased workman Late Smt.
Bijali Mejhian was permanent employee of Khas Kajora
Colliery. It is also admitted fact that Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian
died while she was in service as ex-wagon loader.
Reliance has been placed by the union on NCWA
agreement IV & V. As per NCWA agreement in Para 9.3.0 it
is provided that in case of death of any workman while in
service the dependent of workman will be provided
employment. The dependent for this purpose as described
in the NCWA agreement means the wife or the husband as
the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally
adopted son. if no such direct dependent is available for
the employment younger brother, widowed daughter,
widowed daughter in law of son in law residing with the
deceased and almost wholly depended on the earning of
the deceased may be considered as dependent of the
deceased.
Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi has claimed job in Khas Kajora
Colliery after the death of his mother Late Smt. Bijali
Mejhian while she was in service. The Xerox copy of the
service record of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian has been
produced by the union. This record is maintained by ECL
and it has been issued by ECL. The family composition
shown in the service record of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian
which is maintained by ECL Sri Vijay Dusad was her
husband, Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi and Sri Madhab Chand
Manjhi are sons of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian, Smt. Santara
Manjhi is married daughter of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian.
Controlling authority on the presentation of Sri Deb Prasad
Manjhi, after hearing the management and Sri Deb Prasad
Manjhi has passed the order for payment of gratuity to Sri
Deb Prasad Manjhi, on merit. Controlling authority has
passed the order on 12.09.2001. Controlling Authority,
ALC(C) ordered for payment of gratuity for Rs.
53,661.60/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred
Sixty One and Sixty Paise only) to Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi.
Besides agent in Khas Kajora Colliery in his letter dated
14.08.2000 has admitted that as per service record Sri Deb
Prasad Manjhi is son of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian.
The general principal of law of evidence is that, he
who asserts must prove. In other words the burden of
proof is obligation to adduce evidence to the satisfaction
of Tribunal in order to establish the existence or non-
existence of a fact contained by the party.
Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi has stated in his affidavit
that he was born out of wed lock between his father
Sri.Vijay Dusad and mother Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian. He
have been made nominee in respect of C.M.P.F
accumulation of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian. Late Smt. Bijali
Mejhian died on 21.12.1995 while she was in service as
wagon loader. Husband of late Smt. Bijali Mejhian, Sri.Vijay
Dusad died on 26.06.1989 before the death of Smt. Bijali
Mejhian. After the death Sri Madhab Chand Manjhi and
Smt. Santra Manjhi are only legal heir. Other legal heirs
have given no objection in writing for providing
employment to him, besides he has filed indemnity form.
Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi has been cross-examined on behalf
of the management. In cross-examination he has not made
any statement repugnant to the statement made in the
examination in-chief.
There is no piece of evidence, that Sri Deb Prasad
Manjhi is not the son of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian. I am
unable to understand that when management paid entire
gratuity amount to Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi as dependent
of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian. Then on what basis the
management was refusing Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi to be
dependent of Late Smt. Bijali Mejhian. Management has
not produced the order of screening committee for non-
entitlement of employment of Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi.
In view of the decision above I think it just and
proper to direct management to provide employment to
Sri Deb Prasad Manjhi, who is dependent of Late Smt.
Bijali Mejhian in lieu of death of Smt. Bijali Mejhian
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per
above discussion. 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] 14 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2779-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ-lh-vkbZ-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; la- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-
174@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-10-
2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@235@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014
S.O. 2779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 174/
2011) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Food
Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 14.10.2014.
[No. L-22012/235/2006-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
6910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D.No.174/2011
The President,
FCI (Handling) Worker’s Union,
8654, Arakashan Road,
Paharganj,
New Delhi-110055
...Workman
Versus
The Chairman–cum–Managing Director,
Food Corporation of India,
16-20, Barakhamba Lane,
New Delhi-110001.
...Management
AWARD
Food Corporation of India (in short the Corporation)
was set up by the Central Government under the provisions
of Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 for the purpose of
procurement, storage, preservation, salvaging, weighing,
standardization, transportation and distribution of food
grains through public distribution system in the country.
The Corporation employs workers in its various
establishments/depots, railheads and offices to do
handling operations of food grains. Workers, so engaged,
are of following categories:
i.
Departmentalized workers,
ii.
Direct payment system workers,
iii.
No work no pay system workers, and
iv.
Management Committee system workers
2. The management committee system of labour
remained in operation till 01.11.1994. With effect from
01.11.1994, workers of management committee system were
upgraded to workers of direct payment system, vide
memorandum of settlement signed on that date between
the Corporation and the unions, with a view to eliminate
management committee system of workers from all the
depots. Since 01.11.1994, management committee system
of labour is not prevalent in any depot of the Corporation.
3. The Corporation got standing orders certified
from the Certifying Officer, which are applicable to its
establishments in North, East and NEF Zones, where
departmentalized workers are employed. Certified standing
orders are not made applicable to direct payment system
and no work no pay system workers. FCI (Handling)
Workers Union (in short the union) made efforts to claim
parity in the matter of wages and fringe benefits, besides
12 days casual leave in a year, as applicable to
departmentalized workers, for workers of direct payment
system and no work no pay system. A demand was raised
in that regard, which was not conceded to by the
Corporation. Constrained by these circumstances, the
union raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer,
which dispute was contested by the Corporation.
Resultantly, conciliation proceedings failed. On
consideration of failure report, submitted by the
Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred
the dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal
No.II, New Delhi, for adjudication, vide order No.L-22012/
235/2006-IR(CM-II), New Delhi, dated 10.9.2007, with
following terms of reference:
“Whether the demand of the Union for not allowing
12 days Casual Leave in a calendar year as per
Certified Standing Orders to workers other than
Departmentalized Labour by the Management of FCI
is legal and justified ? If so, to what relief are the
workmen entitled ?”
4. Claim statement was filed by the union, pleading
that the Corporation employs food handling workers in
the categories of departmentalized workers, direct payment
system workers, no work no pay system workers and
management committee system workers at its various food
storage depots. Workers of the aforesaid categories are
workmen within the meaning of section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), claims the
union. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946(in short the Standing Orders Act) also defines
workman as a person who falls within the ambit of
‘workman’ as defined by the Act. Therefore, all categories
of employees, employed by the Corporation at its various
food storage depots, are workmen. The Corporation got
standing order certified under the Standing Orders Act.
However, applicability of certified standing orders have
been restricted by the Corporation only to category of
departmentalized workers, on the strength of its letter
No.IR(L)/3(1)88 dated 25.11.1999. Provisions of certified
standing orders are not made applicable to the categories
of workers working under direct payment system, no work
no pay system and management committee system. By
way of restricting applicability of certified standing orders
to departmentalized workers only, the Corporation had
denied benefit of 12 days casual leaves in a year to the
workers working under direct payment system, no work
no pay system and management committee system. The
union raised a demand on the Corporation claiming parity
for direct payment system, no work no pay system and
management committee system of workers with
departmentalized workers in the matter of casual leaves
available to them. The said demand was not conceded to.
Act of the Corporation in denying 12 days casual leave to
other categories of workers than the departmentalized
workers is denial of their legitimate rights. Under Clause
13(2)(a) of the certified standing orders, applicable in the
establishment of the Corporation, a workman is entitled to
12 days casual leave in a year. The union claims that an
award may be passed in favour of the workmen, falling
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6911
under the category of direct payment system, no work no
pay system and management committee system, holding
them entitled to 12 days casual leave in a calendar year,
besides grant of 12 days wages for every calendar year
with effect from the date when certified standing orders
came into operation in the establishment of the
Corporation.
5. Demurral was made by the Corporation, pleading
that by way of present industrial dispute, relief has been
claimed under the Standing Orders Act, which Act is a self
contained code. Provisions of the Standing Orders Act
deals with issues relating to implementation of service
conditions of industrial employees under the said Act and
such issues can be agitated before the forum provided
there under and not before this Tribunal. Direct payment
system, no work no pay system and management
committee system workers are recognized by the
settlements entered into between the unions and the
Corporation from time to time. The union filed a writ
petition, being WP(C) No. 422 of 2000 in the Apex Court,
seeking wages at par with departmentalized workers for
direct payment system, no work no pay system and
management committee system workers, employed at 223
depots of the Corporation. The Apex Court, vide its order
dated 05.04.2002, ruled that justification and expediency
of continuance of direct payment system of labour,
recognized by various settlements, is to be looked into
and facts of the dispute raised by the union can be raised
before an industrial adjudicator under the Act. At present,
the said dispute is sub-judice before the National Industrial
Tribunal Mumbai as ID No.1/2003 wherein parity in wages
and fringe benefits for direct payment system, no work no
pay system and management committee system workers
have been claimed to that of the wages and fringe benefits
available to departmentalized labour. Proceedings in the
said dispute are fixed for 03.11.2011. In view of these
facts, the present dispute is incompetent.
6. As the Apex Court ruled that direct payment
system is recognized labour system, the Corporation
submitted draft standing orders in respect of direct
payment system workers before the Certifying Officer
under the provisions of the Standing Orders Act since the
existing standing orders were not applicable to that
category of workers. The Certifying Officer, vide his order
dated 25.08.2008, granted liberty to seek modification in
the existing certified standing orders, but refused to certify
the draft standing orders on the ground that there cannot
be two separate standing orders in one establishment.
The Corporation filed an appeal against the said order
before the Appellate Authority, which appeal pends
adjudication. The union has also filed an appeal against
the order dated 25.08.2008. FCI Workers Union has also
filed an appeal against that order, which appeal is also
sub-judice. The issue as to the applicability of existing
certified standing orders to direct payment system workers
pends adjudication before the High Court of Delhi in civil
writ petition No.1676 of 2008. In view of the aforesaid
facts, present proceedings are liable to be dismissed.
7. The Corporation projects that the union, a
splinter group of FCI Workers Union, is not competent to
raise a dispute on behalf of direct payment system, no
work no pay system and management committee system
workers. The Corporation pleads that no worker under the
management committee system has been engaged by it.
Labour system such as departmentalized workers, direct
payment system and no work no pay system are recognized
and governed by the settlements signed between it and
the labour unions from time to time. The Corporation
disputes that workers of the category of direct payment
system, and no work no pay system are eligible to get 12
days casual leave in a year. It has been claimed that the
dispute raised is not legally competent, hence it may be
dismissed.
8. Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II) dated
30.03.2011, the appropriate Government transferred the
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
9. Shri Mehboob Alam and Shri Hari Kant Sharma
entered the witness box to testify facts on behalf of the
union. Shri Tej Singh gave evidence on behalf of the
Corporation. No other witness was examined by either of
the parties.
10. Arguments were heard at the bar. None appeared
on behalf of the union to advance arguments on its behalf.
Shri Om Prakash, authorized representatives, advanced
arguments on behalf of the Corporation. I have given my
careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the
bar and cautiously perused the records. My findings on
issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
11. In its written statement, the Corporation pleaded
that a dispute is sub-judice before the National Industrial
Tribunal, Mumbai, as ID No.1/2003 wherein parity in wages
and fringe benefits for direct payment system, no work no
pay system and management committee system workers
have been claimed to that of wages and fringe benefits
available to departmentalized labour. It has been
contended by the Corporation that 12 days casual leave
in a calendar year is part of fringe benefits, in respect of
which dispute has been referred for adjudication to
National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. Out of its pleadings,
Corporation wants to project that on a dispute being
referred for adjudication to the National Industrial Tribunal,
this Tribunal cannot exercise its jurisdiction over the matter,
since the present dispute shall be deemed to have been
quashed on reference of dispute being made to the National
Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. Issues so raised by the
Corporation were considered and adjudicated by this
Tribunal vide order dated 22.09.2011 wherein findings were
recorded against the Corporation, which findings have
been extracted hereunder:
6912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“9. Sub-section (1A) of section 10 of the Act
empowers the Central Government to refer an
“industrial dispute” or any matter appearing to be
connected with or relevant to that dispute in the
Second Schedule or Third Schedule to a National
Industrial Tribunal for adjudication irrespective of
the fact whether or not it is the “appropriate
Government” in relation to that dispute. But before
the Central Government can make a reference, it must
have formed its opinion that:
(1) There is a dispute which satisfies the requirement
of an industrial dispute as defined in section 2 (k) of
the Act.
(i) Such industrial dispute exists or is at least
apprehended at the time of making the reference,
(ii) Such dispute (a) involves any question of
national importance, or (b) is of such a nature
that industrial establishment situated in more
than one State are likely to be interested in or
affected by such dispute, and
(2) The dispute should be adjudicated upon by a
National Tribunal.
10. Provisions of sub-section (6) of section 10 of the
Act are devised with a view to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings which may result from a reference to
the National Tribunal. The provisions contained
therein bar adjudication upon any matter by a Labour
Court or Industrial Tribunal, when such a matter has
been referred for adjudication to a National Tribunal
under sub-section (1A) of section 10 of the Act.
Non-obstante clause makes it implicit that
irrespective of the other provisions of the Act, it is
the National Tribunal alone which will be seized of
the matter referred to it to the complete exclusion of
adjudication by other adjudicatory authorities under
the Act.
11. Provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (6) of
section 10 of the Act contemplate that if the matter
referred to the National Tribunal under sub section
(1A) is at the time of such reference pending in or
before a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, the
proceedings before such Labour Court or Tribunal,
as the case may be, in so far it relates to such matter
shall be deemed to have been quashed. Sub clause
(b) of the aforesaid section bars the appropriate
Govt. from making a reference to a Labour Court or
an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication during the
pendency of the proceedings in relation to such
matter before the National Tribunal. The effect of
the said clause is that if a such matter is referred to
adjudication, the order of reference shall be void ab
inito and the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal
shall have no jurisdiction to proceed with the
adjudication.
12. Whether provisions of sub-section (6) of section
10 of the Act come in to play, in the present
controversy? As noted above the appropriate Govt.
referred the dispute of workers working under Direct
Payment System, No Work No Pay System and
Management Committee System relating to their
entitlement for same pay and other benefits as are
available to the departmentalized labour in various
depots of the Corporation through out the country.
The reference order makes it clear that the workers
of above categories claim parity with
departmentalized labour for their pay and other
benefits. Claim filed before the National Tribunal
projects that the parity in pay and other benefits is
demanded on account of similar work and
responsibilities performed by them. The expression
“other benefits” would certainly encompass casual
leave in it. In the reference under consideration the
Handling Union demands for 12 days causal leave
in a calendar year as per Certified Standing Orders
to the workers other than departmentalized labour.
13. Whether reference orders, referred above, project
that the National Tribunal as well as this Tribunal
are going to adjudicate upon one and the same
matter. In the reference before the National Tribunal
claim of pay and other benefits is based on parity
with the departmentalized labour. Therefore the
cause of action or apprehension of an industrial
dispute was perceived by the appropriate Govt. as
to be based on demand relating to parity of pay and
other benefits with that of the departmentalized
labour. Hence it is clear that the National Tribunal is
seized with a dispute which is based on a claim
seeking parity in pay and other benefits with
departmentalized labour. The present reference
makes it clear that the Handling Union demands
twelve days causal leave in a calendar year to
workers other then departmentalized labour, in
pursuance of Certified Standing Orders. Therefore
the dispute under reference, though relating to 12
days causal leave, which forms part of other benefits,
is based on the Certified Standing Orders, framed
under the Industrial Employment (standing Orders)
Act, 1946, Certified Standing Orders have force of
law. It may encourage any one to say that the claim
before this Tribunal is based on service conditions,
guaranteed by the Standing Orders.
14. Law recognizes a right in favour of a litigant to
base his case on all or any one of the causes of
action available to him. Different causes of action
may arise in favour of a party, when some wrong has
been caused to him. For example, if one is
dispossessed from his immovable property he may
sue his opponent for possession under section 6 of
the Specify Relief Act, 1963, may also sue, based on
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6913
previous possession and not on title as
contemplated by Article 64 and can also maintain a
suit for possession based on title as enacted by
Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He can maintain
suit for possession of the said immovable property
on above causes of action, which are independent
of each other. Likewise a landlord may seek
possession of the tenanted accommodation from
his tenant on different grounds, enacted under the
tenancy laws. There would be no bar to different
suits or petitions to seek possession of the
immovable property or tenanted premises, as the
case may be. In the same manner demand of 12 days
causal leaves in a calendar year is based on different
propositions viz. (I) parity with the departmentalized
labour, and (II) based on service conditions,
guaranteed by the Certified Standing Orders.
15. Whether claim of 12 days casual leave in a
calendar year as per Certified Standing Orders was
preferred to the National Tribunal for adjudication?
As detailed above, claim of pay and other benefits
in parity with departmentalized labour was referred
for adjudication to the National Tribunal. Would
claim of 12 days casual leave as per Certified
Standing Orders fall within to ambit of “such
matters”, as provided in sub-clause (b) of sub section
(6) of section 10 of the Act? For an answer it would
be expedient to construe the above phrase used in
sub-section (6), which is reproduced thus:
“(6) Where any reference has been made under sub-
section (1A) to a National Tribunal then
notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no
Labour Court or Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon any matter which is under
adjudication before the National Tribunal, and
accordingly,—
(a) If the matter under adjudication before the
National Tribunal is pending in a proceeding before
a Labour Court or Tribunal, the proceeding before
the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may
be, in so far as it relates to such matter, shall be
deemed to have been quashed on such reference to
the National Tribunal; and
(b)It shall not be lawful for the appropriate
Government to refer the matter under adjudication
before the National Tribunal to any Labour Court or
Tribunal for adjudication during the pendency of
the proceeding in relation to such matter before the
National Tribunal”.
16. “Such matter” is key note of above two clauses
of sub-section (6) of section 10 of the Act. Since the
provisions of aforesaid two clauses oust
jurisdictions of the adjudicatory authorities as well
as of the appropriate Govt., as the case may be,
hence are to be construed strictly. Therefore the
phrase “such matter” which has been referred for
adjudication to a National Tribunal would include
the matter which was under consideration before
the Central Govt., when it formed opinions as
contemplated by sub-section (1A) of section 10 of
the Act. The matter which was not under
consideration before the Central Govt. and not
referred for adjudication fall outside the purview of
the phrase “such matter”. Any matter, which creeps
subsequently and is distinct and different than the
matter referred for adjudication to the National
Tribunal, would not fall within the ambit of phrase
“such matter” as used in sub clause (b) of the
aforesaid sub-section.
17. At the cost of repetition, it is said that the matter
relating to demand of 12 days casual leave, as per
Certified Standing Orders, is not pending
adjudication before the National Tribunal. On this
cause of action, the Handling Union has raised a
demand and apprehending existence of an industrial
dispute, it was referred to this Tribunal for
adjudication. This dispute does not fall within the
mischief of the phrase “such matter”, as used in sub
clause (b) of sub-section (6) of section 10 of the
Act. Hence neither sub clause (b) nor sub-clause (a)
of aforesaid sub-section has any application. The
dispute referred to this Tribunal is distinct and
different to the dispute which has been referred for
adjudication to the National Tribunal. The
appropriate Govt. was competent to make a reference
of the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.”
12. Next count of attack was made by the
Corporation, pleading that issues relating to
implementation of service conditions of industrial
employees are to be governed under the Standing Orders
Act, when Certified Standing Orders have been certified
for the establishment of the Corporation. The Standing
Orders Act is a self contained Code and issues which fall
within the purview of Standing Orders Act can be agitated
before the forum provided by the said Act and not before
this Tribunal. This contention, raised by the Corporation,
would be addressed to in the light of the provisions of
Standing Orders Act.
13. The Standing Orders Act was brought over the
Statute Book with an object to have a uniform standing
orders providing for matters enumerated in the schedule
to the said Act. Once standing orders for an establishment
come into force, there should not be different conditions
of service for those who are employed before and those
employed after the standing orders came into operation.
Once the Standing Orders come into force, they bind all
those in the employment of the concerned establishment.
The purpose of the Standing Orders Act is to require
employers to define with certainty conditions of service
in their establishment, to reduce them to writing and to get
6914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
them compulsorily certified with a view to avoid
unnecessary industrial dispute. Of course, it is always
desirable that such conditions be formally laid down and
expressed with as great precision as possible.
14. Section 1 of the Standing Orders Act specifies
that the said Act applies to whole of India to every industrial
establishment wherein 100 or more workmen are employed
or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months
when the Act came into force. Section 2 of the Act provides
dictionary for the words such as Appellate Authority,
appropriate Government, Certifying Officer, employer,
industrial establishment, prescribed, standing orders, trade
union, wages and workmen. Section 3 of the said Act casts
an obligation on an employer to submit draft standing
orders, proposed by him for adoption in the industrial
establishment, to the Certifying Officer. Section 4 lays
down conditions for certification of standing orders while
section 5 casts a duty on the Certifying Officer to examine
the question of fairness of the standing orders and
thereafter to certify it after following procedures provided
therein.
15. Section 6 of the Standing Orders Act creates a
right of appeal against the order of the Certifying Officer,
besides duties of the Appellate Authority to dispose of
that appeal. Section 7 deals as to from which date standing
orders would come into operation. Section 8 details that
on being certified, Certifying Officer shall file copy of
standing orders in the register kept for that purpose.
Section 9 provides that text of the Certified Standing
Orders shall be prominently posted by the employer on
special boards to be maintained for that purpose. Section
10 of the said Act details duration for which certified
stranding orders shall remain in force and as to how the
same shall be modified.
16. Section 10 A of the said Act deals with right of
subsistence allowance in favour of a workman suspended,
pending investigation or enquiry into the complaint or
charges of misconduct against him. Section 11 vests
Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority with powers
of Civil Court for the purpose of receiving evidence,
administering oath, enforcing attendance of witnesses
and compelling discovery and production of documents,
while dealing with application for certification of standing
orders or an appeal against the orders of the Certifying
Officer. Section 12 puts an embargo on oral evidence to be
given in contradiction of standing orders certified under
the said Act. Section 12A details that Model Standing
orders shall have temporary application till standing orders
are finally certified by the Certifying Officer.
17. Section 13 of the Standing Orders Act defines
penalties and procedure for imposition of those penalties
when an employer violates provisions of section 3 of
section 10 of the said Act. Section 13 A enables an
employer or workman or trade union to refer a question for
adjudication to any one of the labour court relating to
application or interpretation of standing order certified
under the said Act. Section 13B of the said Act details that
provisions of the Standing Orders Act shall not apply to
certain industrial establishments, specified therein. Section
14 empowers an appropriate Government to exempt
conditionally or unconditionally any industrial
establishment from all or any of the provisions under the
said Act. Section 14A empowers the appropriate
Government to delegate its powers to the State Government
or any officer or authority, as the case may be. The State
Government may also delegate its powers to any officer or
authority, as may be specified by way of notification.
Section 15 of the said Act empowers the appropriate
Government to make rules in respect of situations detailed
therein.
18. As noted above, Standing Orders Act, deals with
the proposition as to how standing orders would be
certified by Certifying Office. It has also been provided
therein that till standing orders are got certified by an
employer for its establishment, Model Standing Orders
would be applicable in that establishment. It has also
been detailed therein that parties have right of appeal
against the orders of the Certifying Officer and the
Appellate Authority would deal with the appeals raised
by the workman or employer, as the case may be. The
period for which the standing order, certified by the
Certifying Officer, shall remain in operation has been
detailed in the Standing Orders Act. How standing orders
can be modified is an area which has been dealt with by
the Standing Orders Act. In case of violation of provisions
of sections 3 and 10 of the Standing Orders Act, an
employer may be prosecuted and punished in accordance
with the procedure laid therein. These propositions make
it apparent that the Standing Orders Act is a complete
Code for the purpose of requiring an employer to define
conditions of service in respect of his industrial employees
with certainty, to reduce them in writing and to get them
compulsorily certified. In case of a dispute relating to
interpretation or application of standing orders, certified
under the said Act, parties have been vested with a right
to refer that question to a labour court constituted under
the Act. Thus, it emerges that dispute relating to
application or interpretation of the standing orders,
certified under the Standing Orders Act, may be raised by
a workman or an employer, as the case may be, before a
Labour Court constituted, under the Act.
19. In the present controversy, a dispute has been
raised by the union claiming 12 days casual leave in a
calendar year for workers of direct payment system and
no work no pay system. Gravamen of the dispute is as to
whether denial of 12 days casual leaves in a calendar year
as per Certified Standing Orders to the aforesaid category
of employees is legal and justified. A right has been claimed
by the union in favour of its members relating to
applicability of standing orders, got certified by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6915
Corporation, for its depots in North, East and North East
Frontier Zones. Such a right has been accorded by section
13A of the Standing Orders Act in favour of the workman
or a trade union or the employer, which authorize them to
refer a question relating to application or interpretation of
standing orders to any one the Labour Courts constituted
under the Act. Resultantly, contention raised by the
Corporation that dispute cannot be raised before this
Tribunal, constituted under provisions of the Act, is
uncalled for.
20. The Corporation projects that a draft standing
orders, enumerating conditions of services applicable to
workers of direct payment system, was filed before the
Certifying Officer for certification. The Certifying
Officer rejected its request vide its order dated 25.08.2008.
However, liberty was granted to seek modification in
the existing certified standing orders. An appeal was
filed by the Corporation before the Appellate Authority.
The union also filed an appeal against the said order,
besides an appeal preferred by FCI Workers union. The
Corporation agitated that in view of pendancy of those
appeals, dispute raised for adjudication to this Tribunal
is incompetent.
21. During the course of adjudication, appeals,
preferred by the Corporation, union and the FCI Workers
Union, were disposed off by the Appellate Authority under
the Standing Orders Act, vide its orders dated 17.10.2012.
The Appellate Authority ruled that workers of direct
payment system squarely fell within the ambit of
definition of ‘workman’ as given by section 2(s) of the
Act. The Appellate Authority also concluded that the
standing orders of the Corporation are applicable to all
its units, hence direct payment system workers are already
covered by the definition of workman given in the
certified standing orders. He ruled that it does not seem
to be appropriate to have a separate standing orders for
direct payment system workers. In view of above decision,
direct payment system workers are held to be workmen
within the ambit of Standing Orders Act and standing
orders certified on 27.02.1998 and modified/approved on
31.08.1999 in the appeal are applicable to such
employees.
22. In view of the orders passed by the Appellate
Authority, it became crystal clear that the appeals raised
by the Corporation, union and the FCI Workers Union
under section 6 of the Standing Orders Act were disposed
off by the Appellate Authority, vide its order dated
17.10.2012. The above adjudication by the Appellate
Authority takes away the objection raised by the
Corporation in that regard. Therefore, contention to the
effect that due to pendancy of the appeal, present reference
was not competent, is found to be untenable.
23. The Corporation pleads that the union, being a
splinter group of FCI Workers Union is not competent to
raise the present dispute. Facts to the effect that the union
is a splinter group of FCI Workers Union are not dispelled.
Now, it would be considered as to whether the union is
competent to raise the dispute. For an answer, law is to be
taken note of. In Food Corporation of India [1995 (71) FLR
278] , the Apex Court was confronted with a proposition
as to how representative character of a trade union would
be determined. In that case Food Corporation of India
and the unions, representing the workmen in the
establishment of Food Corporation of India, have agreed
to follow “secret ballot system” for assessing the
representative character of the trade unions. The Apex
Court laid down as to how the method of secret ballot
should be tailored to yield correct results. The Court ruled
therein that the union/unions obtaining the highest
numbers of votes in the process of election shall be given
recognition by the Food Corporation of India for a period
of five years, from the date of conferment of the
recognition.
24. In All Orissa State Bank Officers case [1999 (1)
DLR 271], the Orissa High Court rules that a recognized
union, who has numerical support to represent and to
speak on behalf of all workmen, has a right to represent
the entire body of workmen. An unrecognized union has
no right to represent the entire body of the workmen, but
it may speak for or represent workmen, who are its members
individually or as a group. In case of any conflict between
demands of recognized union and demands of an
unrecognized union the management can accept views of
the recognized union but the management cannot deny or
refuse to entertain any representation from or to enter into
any dialogue or discussion with an unrecognized union in
respect of grievances of any individual workman or a group
of workmen belonging to the unrecognized union. Relying
on the precedent in Balmer Lawrie Workers Union (AIR
1985 SC 311) the High Court ruled that acceptance of a
demand on discussion over a demand is not the one and
the same thing. Right of raising grievance and discussion
is a fundamental right, which cannot be taken away totally.
The High Court noted observation of the Apex Court in
the precedent, referred above, with profit, which
observations are extracted thus:
“….Forming an Association is entirely independent
different from its recognition. Recognition of a union
confers rights, duties and obligations. Non-conferring of
such rights, duties and obligations on a union other than
the recognized union does not put it in an inferior position
nor the charge of discrimination can be entertained. The
members of a non-recognised association can fully enjoy
their fundamental freedom of speech and expression as
also to form the association.
The Legislature has in fact taken note of the existing
phenomenon in trade unions where there would be unions
6916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
claiming to represent workmen in an undertaking or
industry other than recognized union. Section 22 of 1971
Act confers some specific rights on such non-recognized
unions, one such being the right to meet and discuss with
the employer the grievances of individual workman. The
Legislature has made a clear distinction between
individual dispute affecting all or a large number of
workmen. In the case of even an unrecognized union it
enjoys the statutory right to meet and discuss the
grievance of an individual workman with the employer.
It also enjoys the statutory right to appear and participate
in a domestic or departmental enquiry in which its
member is involved. This is statutory recognition of an
unrecognized union. The exclusion is partial and the
embargo on such unrecognized union or individual
workman to represent workmen is in the larger interest
of industry, public interest and national interest. Such a
provision could not be said to be violative of fundamental
freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(c) of
the Constitution.”
25. As emerge out of the law detailed above, an
unrecognized union is not entitled to be treated at par
with a recognized union. However, in the case under
reference, the Corporation nowhere claims that FCI
Workers Union emerged as a majority union in secret
ballot and recognition was accorded to it in that regard.
Evidently, there are multiple trade unions operating in
the establishment of the Corporation. The union is a
splinter group of FCI Workers Union. When secret ballot
system was not adhered to by the Corporation to assess
representative character of FCI Workers Union, in that
situation the Corporation cannot claim to deal with FCI
Workers Union in the matter of taking a policy decision
relating to service conditions of its employees. In such a
situation, the union is also competent to raise issues
relating to service conditions of the employees, who
happen to be its members. Contention raised by the
Corporation to the effect that being a splinter group of
FCI Workers Union, the union is not competent to raise
the dispute, is unfounded. The same is, accordingly,
brushed aside.
26. On turning to facts, one may announce that the
Corporation has to perform a lot of work in seasons for
procurement of food grains, when stocks are procured
and brought to its depots. Volume of work depends on
supply of food grains for Schemes like public distribution
system. There remains variation in volume of work on
account of richness of crop in the country, requirements
of food grains for Government Schemes and off take of
food grains from depots of the Corporation in accordance
with availability of foodgrains in the open market. Work
of handling of food grains in depots of the Corporation
is very peculiar and of seasonal in character. For the
purpose of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970, every depot of the Corporation has been treated
as an establishment in itself by the Asnani Committee
appointed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India,
New Delhi, pursuant to directions given by the Apex Court
to go into the question of abolition of contract labour
system in depots of the Corporation.
27. Besides departmentalized labour, the Corporation
used to engage labours through contractors. When
unions, working in its establishment, resorted to technique
of collective bargaining, the Corporation had to eliminate
the contractors and engage labours under direct payment
system. Wages of the workers working under direct
payment system is being revised by the Corporation after
every two years on the basis of change in All India
Consumer Price Index. Workers engaged under no work
no pay system are not under administrative control of the
Corporation. Same is the case of workers engaged under
management committee system. Work is allotted to the
workers of management committee, which comprises of
representatives of the workmen and not of the Corporation.
The Committee deploys workers and also prefer bills for
quantum of work done. On receipt of payment from the
Corporation, the Committee disburses it to the individual
worker concerned. As per procedure agreed between the
parties, the Corporation does not make payment directly
to the individual workers. There has been no administrative
or disciplinary control of the Corporation over workers
working under management committee system. From
01.11.1994, workers of management committee system were
upgraded to the status of workers of direct payment
system, on the strength of settlement entered into between
the Corporation and the unions.
28. Different labour systems, such as
departmentalized worker, direct payment system labour
and no work no pay system labour, are prevalent in the
Corporation, pursuant to settlement arrived at between
representatives of the unions and the Corporation, as is
evidence out of settlement Ex.WW1/M2. Shri Mehboob
Alam concedes in his testimony that the employees
working as departmentalized workers and direct payment
system workers are of two different categories. Ex.WW1/
M2 substantiates that fact wherein service conditions
applicable to departmentalized labour, direct payment
system workers and no work no pay system workers have
been distinctly delineated.
29. Shri Hari Kant Sharma admits in his testimony
that conditions of services of members of union are
governed by office memorandum Ex.WW1/M2. When
scanned, Ex.WW1/M2 makes it clear that departmentalized
workers were entitled to 12 days casual leave in a calendar
year. No casual leave is admissible to worker of direct
payment system. Same is the case with a worker of no
work no pay system. However, Ex.MW1/W3 highlights
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6917
that a worker of no work no pay system was eligible for
paid wages for three national holidays falling on August
15, January 26 and October 2 provided that he had worked
immediately before and after such national holidays.
30. There has been an agitation as to whether
certified standing orders are applicable to employees,
other than the category of departmentalized labour. The
Corporation tried to project that they were dealt under
model standing orders. The evidence, so adduced, was
assailed by the union. Documents Ex.MW1/W2 brought
over the record by the union to present that workers of
direct payment system were dealt by the Corporation under
certified standing orders. Affidavits of Shri Ashok Kumar
and Shri Shrawan Kumar are placed over the record by the
Corporation, which documents bring it to light that in the
matter of disciplinary actions, workers of direct payment
system are dealt with in accordance with the provisions of
model standing orders by the Corporation. These affidavits
make it apparent that in Ex.MW1/W2 it was mentioned
due to inadvertence that certified standing orders were
applicable to the workers of direct payment system. Hence,
Ex.MW1/W2 nowhere espouse the cause of the union.
31. Circular Ex.WW2/M2 was issued by Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department
of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi
on 14.01.1998. In the said circular, Government has decided
to reduce entitlement of casual leaves with effect from
01.01.1999 from existing 12 days to 8 days in a calendar
year. Shri Hari Kant Sharma could not dispute existence
of the said circular. Pursuant to the said circular, the
Corporation issued circular 2 of 1998 dated 08.12.1998 on
the strength of which casual leaves available to an
employee were reduced from 12 to 8 days in a calendar
year for the departmentalized workers. Shri Mehboob
Alam also could not dispute issuance of the said circular,
which has been proved as Ex.WW1/M8. For sake of
convenience, contents of the said circular are extracted
thus:
‘On the demands of the FCI Workers Union, the
casual leave as well as other kinds of leave to the
departmental workers were revised in terms of the
Memorandum of Settlement signed on 01.11.1994 between
FCI management and the representatives of FCI Workers
Union revising casual leave from 7 days in a calendar year
to 12 days with effect from 01.11.1994 at par with employees.
Accordingly, circular under reference No.IR(L)/4(15)/94
dated 16.11.1994 has been issued revising various kinds
of leave of the departmental workers. Recently, the
reduction of casual leaves from 12 to 8 in a calendar year
has been ordered to be implemented in respect of
employees. Accordingly, the casual leave stands revised
from 12 to 8 days in a calendar year for the departmental
worker also with immediate effect. This may also be
brought to the notice of all concerned.”
32. As noted above, 12 casual leaves available to
departmentalized labour under standing orders, proved
as Ex.WW1/1, were reduced to 8 days by the Corporation
on the strength of office memorandum Ex.WW1/M8. It
may be a case of modification of certified standing orders
Ex.WW1/1, in violation of provisions of section 10 of
the Standing Orders Act. Such a situation may attract
penalty specified under section 13 of the said Act. Except
penalty referred above, Standing Orders Act nowhere
makes provision to nullify modification of the standing
orders. When provisions in the certified standing orders,
as to admissibility of casual leaves in a calendar year,
stood modified, the case of the union to claim parity for
12 days leaves in the matter of casual leaves for workers
other than departmentalized labours goes off the track.
33. In view of reduction of casual leaves available
to departmentalized labour from 12 days to 8 days in a
calendar year, the union cannot seek 12 days casual leaves
in a calendar year for workers of direct payment system
and no work no pay system as per provisions of certified
standing orders proved as Ex.WW1/1. When
departmentalized workers can avail 8 days casual leave
in a calendar year, it does not lie in the mouth of the
union to assert that workers of direct payment system
and no work no pay system are entitled for 12 days casual
leave. In view of these reasons, I find no substance in
the claim made by the union. The same is accordingly
brushed aside. An award is passed in favour of the
Corporation and against the union. It be sent to the
appropriate Government for publication.
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated: 06.06.2014
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2780-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lc fnfo'kuy
viQlj (iQksUl) vtesj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhvkbZVh 54@1991) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@03@1991&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CIT
6918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
54/1991) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Sub-Divisional Officer (Phones) Ajmer,
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17.10.2014.
[No. L-40011/03/1991-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj
dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 54@1991
jSQjSal % dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns’k
dzekad ,y&40011@3@91&vkbZ-vkj-¼Mh-;w-½ fnukad 27-09-1991
Jh cq)k flag o vU; }kjk okbZl izslhMsaV]
ch-,e-,l- 17@161] iqjkuh e.Mh] vtesjA
&&izkFkhZ
cuke
lofMohtuy vkfQlj ¼QksUl½ vtesjA
&& vizkFkhZ
mifLFkr
ihVklhu vf/kdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu+] vkj-,p-ts-,l-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
%
Jh tqxyfd’kksj vxzoky
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls
%
Jh czg~ekuUn lkanw
fnukad vokMZ % 22-09-2014
la’kksf/kr vokMZ
1-
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk dzekad
,y&40011@3@91& vkbZ-vkj-¼Mh-;w-½ fnukad 27-09-1991 ls
fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn “Whether the action of Sub-
Divisional Officer (Phones) Ajmer in terminating the
services of workmen listed at annexure ‘A’ w.e.f. 1-6-88 is
Justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are
entitled to and from the date” vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vfèkdj.k
dks izkIr gqvk gSA
2-
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse is’k dj
dFku fd;k fd fookn ls lacaf/kr Jfedx.k loZJh cq)k flag]
xksiky] Jo.kflag] ckcw eksgEen] vuoj gqlSu] c[rkoj] ukjkflag]
mLeku vyh ,oa 'kdwj eksgEen vizkFkhZ ds ;gka dStqvy Jfedksa
ds :i esa dk;Zjr FksA ;wfu;u dk dFku gS fd foi{kh laLFkku
us bu Jfedksa dks o"kZ 1985] 1986] 1987 ,oa ebZ 1988 dh vof/k
esa dk;Z ij j[kk Fkk rFkk lHkh us ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd
dh lsok;sa iw.kZ dj yh FkhA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk vfHkdFku gS fd
foi{kh }kjk fnukad 30-04-88 dks Jfedx.k dks ,d uksfVl fn;k
x;k ftlesa ;g vafdr Fkk fd ,d ekg ckn mudh lsok;sa lekIr
dj nh tk;saxhA ;wfu;u dk dFku gS fd mijksDr vof/k esa lHkh
Jfedx.k us 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA mudk dFku gS
fd cq)k flag us 368 fnu] xksiky us 873 fnu] Jo.k flag us 727
fnu] ckcw us 911 fnu] vuoj gqlSu us 387 fnu] c[rkoj flag
us 692 fnu] 'kdwj eksgEen us 692 fnu] jkeyky dqEgkj us
1142 fnu] ukjkflag us 964 fnu foi{kh laLFkku esa dk;Z fd;k
gSA ;wfu;u dk dFku gS fd Jfedx.k mDr uksfVl fnukad 30-
04-81 ls vk’p;Zpfdr gq;s ftlesa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k Fkk fd
mudh lsok;sa 01-06-88 ls lekIr dj nh tk;saxh] D;ksafd dscy
dk;Z lekIr gks x;k gSA ;wfu;u dk dFku gS fd mijksDr
Jfedx.k ls dfu"B Jfedksa dks lsok esa j[kk x;kA ;wfu;u dk
;g Hkh dFku gS fd dqN Jfedx.k us mijksDr uksfVl dks
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh nh vkSj LFkxu vkns’k izkIr
dj fy;k] ftldh izfr i=koyh ij is’k gSA ;wfu;u dk dFku
gS fd mijksDr uksfVl iwjh rjg vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ¼,]ch]lh½ ds fo:) gSA mudk dFku gS
fd ,sls uksfVlst ds tfj;s Jfed dh lsok;sa lekIr ugha dh tk
ldrh Fkh D;ksfd Jfedx.k us ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol
ls vf/kd dh lsok foi{kh ds ;gka iw.kZ dj yh FkhA mudk ;g
Hkh dFku gS fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ih ,.M Vh
foHkkx dks nSfud osru Hkksxh ,oa vkdfLed Jfedksa ds laca/k esa
funsZf’kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd foHkkx ,sls deZpkfj;ksa dks lek;ksftr
djus dh ikWfylh rS;kj djsA ;wfu;u dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd bl
izdkj Jfedx.k dks lsokeqDr fd;k tkuk Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds
vkVhZdy 10]16 o 21 dh mYya?kuk gSA lHkh Jfedx.k xjhc
ifjokjksa ls gSa] vr% fnukad 30-04-88 }kjk fn;s x;s uksfVlst dks
[kkfjt dj Jfedx.k dks iqu% lsok esa fy;k tkdj mUgsa
fu;fer fd;k tkos rFkk leLr ykHk fnyk;sa tkosaA
3-
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc is’k dj
dFku fd;k fd Jfedx.k ,d Lisf’kfQd dk;Z dscy [kqnkbZ ds
vLFkk;h dk;Z ds fy;s eLVjksy ij dStqvy Jfed ds :i esa
j[ks x;s Fks] ftUgsa dk;Z iwjk gks tkus ij ,d eghus dk uksfVl
nsrs gq;s gVk fn;k x;kA 9 Jfedksa esa ls dsoy xksiky }kjk gh
vizsy 85 ls ekpZ 88 rd yxkrkj rhu o"kZ rd dk;Z fd;k x;k
gSA dsoy Jfed xksiky ds }kjk gh foRrh; o"kZ 1985&86]
86&87] 87&88 esa ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu rFkk vk/ks o"kZ esa 120 fnu
fd;k x;k gSA vU; fdlh Hkh Jfed }kjk yxkrkj rhu o"kksZa rd
dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh foRrh; o"kZ 1985&86] 86&87]
87&88 esa ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu rFkk vk/ks o"kZ esa 120 fnu fd;k
x;k gSA dscy [kqnkbZ dk dk;Z iw.kZ gksus ij Jfedksa dks ,d ekg
dk uksfVl fnukad 30-04-88 fn;k x;k FkkA Jfedksa dk dk;Z
iw.kZ:is.k vLFkk;h izd`fr dk FkkA dscy [kqnkbZ dk dk;Z iw.kZ gksus
ij dk;Z ugha gksus ds dkj.k foHkkx ds ikl vU; bl izd`fr dk
dk;Z ugha gksus rFkk budh foHkkx esa vko’;drk ugha gksus ls
Jfedksa dks gVk fn;k x;kA vr% izkFkhZx.k dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;k
tkosA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6919
4-
lk{; izkFkhZ esa Jfedx.k loZJh xksiky] Jo.kflag] ckcw
eksgEen] vuoj gqlSu] c[rkoj] ukjkflag] mLeku vyh ,oa
'kdwj eksgEen ds 'kiFk i= is’k gq;s gSa] ftlls vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k
}kjk ftjg dh x;hA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls Jh izeksn 'kadj ekFkqj
dk 'kiFk i= is’k gqvk gS] ftlls izkFkhZ izfrfufèk }kjk ftjg dh
x;h gSA
5-
izdj.k esa Jfed Jh vuoj gqlSu dh e`R;q gks tkus ds
dkj.k mlds mRrjkf/kdkjh fdyk o vU; dks U;k;kf/kdj.k ds
vkns’k fnukad 25-08-11 }kjk i{kdkj cuk;k x;kA
6-
mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;hA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk
fyf[kr cgl is’k dh x;hA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA
7-
izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk dFku gS fd lHkh Jfedksa }kjk
o"kZ 1985 ls ysdj ebZ 1988 rd yxkrkj fcuk fdlh O;o/kku
ds viuh lsok;sa vizkFkhZ foHkkx dks nh gSaA lHkh Jfedksa }kjk
izfro"kZ 240 fnol ls vf/kd dke fd;k x;k gSA lHkh Jfedksa dks
fnukad 30-04-88 dks ,d gh lkbDyksLVkby esa uksfVl fnukad
30-04-88 fn;k x;k gSA Jfedkas dks lsok ls gVkrs le; dksbZ
NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k vkSj dsUnz ljdkj dks Hkh Jfedksa
dks gVkus ds laca/k esa lwpuk ugha nh x;hA foHkkx }kjk vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q dh ikyuk ugha dh x;hA
vizkFkhZ }kjk 19 o"kZ ckn Dyse dk tokc is’k fd;k x;k gSA
vizkFkhZ }kjk fn;s x;s tokc esa ;g dgha ugha dgk gS fd Jfedksa
}kjk 240 fnol dke ugha djds brus fnu dke fd;k x;k gSA
ftjg esa vizkFkhZ us ;g rd ugha iwNk gS fd lsokeqfDr ls igys
,d o"kZ esa fdrus fnu dke fd;k FkkA izn’kZ McY;w 13 vizkFkhZ
}kjk 278 fnu dke djus dk izek.k i= gSA lHkh Jfedksa }kjk
240 fnol ls vf/kd dke fd;k x;k gSA xokg izeksn 'kadj
ekFkqj us ftjg esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ukS Jfedksa dks tks uksfVl
foHkkx ds }kjk fn;k x;k Fkk og vkS-fo- vf/k- dh /kkjk 25 ,Q
dh ikyuk esa fn;k x;k FkkA Jfedx.kksa dh /kkjk 25,Q] th] ,p
ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr lsokeqfDr dh x;h gSA vr% lHkh Jfedksa
dks fiNys leLr osru o lsokykHkksa ds lkFk iqu% lsok esa cgky
fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu
U;kf;d n`"Vkar is’k fd;s x;s gSa %&
1-
, vkbZ vkj 2010 ,l lh 1236 fQ’kjht VfeZuy fMohtu
cuke Hkh[kwckbZ es?kkHkkbZ NkonkA
2-
1984¼48½ ,Q ,y vkj 310 xEeu bafM;k fy- cuke
fujatu nkl ¼,l-lh-½
3-
1995¼2½ ,l ,y vkj 64 cythr flag cuke LVsV vkWQ
gfj;k.kkA
4-
, vkbZ vkj 1979 ,l lh 75 fganqLrku fVu odZlZ cuke
JfedA
5-
1999 , vkbZ vkj ,l lh MoY;w 892 ,p,lbZch cuke
lqjs’kA
6-
, vkbZ vkj 2010 ,l lh 1116 gjftanj flag cuke iatkc
LVsV os;jgkmflax dk0A
7-
2012¼135½ ,Q ,y vkj 613 lh lw;kZdqekjh cuke
lhthvkbZVh de yscj dksVZA
8-
1979¼3½ ,l ,y vkj 223 gfj iSysl cuke ih-vks-
9-
1995¼70½ ,Q ,y vkj 463 LVsV vkWQ jkt0 cuke yscj
dksVZ
10-
2001¼1½ ,y ,y ,u 802 eSMhdy ,tqds’ku cuke oh-
ds- 'kekZ
11-
2004¼103½ ,Q ,y vkj 102 fuDl bafM;k Vwy cuke
jke lwjr ¼,l-lh-½
12-
2009 ,l lh 2205 ih oh ds fMfLVyjh fy0 cuke egsUnz
jkeA
13-
2001 ysc vkbZ lh 646 fodzekfnR; ikaMs cuke b.MfLVª;y
fVªC;quyA
14-
, vkbZ vkj 2010 ,l lh 397 eS0 fjrq ekcZYl cuke
izHkkdkar 'kqDykA
15-
, vkbZ vkj 2010 ,l lh 402 LVsV vkWQ ;w-ih- cuke
desVh vkWQ eSustesaVA
16-
2010 , vkbZ vkj ,l lh MoY;w 50 fnyhi flag cuke
LVsV vkWQ ;wih
17-
2013 ysc vkbZ lh 1048 fcfyeksjk uxjikfydk cuke
tklqosu tloarHkkbZ
lksyadhA
18-
¼2012½ 1 ,l lh lh 285 ,p ,l jkt’ks[kj cuke LVsV
cSad vkWQ eSlwjA
19-
, vkbZ vkj 1976 ,l lh 1111 LVsV cSad cuke ,u-,l-
euhA
20-
¼1982½ 1 ,l lh lh 645 jkWcVZ fMlwtk cuke ,DthD;wfVo
bathfu;jA
8-
vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk dFku gS fd Jfedksa dh
fu;qfDr dscy [kqnkbZ ds vLFkk;h izd`fr ds dke ds fy;s gq;h
FkhA vLFkk;h izd`fr dk dk;Z iw.kZ gksus ij Jfedksa dks gVk fn;k
x;kA Jfed xksiky ds vykok fdlh Hkh O;fDr us 240 fnol
ls vf/kd dke ugha fd;k gSA lHkh Jfedksa dks ,d ekg dk
uksfVl fn;k x;k gSA lHkh Jfed fiNys 20 o"kksZa ls dgha u dgha
6920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dk;Zjr jgs gSaA Jfedx.kksa dh fu;fer fu;qfDr ugha gSA o"kZ
1988 ds ckn dscy [kqnkbZ dk dk;Z can gks pqdk gSA ;g vc
Bsdsnkjksa ds ekQZr fd;k tkrk gSA vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk 7 o"kZ ls
vf/kd dk;Z djus okys Jfedksa dh ofj"Brk lwph cuk;h x;h gSA
Jfedx.k ij vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izko/kku ykxw
ugha gksrs gSaA vr% Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku
vf/koDrk }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar
is’k fd;s x;s gSa %&
01- flfoy vihy la[;k 3595&3612@99 lfpo] LVsV
vkWQ dukZVdk o vU; cuke mek nsoh o vU; dk fu.kZ;
fnukad 10-04-2006
9-
mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;h rFkk mHk; i{k dh vksj ls
izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk ckjhdh ls v|ksikar fouezrkiwoZd
voyksdu fd;k x;kA
10-
i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd izdj.k esa
fnukad 15-11-91 dks uks fMLiqV vokMZ ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA
fnukad 25-03-92 dks izdj.k dks iqu% jsLVksj fd;k x;kA fnukad
11-01-94 ds vkns’k }kjk vizkFkhZ }kjk dh x;h izkjfEHkd vkifRr;k¡
[kkfjt dh x;h gSaA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Mh-ch- Lis’ky
vihy la[;k 82@95 esa vkns’k fnukad 17-01-03 }kjk izdj.k esa
iqu% lquokbZ dj dkuwu ds vuqlkj fu.kZ; fn;s tkus ds vkns’k
fn;s x;s gSaA U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk vkns’k fnukad 11-12-03 dks
vizkFkhZ ds fo:) ,di{kh; vokMZ ikfjr fd;k x;kA
U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns’k fnukad 16-05-07 }kjk ,di{kh; vkns’k
fnukad 11-12-03 dks fujLr fd;k x;kA
11-
izkFkhZx.k loZJh xksiky] Jo.kflag] ckcw eksgEen] vuoj
gqlSu] c[rkoj] ukjkflag] mLeku vyh ,oa 'kdwj eksgEen us
vius Dyse ds leFkZu esa vius 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;s gSa] ftlesa
lHkh Jfedx.k us vius Dyse ds of.kZr rF;ksa dks nksgjkrs gq;s
vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd Jfedx.k ftl dk;Z dks lEikfnr dj jgs
Fks] og LFkkbZ izd`fr dk gS vkSj tc rd foi{kh laLFkku vfLrRo
esa gS] rc rd og dk;Z pyus okyk gSA mudk ;g Hkh 'kiFk i=ksa
esa vfHkdFku gS fd mUgsa dk;Z djrs yxHkx 4 o"kZ gks x;s Fks] vr%
mUgksaus vizkFkhZ ls fu;fer djus dh ekax dh] blh dkj.k vizkFkhZ
us dk;Z gksrs gq;s Hkh vuqfpr Je uhfr viukrs gq;s o 'kks"k.k dh
uhfr viukrs gq;s lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA Jfedx.k dks
lsoki`Fkd djus ls iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] th] ,p ds
izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh x;h vkSj u gh fu;e 77 ,oa 78
dh ikyuk dh x;hA Jfedx.kksa dks gVkdj u;s Jfedksa dks
laLFkku esa dk;Z ij yxk;k gS o Jfedx.k dks lsoki`Fkd djrs
le; muls dfu"B O;fDr ml le; laLFkku esa dke dj jgs
FksA lHkh Jfedx.k us izR;sd o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd lsok;sa
iw.kZ dh gS] vr% leLr ykHk o fiNys leLr osru lfgr lsok
esa cgky fd;k tkosA ftjg esa lHkh Jfedx.kksa us vizkFkhZ foHkkx
esa dscy [kqnkbZ dk dk;Z fd;k tkuk crk;k gS rFkk o"kZ 1984
ls 1988 ds chp dh vof/k esa vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa dke djuk
crk;k gSA
12-
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg Jh izeksn 'kadj ekFkqj us
viuh lk{; ds eq[; ijh{k.k esa dFku fd;k gS fd foHkkxh;
fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj eq>s rF;ksa dh tkudkjh gSA okn izLrqr djus
ls iwoZ foHkkx dks dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;kA lHkh Jfed dsoy
vLFkkbZ izd`fr ds dk;Z ds fy;s eLVjksy ij j[ks FksA dk;Z iw.kZ
gks tkus ij foHkkx ds ikl vU; dksbZ dk;Z ugha gksus ij foHkkx
dks budh dksbZ vko’;drk ugha FkhA lHkh Jfedksa dks uksfVl
nsdj gVk;k x;k gSA Jfed xksiky ds vfrfjDr fdlh Jfed
us ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnol dk;Z ugha fd;kA ftjg esa xokg us
Lohdkj fd;k gS fd Jfedksa dks 25 ,Q dh ikyuk esa uksfVl fn;s
x;s FksA Jfedksa dks vLFkk;h :i ls dsfcy dk;Z ds fy;s
eLVjksy ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA xokg us ftjg esa vkxs dgk
gS fd ftu Jfedksa us 7 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh dj yh rFkk 240 fnol
ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gks] mUgsa ;ksX; ekurs gq;s ofj"Brk lwph
cuk;h FkhA bu ukS Jfedksa dh ;ksX;rk iwjh ugha FkhA dsfcy
[kksnus dk dk;Z fu;fer izd`fr dk ugha gSA vc ;g dke
Bsdsnkjksa ds ekQZr djk;k tkrk gSA
13-
lHkh Jfedx.k }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk i=ksa esa Jfedx.k }kjk
vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z djuk crk;k gSA
vizkFkhZ }kjk Jfed xksiky ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh Hkh Jfed
us 240 fnol dke ugha djuk crk;k gSA esjs fouez er esa
fu;kstd dk ;g mRrjnkf;Ro gS fd og ;g bl rF; dks lkfcr
djs fd fdl Jfed }kjk fdruh vof/k rd dke fd;k x;kA
vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk bl laca/k esa ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{;
ds :i esa ,slh dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha dh gS fd lacaf/kr Jfed us
,d o"kZ esa 240 fnol dke ugha fd;k gksA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk
dsoy Jfed xksiky ds }kjk gh ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnol dke
fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS] tcfd lHkh ukS Jfedksa dks ,d
gh lkbDyksLVkby esa fnukad 30-04-88 dks uksfVl tkjh fd;k
x;k gSA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg Jh izeksn’kadj ekFkqj us
Hkh viuh lk{; esa Jfedksa dks 25 ,Q dh ikyuk esa gh uksfVl
fn;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA esjs fouez er esa ;fn lHkh Jfedksa
}kjk 240 fnol dk;Z iw.kZ ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] rks lHkh Jfedksa
dks fnukad 30-04-88 dks 25 ,Q dh ikyuk esa uksfVl D;ksa tkjh
fd;k x;k\ bl laca/k esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha
dh gSA vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh
/kkjk 25 ,Q dh ikyuk esa Jfedksa dks dksbZ NaVuh eqvkotk ugha
fn;k x;k vkSj u gh bl laca/k esa dsUnz ljdkj dks dksbZ lwpuk
Hksth x;hA vr% vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q dh ikyuk vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk ugha fd;k
tkuk izdV gksrk gSA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6921
14-
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2010¼III½
Mh-,u-ts- ¼,l-lh-½ 1019 lhfu;j lqizhVsaMsaV VsyhxzkQ ¼VªsfQd½
cuke larks"k dqekj rFkk ,l-ch- lh-MoY;w- uacj 281@2012
fd’ku o vU; cuke tt yscj dksVZ la[;k 02 esa fu.kZ; fnukad
08-01-2012 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k
x;k gS fd bl rjg ds nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedx.k ftUgksaus
1&2 o"kZ gh dk;Z fd;k gks rks mudks lsok esa okfil fy;s tkus
dk vkns’k rFkk cdk;k osru HkRrksa ds fnyk;s tkus ds vkns’k dks
mfpr ugha ekuk gS] cfYd ,sls ekeyksa esa Jfedx.kksa dks ,deq’r
{kfriwfrZ dh jkf’k fn;k tkuk mfpr ekuk gSA ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds uohure fu"d"kksZa dks
en~nsutj j[krs gq;s bu Jfedx.kksa dks fiNyk osru ,oa vU;
lHkh ykHk fn;k tkuk rFkk lsok esa iqu% fu;ksftr djuk mfpr
ugha le>rk gw¡A mDr nksuksa U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds izdk’k esa izR;sd
[email protected] dks ipkl&ipkl gtkj :i;s {kfriwfrZ
jkf’k ds :i esa fn;s tkus ls U;k; ds m~ns’; dh iwfr gks tk;sxhA
2010¼III½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼,l-lh-½ 1019 lhfu;j lqizhVsaMsaV VsyhxzkQ
¼VªsfQd½ cuke larks”k dqekj ds iSjk la[;k 08 esa bl ckjs esa
egRoiw.kZ fn’kk&funsZ’k iznku djrk gSA blh rjg ,l-ch- lh-
MoY;w- uacj 281@2012 fd’ku o vU; cuke tt yscj dksVZ
la[;k 02 esa fu.kZ; fnukad 08-01-2012 ds vfUre nks iSjkxzkQ
esa Hkh bl ckjs esa ekxZn’kZu iznku djrs gSaA fygktk bu uohure
U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa iznku fd;s x;s fn’kk&funsZ’kksa ds eqrkfcd
izR;sd Jfed dks dsoy ipkl&ipkl gtkj :i;s {kfriwfrZ
jkf’k vnk dj nsus ls U;k; ds mn~ns’; dh iwfrZ gks tk;sxhA
15-
izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk eSaus
ckjhdh ls v/;ksikar fouezrkiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA izkFkhZ
izfrfuf/k }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr dj Jfedx.k dks iqu% lsok
esa fy;s tkus rFkk fiNys leLr osru ,oa vU; lHkh ykHk fnyk;s
tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk izLrqr
n`"Vkarksa ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;kWa gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa
ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls Hkkjh fHkUurk j[krs gSa] vr% mDr lHkh U;kf;d
n`"Vkar [email protected] ds dsl esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA
16-
mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ
ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS %&
vokMZ
Jfedx.k loZJh cq)k flag] xksiky] Jo.kflag] ckcw eksgEen]
vuoj gqlSu] c[rkoj] ukjkflag] mLeku vyh ,oa 'kdwj eksgEen
dqy 9 Jfedksa dh lsokeqfDr fu;kstd }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk fd;s fcuk djuk mfpr o oS|
ugha gSA pwWafd Jfedx.kksa dh lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ foi{kh fu;kstd
}kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds dqN izko/kkuksa dh
ikyuk ugha dh x;h gS] vr% Jfedx.k ,deq’r {kfriwfrZ jkf’k
izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA Jfed cq)k flag us 'kiFk i= is’k
dj vius dsl dks izekf.kr ugha fd;k gSA vr% Jfed cq)k flag
ds vfrfjDr vU; lHkh Jfedx.kkasa esa ls izR;sd Jfedx.k dks
ipkl&ipkl gtkj :i;s {kfriwfrZ jkf’k ds :i esa fnyk;s tkrs
gSaA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k fnukad 17-01-03 ,oa
U;k;kf/kdj.k ds ,di{kh; vkns’k fnukad 11-12-03 ds ckn
vizkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 14-06-04 dks iqu% jsLVksjs’ku gsrq izkFkZuk i=
is’k fd;k x;k gSA vr% Jfedx.k dks fnukad 14-06-04 ls
ipkl&ipkl gtkj #i;s ,deq’r {kfriwfrZ jkf’k ds :i esa
fnyk;s tkrs gSaA foi{kh laLFkku izkFkhZ Jfed cq)k flag ds
vfrfjDr vU; lHkh Jfedx.k dks fnukad 14-06-04 ls {kfriwfrZ
jkf’k Hkqxrku djus dh fnukad rd 6 izfr’kr dh nj ls C;kt
Hkh vnk djsxkA pwWafd Jfed vuoj gqlSu dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS]
vr% mlds okfjlku mDr {kfriwfrZ jkf’k e; C;kt izkIr djus
ds vf/kdkjh gSaA
17-
la’kksf/kr vokMZ vkt fnukad 22-09-2014 dks [kqys U;k;ky;
esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk’kukFkZ
fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA
gseUr dqekj tSu] U;k;k/kh’k
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2781-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tokgj uoksn;
fo|ky;] pq: ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-
lhvkbZVh 51@1995) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
17-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@98@1995&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Case No. CIT
51/1995) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Churu,
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17.10.2014.
[No. L-42012/98/1995-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
6922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj
dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 51@1995
jSQjSal % dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns’k
dzekad ,y&42012@98@95& vkbZ-vkj-¼Mh;w½ fnukad
20-07-1995
xq:nkl mik/;k; iq= Jh lR;ukjk;.k mik/;k;]
ea=h ekxZ] pw:A
&& izkFkhZ
cuke
1- fizafliy] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] pw:A
2- dfe’uj] dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu]
18 bULVhV~;w’kuy ,fj;k] 'kghn
thr flag ekax] U;w nsgyhA
&& vizkFkhZx.k
mifLFkr
ihVklhu vf/kdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu+] vkj-,p-ts-,l-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
%
Jh vkj-lh- tSu
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls
%
Jh gok flag
fnukad vokMZ % 20-06-2014
vokMZ
1-
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk dzekad
,y&42012@98@95& vkbZ-vkj-¼Mh;w½ fnukad 20-07-1995 ,oa
la’kksf/kr fookn fnukad 10-10-95 ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn
“Whether the action of the management of Kendriya
vidhyalaya, Churu, Rajasthan in terminating the service
of Shri Guru Das Upadhyay S/o Shri Satyanarayan
Upadhyay w.e.f. 04.05.91 and again 20-05-95 is legal
and Justified? If not, to what relief the workmen is entitled
to? vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk gSA
2-
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse is’k dj
dFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh la[;k 1 ds v/khu
fnukad 19-10-89 dks gq;h FkhA fnukad 02-06-90 dks izkFkhZ dks
lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA fnukad 18-06-90 dks izkFkhZ dks iqu%
fu;qfDr nh x;h vkSj 22-12-90 dks lsokeqDr dj fn;kA fQj
iqu% fnukad 02-02-91 dks fu;qfDr nh x;h vkSj fQj 04-05-91
dks lsokeqDr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 19-10-89 ls
04-05-91 rd 536 fnu dk;Z fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds
fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV ;kfpdk is’k fd;s tkus
ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 15-05-91 dks ,d
vUrfje vkns’k ikfjr dj lsokeqfDr vkns’k ij LFkxu vkns’k
tkjh dj fn;kA fnukad 18-05-95 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
}kjk ;g fu.kZ; fn;k x;k fd mDr fookn vkS|ksfxd
U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k mBkuk pkfg;sA fQj izkFkhZ dks iqu% fnukad
20-05-95 dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad
20-05-95 rd foi{kh ds ;gkWa fujUrj dk;Z fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk
iwjh esgur ,oa bZekunkjh ds lkFk foi{kh laLFkku esa dke fd;k
x;k gSA izkFkhZ dks vdkj.k gh lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk
fd;k x;k dk;Z LFkkbZ izd`fr dk FkkA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djrs
le; u gh dksbZ uksfVl fn;k vkSj u gh dksbZ uksfVl is dk
Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds le; mlls dfu"B
vusd Jfed dk;Zjr Fks rFkk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds ckn Hkh u;s
Jfedksa dks HkrhZ fd;k x;k gSA foi{kh }kkjk vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 th ,oa 25 ,Q dh ikyuk ugha dh x;h
rFkk jkt0 vkS|ksfxd fookn fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 77 o 78 dh
ikyuk ugha dh x;hA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ls iwoZ dksbZ
vkjksi i= ugha fn;k x;k vksj u gh dksbZ tkap dh x;hA izkFkhZ
dk lsokeqfDr vkns’k fnukad 04-05-91 o fQj 20-05-95 vuqfpr
,oa voS/k gSA tks fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok
esa cgky fd;k tkdj iqjkus leLr osru o vU; ykHk fnyk;s
tkosaA
3-
vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkjfEHkd vkifRr djrs gq;s dFku fd;k
fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k iks"k.kh; ugha
gSA foi{kh fo|ky; m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkus ls izkFkhZ }kjk
mBk;k x;k fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA
xq.kkoxq.k ij foi{kh dk dFku gS fd foi{kh fo|ky; dh LFkkiuk
fnukad 17-10-89 dks dh x;h Fkh rFkk rkRdkyhu vko’;drk dks
n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s ,oa vkdfLed dk;Z dh miyC/krk ds dkj.k
izkFkhZ dks fnukad 19-10-89 ls va’kdkyhu fu;qfDr dfu"B fyfid
ds in ij iw.kZr;k va’kdkyhu ,oa ,d fuf’pr jkf’k 713@&:0
ewy osru dk 75 izfr’kr ij rFkk fdlh izdkj dk HkRrk ns; ugha
gksxk] dh 'krZ ij nh FkhA izkFkhZ dks ,d fu;fer p;u izfdz;k
ds rgr fu;qfDr ugha nh x;hA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr iw.kZr;k
vLFkk;h :i ls ,d fuf’pr vof/k ds fy;s gh dh x;h Fkh] tks
vof/k lekIr gksus ij mldh lsok;sa Lor% gh lekIr gks x;hA
foi{kh Ldwy esa d0fy0 dk ,d gh in gS] ftl ij Jh /kesUnz
dqekj dk LFkkukarj.k gksus ij fnukad 02-11-89 ls dk;ZHkkj
laHkkyk x;k gSA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ,d fuf’pr vof/k ,oa
fuf’pr jkf’k ij gh dh x;h FkhA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkus
ls iwoZ dksbZ vkjksi i= ,oa tkap dh vko’;drk ugha FkhA izkFkhZ
ds fo:) dksbZ nqjkpj.k dk vkjksi ugha FkkA va’kdkyhu Jfed
ds fy;s uksfVl ,oa uksfVl is dh vko’;drk ugha gksrh gSA vr%
izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus
;ksX; gSA
4-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lo;a izkFkhZ lk{; esa ijhf{kr gqvk gS vkSj
foi{kh dh vksj ls Jh Mh-ds- lSuh dk 'kiFk i= is’k gqvk gS]
ftlls izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ftjg dh x;h gSA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6923
5-
mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;hA i=koyh dk voyksdu
fd;k x;kA
6-
izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr
19-10-89 dks DydZ de VkbfiLV ds in ij gq;h FkhA fnukad
02-06-90 dks izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA fnukad 18-06-
90 dks izkFkhZ dks iqu% fu;qfDr nh x;h vkSj 22-12-90 dks lsokeqDr
dj fn;kA fQj iqu% fnukad 02-02-91 dks fu;qfDr nh x;h vkSj
fQj 04-05-91 dks lsokeqDr dj fn;kA mDr lsokeqfDr ds
fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV ;kfpdk is’k fd;s tkus
ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 15-05-91 dks ,d
vUrfje vkns’k ikfjr dj lsokeqfDr vkns’k ij LFkxu vkns’k
fn;k x;kA fnukad 18-05-95 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk
;g fu.kZ; fn;k x;k fd mDr fookn vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds
le{k mBkuk pkfg;sA fQj izkFkhZ dks iqu% fnukad 20-05-95 dks
lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA Je ,oa fu;kstu ea=ky; ds vkns’k
fnukad 10-10-95 }kjk jsQjsal esa la’kks/ku gqvk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk
fnukad 15-05-91 ls 20-05-95 rd foi{kh ds ;gkWa yxkrkj dke
fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dks nksuksa ckj lsokeqDr djrs le; uksfVl]
,d ekg dk uksfVl is] NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ
}kjk dqy lk<sa ikap lky foi{kh ds ;gk¡ dke fd;k x;k gSA
foi{kh }kjk /kkjk 25 ,Q dh mYya?kuk dh gSA izkFkhZ Jfed ;fn
ikVZ Vkbe ij Fkk] rks ;g foi{kh dks fl) djuk FkkA Ldwy
m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA foi{kh ds xokg us ftjg esa
Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djrs le; uksfVl] ,d
ekg dk uksfVl is] NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA mifLFkfr
iaftdk esa le; 7-20 ls 1-20 rFkk 9 ls 3 cts rd fn[kk;k gS
izkFkhZ dh ikVZ Vkbe@vLFkk;h fu;qfDr izfdz;k ds vuw:i FkhA
foi{kh }kjk fyf[kr cgl ds lkFk tks nLrkost is’k fd;s gSa] os
i<s ugha tk ldrs] D;ksafd os iznf’kZr ugha gSA izkFkhZ dks fQDlM
VeZ ij fu;qfDr ugha nh x;hA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk 240 fnol ls
vf/kd dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ dk lsokeqfDr vkns’k
fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds
leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is’k fd;s x;s gSa %&
1-
flfoy vihy la[;k 4883&4884@2014 Hkqous’k dqekj
f}osnh cuke eS0 fgUMkydks b.MLVªht fy0 fu.kZ; fnukad
25-04-14 ¼ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;½
2-
2010 II ,y ,y ts 277 ¼,l-lh-½ gjftUnz flag cuke
iatkc LVsV os;jgkmflax dkjiksjs’kuA
3-
2008¼119½ ,Q ,y vkj 398 U;w bf.M;k ,’;ksjsal
daiuh fy- cuke ,- 'kadjkfyaxeA
4-
2012¼132½ ,Q ,y vkj 571 dku flag cuke fMfLVªDV
vk;qosZn vkfQlj o vU;A
5-
2012 MCY;w ,y lh ¼;w lh½ 663 vkjke lSuh cuke
lhthvkbZVhA
6-
2012 ¼134½ ,Q ,y vkj 832 Jherh ne;arh cuke
bUMfLVª;y fVªC;quy de yscj dksVZ] ikuhirA
7-
2010 ysc vkbZ lh 1039 jes’k dqekj cuke LVsV vkWQ
gfj;k.kkA
8-
2010¼125½ ,Q ,y vkj 187 ¼,l-lh-½ d`".k flag cuke
,p-,l-,-,e- cksMZ jksgrdA
9-
2010 ¼125½ ,Q ,y vkj 629 vuwi 'kekZ cuke ifCyd
gSYFk fMohtu uacj 1 ikuhir ¼,l-lh-½
10-
2003¼3½ vkj ,y MCY;w 1966 LVsV vkWQ jktLFku o vU;
cuke Jh egsUnz tks’kh o vU;A
11-
2011¼2½ MCY;w ,y lh 466 lqjs’k pUnz cuke uxj
ikfydk jktleanA
12-
2008¼118½ ,Q ,y vkj 950 ¼,l-lh-½ jkt0 yfyrdyk
,dsMeh cuke jk/ks’;keA
13-
1988 ¼57½ ,Q ,y vkj 462 ,-lqanjkEcy cuke xouZesaV
vkWQ xksok] nkeu ,.M fM;w oxSjgA
14-
2006¼109½ ,Q ,y vkj 1191 eSU;wyeksuh eSfVªdqys’ku
Ldwy pSUubZ cuke yscj dksVZ] pSUubZA
15-
2008¼2½ MoY;w ,y lh 727 fodkl vf/kdkjh iapk;r
lfefr lknqy’kgj cuke yscj dksVZ chdkusj o vU;A
7-
foi{kh ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd pw: esa u;k
dk;kZy; [kksys tkus ij ^^rkRdkfyd vko’;drk dh iwfrZ** ds
fy;s izkFkhZ dks ^ikVZ Vkbe fu;qfDr^** ,d fQDlM jkf’k 713@:0
ij nh x;h FkhA izkFkhZ dks iw.kZr;k vLFkk;h :i ls ,oa ,d
fuf’pr vof/k ds fy;s ikVZ Vkbe ds :i esa j[kk x;k FkkA blds
ckn fdlh Hkh Jfed dks dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h] dsoy /kesUnz
ulhjkckn ls LFkkukarj.k gksdj vk;k gSA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr
djus ds ckn ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls LVs gksus ij gh iqu%
lsok ij j[kk x;k FkkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa LVs [kkfjt
gksus ij izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok ls fnukad 20-05-95 dks gVk fn;k
x;k FkkA ftjg esa Jfed us Lohdkj fd;k gS mlus viuk
fu;qfDr i= is’k ugha fd;k gS] mls fQDlM jkf’k 713@&:-
feyrh FkhA fnukad 19-10-89 ls 04-05-91 rd dHkh Hkh fu;fer
osru dh ekax ugha dhA foi{kh Ldwy m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha
vkrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX;
gSA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d
n`"Vkar is’k fd;s x;s gSa %&
1-
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dk fQftdy fjlpZ yscksjsVjh
cuke ds-th- 'kekZ esa fu.kZ; fnukad 08-04-97
2-
¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 654 gfj;k.kk LVsV ,l lh lh MCY;w
LVksj fy0 cuke jkefuokl o vU;A
6924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3-
¼2006½ 1 ,l lh lh 253 fd’kksj pUnz ley cuke
mMhlk LVsV ds’ko MoyiesaV dk0fy0A
4-
¼2006½ 2 ,l lh lh 716 ,e-ih- LVsV ,xzks b.MLVªht
MoyiesaV d0fy0 o vU; cuke ,l-lh- ikaMsA
5-
¼2006½ 3 ,l lh lh 81 eqfuf’kiy dkmafly] lejkyk
cuke jkt dqekjA
6-
¼2006½ 8 ,l lh lh 508 LVsV vkWQ jkt0 cuke ljthr
flag o vU;A
8-
mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa dk euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk
xgurk ls voyksdu o v/;;u fd;k x;kA
9-
esjs fouez er esa fu"d"kZ ij igqapus ls iwoZ nksuksa i{kksa dh
vksj ls izLrqr xokgksa ds c;kuksa dh foospuk djuk mfpr gksxkA
10-
izkFkhZ xq:nkl mik/;k; }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk i= ds eq[;
ijh{k.k esa LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa dks nksgjk;k
x;k gSA ftjg esa izkFkhZ }kjk ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd og
ikVZ Vkbe odZj FkkA fu;qfDr vkns’k U;k;ky; esa is’k ugha fd;s
gSa rFkk mls fQDlM jkf’k 713@&:0 feyrs Fks rFkk mlus
fu;fer osru dh ekax ugha dhA
11-
foi{kh dh vksj ls Jh Mh-ds- lSuh }kjk vius 'kiFk i= ds
eq[; ijh{k.k esa Dyse esa fn;s x;s tokc dks nksgjk;k x;k gSA
ftjg esa Hkh xokg us izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ikVZ Vkbe ,oa vLFkk;h
:i ls gksuk rFkk izkFkhZ dks fnukad 04-05-91 dks lsokeqDr fd;k
tkuk] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dh ikyuk esa fnukad
15-05-91 ls 20-05-91 rd dke djuk rFkk iqu% 20-05-91 dks
lsok ls gVk;k tkuk crk;k gSA lkFk gh vkxs dFku fd;k gS fd
izkFkhZ dks lsokeqfDr ds le; uksfVl] uksfVl is] NaVuh eqvkotk
ugha fn;k x;kA
12-
vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ;g izkjfEHkd vkifRr dh x;h gS fd
foi{kh Ldwy m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA esjs fouez er
esa fo|ky; esa ftlesa Nk=&Nk=kvksa dk v/;;u gsrq izos’k gksrk
gS] muls v/;;u gsrq Qhl olwy dh tkrh gS vkSj fo|ky; }kjk
ykHk&gkfu ds [kkrs la/kkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk
izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 1988 ¼57½ ,Q ,y vkj 462 ,-lqanjkEcy
cuke xouZesaV vkWQ xksok] nkeu ,.M fM;w oxSjg ,oa 2006¼109½
,Q ,y vkj 1191 eSU;wyeksuh eSfVªdqys’ku Ldwy pSUubZ cuke
yscj dksVZ] pSUubZ esa ;g fl}kar izfrikfnr fd;s x;s gSa fd
'kSf{kd laLFkku m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrs gSA ,d fo|ky; esa ukWu
Vhfpax LVkQ }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds rgr fookn
mBk;k tk ldrk gSA mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds izdk’k esa
vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk dh x;h ;g izkjfEHkd vkifRr Lohdkj fd;s
tkus ;ksX; gSA foi{kh laLFkku m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA
13-
izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed
}kjk 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk
fnukad 19-10-89 dks foi{kh la[;k 1 ds ;gkWa fu;qfDr gq;h gS]
fnukad 02-06-90 dks izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA fQj iqu%
fnukad 18-06-90 dks izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr nh x;hA fQj fnukad
22-12-90 dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA blds ckn iqu% fnukad
02-02-91 dks izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr nh x;hA fQj iqu% izkFkhZ dks
fnukad 04-05-91 dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA bl izdkj bl
vof/k esa tks izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] og yxkrkj
240 fnol foi{kh laLFkku esa dke ugha fd;k tkdj VqdM+ksa esa
fd;k x;k gSA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj fdlh Hkh
laLFkku esa yxkrkj 240 fnol dk;Z djuk vko’;d gSA izkFkhZ
Jfed }kjk bl vof/k esa yxkrkj 240 fnol dk;Z ugha fd;k
x;k gSA
14-
izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 15-05-91 ls 20-05-95 rd dh vof/k esa
tks dk;Z foi{kh laLFkku ds ;gkWa fd;k x;k gS] og rks ekuuh;
jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s LVs ds dkj.k fd;k x;k
gSA vr% esjs fouez er esa ftl vof/k esa dk;Z fdlh U;kf;d
vkns’k ds rgr fd;k x;k gks] og x.kuh; ugha ekuk tk ldrkA
,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk tks fnukad 15-05-91 ls 20-05-
95 rd foi{kh laLFkku esa dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] og ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dh ikyuk esa fd;k x;k gSA bl vof/k esa
fd;s x;s dk;Z dks 240 fnol ds lkFk ugha tksM+k tk ldrkA
vr% ;g vof/k x.kuh; ugha gSA
15-
vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk ;g rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks
tks fu;qfDr nh x;h gS og] ^^iw.kZr;k vLFkk;h** ^^ikVZ&Vkbe** ,oa
,d fQDlM jkf’k ij nh x;h FkhA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk ftjg esa
Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls ikVZ Vkbe ij gh fu;qfDr nh x;h
Fkh] mlus viuh fu;qfDr ds vkns’k U;k;ky; esa is’k ugha fd;s
gS rFkk vius lsokdky esa mlus dHkh fu;fer osru dh ekax ugha
dh FkhA vr% Lo;a izkFkhZ }kjk ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd mldh
fu;qfDr ikVZ Vkbe gq;h FkhA mls izfrekg 713@&:0 fQDlM
osru fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk viuh fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa
dksbZ Hkh vkns’k is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftleas mldh fu;qfDr
laca/kh 'krksZa dk mYys[k gksA esjs fouez er esa fdlh Hkh Jfed
dks U;k; gsrq U;k;ky; ds le{k LoPN gkFkksa ls vkuk pkfg;sA
fdlh Hkh rF; dks Nqikus ,oa izLrqr ugha djus ds vk/kkj ij
Jfed dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gks ldrkA gLrxr
izdj.k esa Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk viuh fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa dksbZ vkns’k
is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa mldh fu;qfDr laca/kh 'krksZa dk
mYys[k gksA
16-
izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ;g vkifRr dh x;h gS fd foi{kh
laLFkku }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q 25
th dh ikyuk ugha dh x;hA izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a ;g Lohdkj
fd;k x;k gS fd og ,d ikVZ VkbZe odZj FkkA esjs fouez er
esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q ,oa 25th ,d
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6925
fu;fer deZpkjh ij gh ykxw gksrs gSa] u fd ikVZ Vkbe odZj ijA
izkFkhZ ,d ikVZ Vkbe odZj FkkA vr% foi{kh laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ
dks lsokeqDr djrs le; /kkjk 25,Q] 25th dh ikyuk fd;k
tkuk mijksDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vko’;d ugha FkkA vr%
izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk ;g rdZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA
foi{kh izfrfuf/k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2 yxk;r 6 esa fn;s
x;s fn’kk&funsZ’kksa dk izHkko Åij foospuk esa fn;k x;k gSA
17-
izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar la[;k 1
yxk;r 13 ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;kWa gLrxr izdj.k ls fHkUurk
j[krs gSaA vr% izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar
izkFkhZ Jfed ds dsl esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA
18-
mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ
ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS%&
vokMZ
"The action of the management of Kendriya
vidhyalaya, Churu, Rajasthan in terminating the
service of Shri Guru Das Upadhyay S/o Shri
Satyanarayan Upadhyay w.e.f. 04.05.91 and again
20-05-95 is legal and Justified. The workmen is not
entitled to any relief.”
19-
vokMZ vkt fnukad 20-06-2014 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa
fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk’kukFkZ
fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA
gseUr dqekj tSu] U;k;k/kh’k
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2782-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tokgj uoksn;
fo|ky;] dqpkeu flVh (ukxkSj) ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhvkbZVh 28@1996) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@75@1995&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CIT
28/1996) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal, Jaipur now as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kuchaman City (Nagaur),
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 17.10.2014.
[No. L-42012/75/1995-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj
dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 28@1996
jSQjSal % dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns’k
dzekad ,y&42012@75@95& vkbZ-vkj-¼Mh-;w-½ fnukad 27-06-
1996
n’kjFk flag iq= Jh guqeku flag]
xzke iuokjh] HkS: rkyko iks0 dqpkeu flVh]
ftyk& ukxkSjA
&& izkFkhZ
cuke
iz/kkukpk;Z] tokgj uoksn;] fo|ky;]
eq0iks0 dqpkeu flVh]
ftyk& ukxkSjA
&& vizkFkhZ
mifLFkr
ihVklhu vf/kdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu+] vkj-,p-ts-,l-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
%
Jh ch-,e- ckxM+k
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls
%
Jh gok flag
fnukad vokMZ % 10-02-2014
vokMZ
1-
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk dzekad
42012@75@95 fnukad 27-06-1996 ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn
“Whether the action of the principal Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Kuchaman City (Nagaur) is Justified in
terminating the services of Shri Dashrath Singh? If not, to
what relief the workmen concerned is entitled to?”
vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk gSA
2-
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse is’k dj
dFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ dks okgu pkyd ds fjDr in ij
fnukad 18-12-93 ds vkns’k }kjk fnukad 20-08-93 dks yxk;k
x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 07-08-94 dks fcuk dksbZ dkj.k
crk;s lsok ls gVk fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk iqu% dke ij fy;s
tkus ckcr~ izLrqr izkFkZuk i=ksa ij dksbZ /;ku ugha nsus ij fookn
Je vk;qDr ds izLrqr fd;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk /kkjk 25 ,Q] 25
th ,oa 25 ,p dh ikyuk ugha dh x;hA izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 20-
08-93 ls fnukad 06-08-94 rd yxkrkj dke fd;k gSA izkFkhZ
}kjk 240 fnol ls vf/kd dke fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls
gVkrs le; dksbZ ojh;rk lwph rS;kj ugha dh x;hA izkFkhZ dks
6926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
gVkus ds ckn fd’kksj flag dks j[kk x;k x;k vkSj mlds ckn
izkFkhZ dks uke cnydj HkkxhjFk flag ds uke ls 3&4 eghus dke
ij j[kk x;k vkSj mlds ckn jkedj.k dks dke ij j[kk x;k
tks vkt Hkh ogkWa dke dj jgk gSA izkFkhZ dks ijs’kku djus dh
uh;r ls lsok ls gVk;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls vyx djus
dh dk;Zokgh dks fujLr ?kksf"kr dj iqu% lsok esa ysdj lHkh
ykHk&ifjykHk fnyk;s tkosaA
3-
vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc
izLrqr dj dFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 20-08-93 dks
va’kdkyhu eksVj pkyd ds in ij j[kk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dh
lsok;sa fnukad 16-11-93] 12-02-94 ,oa mlds ckn fnukad
13-12-93 rd ds fy;s c<+k;h x;h FkhA izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa fnukad
13-02-94 dks ugha c<+kus ds dkj.k Lor% gh lekIr gks x;hA izkFkhZ
dh lsoklekfIr vkS0fo0vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 2¼.k .k½¼[k [k½ ds
izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gSA izkFkhZ
}kjk Lo;a gh LosPNk ls dk;Z ij ugha vkus ij iathd`r ,-Mh-
Mkd }kjk M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus ij i= fnukad 27-5-95]
3-7-95] 31-7-95 tkjh fd;s x;sA ftlesa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k
fd izkFkhZ ds M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha nh rks rks ;g /kkj.kk gks
tkosxh fd og dk;Z djus dk bPNqd ugha gSA vizkFkhZ laLFkku
^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS] ftl ij vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gkrs gSaA izkFkhZ Lo;a dh bPNk ls
dk;Z NksM+dj pyk x;k FkkA okgu pkyd dk in ¼,Dl lfoZl
eSu½ iwoZ lSfud ds fy;s vkjf{kr Fkk vkSj ftl ij fu;ekuqlkj
ftyk lSfud cksMZ }kjk vuq’ka"kk fd;s tkus ij jkedj.k dks
fu;qfDr ns nh x;hA izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh fu;fer in ds fo:)
fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ Lo;a dh bPNk ls dk;Z NksM+dj
x;k gSA izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
4-
izkFkhZ }kjk tokcqy tokc is’k dj dFku fd;k fd foi{kh
laLFkku ij vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA
izkFkhZ }kjk 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA foi{kh }kjk
Hksts x;s i=ksa dk izkFkhZ us fyf[kr tokc fn;k gSA izkFkhZ dks okgu
pkyd ds in ij okfil iwjs osru lfgr cgky fd;k tkosA
5-
lk{; esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lo;a n’kjFk flag dk 'kiFk i=
is’k gqvk gS] ftlls foi{kh izfrfuf/k }kjk ftjg dh x;h gSA
foi{kh dh vksj ls Jh ,y0ih0 'kekZ dk 'kiFk i= is’k gqvk gS]
ftlls izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us ftjg dh gSA
6-
mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;hA i=koyh dk voyksdu
fd;k x;kA
7-
izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks izn’kZ
MCY;w&1 }kjk 22@&:0 nSfud osru ij pkyd ds in ij
fnukad 20-08-93 dks fu;qfDr nh x;h Fkh] ftl ij izkFkhZ }kjk
fnukad 06-08-94 rd yxkrkj dke fd;k x;k x;kA fnukad
07-08-94 dks izkFkhZ dks fcuk dkj.k crk;s lsok ls gVk fn;k x;kA
izkFkhZ dh lsok vof/k izn’kZ MCY;w&2 }kjk c<+k;h x;h gSA izkFkhZ
}kjk foi{kh laLFkku esa 351 fnol dke fd;k x;k gSA foi{kh
xokg us Hkh viuh ftjg esa izkFkhZ dk fnukad 20-08-93 ls 06-08-
94 rd yxkrkj dke djuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA foi{kh }kjk 25
,Q dh ikyuk ugha dh x;hA izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg dk uksfVl osru
ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ ds fu;qfDr
vkns’k esa ;g dgha ugha fy[kk gS fd mls lafonk vk/kkj ij j[kk
x;k gksA foi{kh }kjk Hksts x;s i=ksa dk izkFkhZ us fyf[kr esa tokc
fn;k gSA foi{kh }kjk 25 ,Q dh ikyuk ugha dh x;hA vr%
lsokeqfDr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr dj iqu% lsok esa lHkh ykHkksa lfgr
fy;k tkosA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu
U;kf;d n`"Vkar is’k fd;s x;s gSa &
1-
2000 ysc vkbZ lh 3304 ,xzhdYpj izksM~;wl ekdZsV desVh
cuke v’kksd gfjdquhA
2-
1999 ysc vkbZ lh 97 fizafliy Mwaxj dkWyst chdkusj
cuke vkseizdk’k o vU;A
8-
foi{kh ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks izn’kZ
ih&1 }kjk fnukad 20-08-93 dks lafonk vk/kkj ij j[kk x;k FkkA
izn’kZ ih&2 }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa fnukad 20-11-93 rd c<+k;h
x;h FkhA izn’kZ ih&3 }kjk izkFkhZ dks fnukad 13-02-94 ls lsok ls
i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA foi{kh izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk
fnukad 20-08-93 ls 07-08-94 rd 240 fnol ls vf/kd dke
djuk crk;k gS] tcfd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 13-02-94 ls lsok ls gVk
fn;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk ek= 175 fnol gh dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA
izkFkhZ dks M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus ckcr~ izn’kZ ih&4 yxk;r 7
fnukad 15-05-95] 27-05-95] 03-07-95] 31-07-95 dks jftLVMZ
,-Mh- i= tkjh fd;s x;s gSa] tks okfil izkIr gq;s gSaA tc ;s i=
izkFkhZ dks izkIr gh ugha gq;s rks budh ikyuk esa mifLFkr dSls gks
ldrk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk ,d foRrh; o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd
dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkS0fo0vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vks vks½¼ch
ch½ ds vuqlkj 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z fl) djus dk Hkkj
izkFkhZ Lo;a ij gSA izkFkhZ Lo;a dh bPNk ls dk;Z NksM+dj pyk x;k
FkkA foi{kh ij /kkjk 25 ,Q ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA vr%
Dyse [kfkjt fd;k tkosA foi{kh izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds
leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is’k fd;s x;s gSa &
1-
¼2005½ 5 ,l lh lh 100 fjtoZ cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke
,l- ef.k o vU;
2-
MoY;w ih ¼lh½ 3768@2003 fizafliy dsUnzh; fo|ky;
lu cuke tgkaxhj [kka
3-
¼2005½ 11 ,l lh lh 229 phQ bathfu;j cuke ds’ko
jko
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6927
4-
¼2005½ ,l lh lh 481 cVyk dkW0 'kqxj feYl cuke
Lo:i flag
5-
¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 654 gfj;k.kk LVsV ,Q lh lh MCY;w
LVksj fy- cuke jkefuoklA
6-
¼1997½ 4 ,l lh lh 391 fgeak’kq dqekj fo|kFkhZ o vU;
cuke LVsV vkWQ fcgkjA
7-
¼1997½ 4 ,l lh lh 393 LVsV vkWQ egkjk"Vª cuke
fiz;k’kadj egkjkt
9-
mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa dk euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk
xgurk ls voyksdu o v/;;u fd;k x;kA
10-
i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dh
fu;qfDr foi{kh }kjk vkns’k fnukad 20-08-93 }kjk 22@&:0
izfrfnu dh nj ls nSfud osru ij dh x;h FkhA izn’kZ ih&2
vkns’k fnukad 04-11-93 }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokvof/k dks fu;qfDr
vkns’k esa of.kZr 'krksZa ds v/khu fnukad 16-11-93 rd c<+k;h x;h
FkhA izn’kZ MCY;w&2 }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokvof/k dks 179 fnol dh
vof/k vFkok ubZ HkrhZ] tks Hkh igys gks] rd ds fy;s c<+k;h x;h
FkhA izn’kZ ih&3 vkns’k fnukad 12-02-94 }kjk izkFkhZ dks fnukad
13-02-93 ls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA
11-
fu;qfDr vkns’k fnukad 20-08-93 ds voyksdu ls Li"V
gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnukad 20-08-93 ls 19-09-93 rd ,d
ekg ds fy;s nSfud osru ij dh x;h FkhA fu;qfDr vkns’k esa
izkFkhZ fu;fer fu;qfDr ds fy;s ;ksX; ugha gksus ,oa mldh lsok;sa
fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds ,oa fcuk dksbZ uksfVl fn;s fdlh Hkh le;
lekIr dh tkus dh 'krZ Hkh mYysf[kr FkhA izkFkhZ dh lsokvofèk
dks foi{kh }kjk vkns’k fnukad 04-11-93 ,oa 18-12-93 }kjk
c<+k;k x;k FkkA ijUrq mDr vkns’k Hkh fu;qfDr vkns’k esa
mYysf[kr 'krksZa ds v/khu FksA izkFkhZ dks vkns’k fnukad 12-02-94
dks fnukad 13-02-94 ls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ
izfrfuf/k }kjk izkFkhZ dk fnukad 20-08-93 ls 06-08-94 rd okgu
pkyd ds in ij dk;Zjr gksuk crk;k gS] tcfd lsokeqfDr
vkns’k ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa fnukad 12-02-94 ds vkns’k
ls lekIr dh tk pqdh gSA vr% izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk ;g rdZ
fo’oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 06-08-94
rd dk;Z fd;k x;k gksA
12-
lk{; izkFkhZ esa Jh n’kjFk flag us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa
dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 20-08-93 ls 06-08-94 rd
okgu pkyd ds in ij fujUrj dk;Z fd;k x;kA izn’kZ
MCY;w&2 }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokvof/k dks 179 fnol ds fy;s c<+k;k
x;kA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 07-08-94 ls fcuk dkj.k crk;s lsok ij
ysus ls euk dj fn;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk 25 ,Q ds vuqlkj ,d
ekg dk uksfVl osru vkSj NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ
ds ckn jkedj.k dks okgu pkyd ds in ij j[kk x;k] tks
orZeku esa Hkh dk;Zjr gSA izfrijh{kk esa xokg us Lohdkj fd;k
gS fd mldh fu;qfDr ,d ekg ds fy;s nSfud osru ij dh x;h
Fkh] fQj ckn esa lsok c<+k nh FkhA izkFkhZ us viuh izfrijh{kk esa
;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldk p;u fu;eksa ds rgr fd;k Fkk
;k ugha] eq>s ekywe ugha gSA xokg us izn’kZ Mh&4 i= izkIr gksus
ij ,y-ih- 'kekZ us M~;wVh ij ugha ysuk crk;k gSA xokg }kjk
fnukad 06-08-94 rd yxkrkj dke fd;k x;k gks] bl laca/k esa
dksbZ Hkh nLrkosth ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k is’k
ugha dh gSA ftlls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ }kjk
fnukad 06-08-94 rd yxkrkj dke fd;k x;k gksA
13-
foi{kh dh vksj ls lk{; esa ,y0ih0 'kekZ ijhf{kr gq;s gSaA
ftUgksaus vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr nSfud osru ij
,d ekg ds fy;s fd;k tkuk rFkk ckn esa mldh lsok;sa c<+k;h
tkuk crk;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 15-05-95] 27-05-95] 03-07-
95] 26@31-05-95 }kjk izkFkhZ dks M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksuk rFkk
mijksDr i= izkFkhZ dks izkIr ugha gksuk dFku fd;k gSA foi{kh
laLFkku ij vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha
gksuk dFku fd;k gSA xokg }kjk izkFkhZ dks ckj&ckj cqykus ij
Hkh mlds dk;Z ij ugha vkus ij ,d vU; O;fDr dks dqN le;
ds fy;s rFkk mlds ckn jkedj.k dks fu;ekuqlkj fu;qfDr nh
tkuh dFku fd;k gSA foi{kh xokg us viuh izfrijh{kk esa Hkh ,slk
dqN dFku ugha fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 06-08-94 rd
dk;Z fd;k x;k gks vkSj foi{kh }kjk tkjh i= izkIr gksus ij og
M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gqvk gksA
14-
izkFkhZ }kjk vius rdksZa esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dke fd;k
tkuk dFku fd;k gS] ijUrq izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ nLrkosth
,oa ekSf[kd lk{; is’k ugha dh x;h] ftlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk
gks fd izkFkhZ }kjk yxkrkj ,d foRrh; o"kZ esa 240 fnol dke
fd;k x;k gSA mHk; i{kksa }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij
izkFkhZ }kjk ek= fnukad 20-08-93 ls 12-02-94 rd dke djuk
ik;k tkrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol
ls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ ds laca/k esa foi{kh
laLFkku ij vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèkfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs
gSaA
15-
izkFkhZ }kjk 25 ,Q dh ikyuk ugha fd;s tkus dk rdZ fn;k
x;k gSA tc izkFkhZ ds lac/ak esa laLFkku ij vkS|ksfxd fookn
vfèkfu;e ds izko/kku gh ykxw ugha gksrs gSa] rks 25 ,Q dh ikyuk
dh tkuh vko’;d ugha gSA
16-
izkFkhZ dks tkjh i= izn’kZ ih&3 yxk;r 7 tkjh fd;s x;s
gSa] ftuesa Li"V :i ls mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd vkids M~;wVh
ij mifLFkr ugha gksus ij ;g ekuk tkosxk fd vki dk;Z djus
ds bPNqd ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izn’kZ ih&4 dh ikyuk esa M~;wVh
ij mifLFkr gksuk dFku fd;k gSA ijUrq foi{kh }kjk tkjh i=ksa
ds lkFk fyQkQs dh izfr Hkh is’k dh x;h gS] ftl ij Mkd foHkkx
6928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dh fjiksVZ vafdr gSA blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ }kjk dsoy izn’kZ
ih&4 izkIr gksuk crk;k gS] tcfd izkFkhZ dks mlds ckn Hkh izn’kZ
ih 5 yxk;r 7 i= tkjh fd;s x;s gSa] mlds cktown izkFkhZ M~;wVh
ij mifLFkr ugha gqvk gSA vr% izkFkhZ viuh ethZ ls gh M~;wVh
ls vuqifLFkr jgk gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d
n`"Vkarksa ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;kWa gLrxr izdj.k ls fHkUurk
j[krs gSa] vr% mDr lHkh U;kf;d n`"Vkar izkFkhZ ds dsl esa ykxw
ugha gksrs gSaA
17-
mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dh
fu;qfDr nSfud osru ij fcuk dkj.k crk;s] fcuk dksbZ uksfVl
fn;s lsok ls gVk fn;s tkus rFkk fu;fer in ij ;ksX; ugha gksus
dh 'krZ ds lkFk ,d ekg ds fy;s nh x;h Fkh] tks 179 fnol
dh vof/k ;k fu;fer fu;qfDr] tks Hkh igys gks] rd ds fy;s gh
lsokvof/k dks c<+k;k x;k FkkA vr% izkFkhZ dh lsok iw.kZr;k
vLFkk;h FkhA izkFkhZ }kjk ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnol dke ugha fd;k
x;k gSA vr% vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha
gksus ls foi{kh }kjk 25,Q dh ikyuk dh tkuh vko’;d ugha
FkhA
18-
vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk
eSaus ckjhdh ls v/;ksikar fouezrkiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA mijksDr
lHkh n`"Vkarksa ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ka gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa
,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls lekurk j[krs gSa] vr% mDr lHkh U;kf;d
n`"Vkar gLrxr izdj.k esa ykxw gksrs gSaA ftudk izHkko ;Fkksfpr
:i ls Åij foospuk esa fn;k x;k gSA
19-
mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ
ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS %&
vokMZ
**izkFkhZ Jh n’kjFk flag dks foi{kh fizafliy] tokgj uoksn;
fo|ky;] dqpkeu flVh }kjk }kjk lsok i`Fkd fd;k tkuk
mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA izkFkhZ n’kjFk flag dksbZ jkgr ikus dk
vf/kdkjh ugha gSA**
20-
vokMZ vkt fnukad 10-02-2014 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa
fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk’kukFkZ
fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA
gseUr dqekj tSu] U;k;k/kh’k
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2783-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj y{k}hi
vkbySaM ,MfefuLVªsVj] y{k}hi ,MfefuLVªs'ku ,aM vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@
Je U;k;ky;] ,.kkZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 30@2013) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-10-2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@30@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Lakshadweep Island Administrator,
Lakshadweep Administration & Others, and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 17.10.2014.
[No. L-42012/30/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri.D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer
(Friday the 26th day of September, 2014/4th Asvina 1936)
ID 30/2013
Workmen
:
1.
Shri Pookunhi K Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
2.
Shri Darvashkham P P Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
3.
Shri Sayeed K C Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
4.
Shri Saifulla A M Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
5.
Shri Rosambi M P Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
6.
Shri Hussian K K Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
7.
Shri Beefathummab T K
Transits
Accomodation
Gandhi Nagar Cochin-20
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6929
8.
Shri Sainulabid P Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
9.
Shri Anwer Sadiqe J S Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
10. Shri Hussain K C P Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
11. Shri Saleem N M Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
12. Shri Abdul Rasheed K S P
Transits
Accomodation
Gandhi Nagar Cochin-20
13. Shri Hameed A C Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
14. Shri Chariyakoya P T Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
15. Shri Sabeer P Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
16. Shri Rahmathulla C Transits
Accomodation Gandhi Nagar
Cochin-20
By Adv. Shri Anand S A for
Workmen Nos.1,3,4,6,11,12,
13 & 14
Managements :
1.
The Lakshadweep Island
Administrator Lakshadweep
Administration Kavaratty
2.
Shri Karthikeyan General
Manager, SPORTS Society for
Promotion of Tourism &
Sports Office Kavaratty
By Adv. Shri S Radhakrishnan
This case coming up for final hearing on 23.09.2014 and
this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 26.09.2014 passed
the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government/Ministry of Labour vide its Order
No-L-42012/30/2013-IR(DU) dated 31.05.2013 referred
the industrial dispute scheduled thereunder to this
tribunal for adjudication.
2. The dispute is:
‘Whether the action of the Society For Promotion of
Tourism and Sports in denying the demand of Shri
Pookunhi, K. and 16 others to regularize their
employment is correct? (list enclosed) If not what
relief they are entitled to?’
3. After service of summons workmen Nos.1,3,4,6
and 11 to 14 entered appearance and others remained
ex-parte. Those workmen who had entered appearance
did not file any claim statement in spite of granting several
adjournments. Afterwards they were continuously
absenting themselves without any representation and
hence they were also set ex-parte.
4. Management has not taken any endeavour to
substantiate that the demand of those workmen to
regularize their employment is not correct though
opportunity was given for that purpose. As the workmen
remained ex-parte without filing any claim statement it
can be held that there exists no dispute and hence ‘no
dispute award’ is passed in this case. The reference is
answered accordingly.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 26th
day of September, 2014.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
-
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2784-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 119@1997) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@86@1995&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2784.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/
1997) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Canara
Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 20.10.2014.
[No. L-12012/86/1995-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
6930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-
TRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE
Dated : 9th July 2014
PRESENT :
Shri S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C R No. 119/1997
I Party
Sri S Rajanna,S/o S Siddaiah,Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi
Taluk, Sankighatta, Bangalore District.
II Party
The General Manager (Personnel), Canara Bank, C.O., NO.
86,M G Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
Appearances:
I Party
:
Ms. K Sarojini Muthanna, Advocate
II Party
:
Shri T R K Prasad, Advocate
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/
186/95-IR(B-II) dated 29.02.1996 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Canara Bank,
Bangalore is justified in dismissing Sri S. Rajanna,
Staff No. 28236, Clerk from service w.e.f. 20.10.90? If
not, what relief is Sri Rajanna entitled to and from
which date?”
2.
On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R
119/1997 when notices were issued to both the sides the I
Party workman and the II Party management appeared
through their respective advocates and the I party claim
statement came to be filed on 20.11.1997 and the counter
statement of the II Party on 05.01.1999.
3.
After completion of the pleadings my learned
predecessor while raising a Preliminary Issue as to
“Whether the II Party proves that the Domestic
Enquiry conducted against I Party workman was in
accordance with settled principles of law, Bipartite
Settlement and principles of natural justice?”,
receiving evidence of the Enquiry Officer for the II Party
and of the I Party workman and hearing their learned
advocates by order dated 26.07.1999 answered the said
issue in the affirmative i.e., the Domestic Enquiry held
against the I party by the II Party is Fair and Proper and
then another succeeding Presiding Officer after hearing
the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for both
sides on merits by award dated 17.10.2002 rejected the
reference. The said Award was when challenged by the I
Party before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
W P No. 51546/2003 (L-TER), the Hon’ble High Court by
order dated 14.08.2007 arriving at conclusion this court
did not apply its mind as to the defence taken by the
claimant/I Party and more over he was not given an
opportunity to represent his case quashed the said award
and remitted back the reference for fresh consideration in
accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the
claimant/I Party if need be to the management and then
pass the orders. On receipt of the order of the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka again re-registering the reference
in its original number when notices were issued to both
the sides they entered their appearance through their
respective advocates and on application by the advocate
for the I Party he was allowed to lead evidence on the
points of victimization and being not gainfully employed
and accordingly he filed his affidavit and examined himself
as WW 1 (V) and was cross-examined by the learned
advocate for the II party and no rebuttal evidence adduced
on behalf of the II Party. Then the arguments addressed
by learned advocates appearing for both sides were heard.
4.
The brief facts leading to this reference and award
may be stated as under.
5.
The I Party who joined the services of the II party
bank as probationary clerk and was serving at its Kunigal
Branch, on 09.11.1989 he was placed under suspension
alleging that he has committed certain gross misconduct
and then by obtaining an investigation done on the alleged
misconduct through Sh. S Gurunath issued with charge
sheet dated 07.03.1990 as under :
“Charge Sheet
You are working at our Kunigal branch since
02.12.1985.
On 18.10.89, you were working in the department
comprising Current Account/OD/OCC/VSL/GL and minor
subsidiaries. On that day, you told the Second Line
Manager Sri G R Rao that some of the operative Current &
OD Account-holders have inoperative Current Accounts
and you would transfer the balance in such inoperative
accounts to operative accounts of the parties and prepared
the following Debit & Credit slips:
Debit from
Credit to
Amount
Inoperative Current Account Operative OD A/c
of Sri B K Gopalakrishna
No. of Sri B.K.
Gopalakrishna
Rs. 960/-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6931
Inoperative Current Account Operative Current
of Sri Jayaprakash
A/c. of Sri K
Rs. 187.11
Jayaprakash
Inoperative Current Account Operative Current
of M/s. Sudha Printers
A/c. of M/s. Sudha
Rs. 290/-
Printers
Inoperative Current Account Operative Current A/c.
of M/s. Siddeshwara Service
of M/s. Siddeshwara
Station
Fertilisers
Rs. 5700/-
You had taken the above slips personally to Sri G R
Rao, Second Line Manager, surpassing the Current
Account Supervisor Sri K Anjanappa on the plea that the
transfer of funds from the inoperative accounts was to be
authorised only by Manager. Since the Manager was busy,
he had authenticated the slips without verification.
While verifying the above slips on 23.10.89, Sri G. R.
Rao, II Line Manager, observed that you had transferred a
sum of Rs. 5700/- from Inoperative Current Account of
M/s. Siddeswara Service Station to M/s. Siddeshwara
Fertilisers knowing very well that the Proprietors of the
above firms are different.
The investigation in the matter has revealed that
you had contacted Sri K R Sadashiva, Proprietor of M/s.
Siddeshwara Fertilisers on 17.10.89 evening & 18.10.89
morning and informed him that you had been sanctioned
a Crop Loan and the fertiliser component of Rs. 5700/-
would be credited to Current Account of M/s. Siddeshwara
Fertilsers. You further told Sri K R Sadashiva to pay you
Rs. 5200/- and to adjust the remaining Rs. 500/- towards
the amount you owed to him. Accordingly, Sri K R
Sadashiva came to the branch on 18.10.89 & drew a Self
cheque for Rs. 5200/- obtained the token No. 12 and handed
over the token No. 12 to you for collecting the amount.
Later you had collected the cash of Rs. 5200/- from the
Cashier.
On knowing from the Senior Manager that no crop
loan had been sanctioned to you and credit of Rs. 5700/-
given to the Current Account of M/s. Siddeshwara
Fertilisers on 18.10.89 was wrong one, Sri K R Sadashiva
instructed you to recredit the amount of Rs. 5700/-.
Accordingly, you had remitted cash of Rs. 2000/- on 2.11.89
& Rs. 3700/- on 9.11.89 to the Current Account of M/s.
Siddeshwara Fertilisers.
By your act of mis-representing the facts to the Bank
and to the customer and misappropriating the amount of
Rs. 5200/-, you have committed gross misconduct as per
Chapter XI Regulation 3 clause (j) of Canara Bank Service
Code.
All your above actions being prejudicial to the
interests of the Bank, you have committed gross
misconduct as per Chapter XI Regulation 3 clause (m) of
Canara Bank Service Code.
Deputy General Manager”
and ordered for holding Domestic Enquiry by appointing
Sri B V Janardhan, Manager as Enquiry Officer and S
Balasubramanya as Presenting Officer. Then the Enquiry
Officer securing the presence of I Party by issue of notice
observing the formalities of preliminary hearing while
receiving the evidence of Sri S Gurunath, Investigating
Officer; Sri A P Pai, Senior Manager; Smt. Sajeeda Begum,
Clerk; Sri G R Rao, II Line Manager; Sri K Anjanappa,
Officer; Sri C R Madhgastha, Clerk; Sri K R Sadashiva,
Proprietor, Siddeshwara Fertilisers, Kunigal tendered by
the Presenting Officer as MW s 1 to 7 respectively and
exhibiting Investigation report of Sri S. Gurunath; Statement
of Sri G R Rao, Manager, Kunigal Branch to Investigating
Officer; Statement of Sri S Rajanna, Clerk, Kunigal Branch
to Investigating Officer; Statement of Sri K R Sadashiva,
Proprietor, Siddeshwara Fertilisers, Kunigal to
Investigating Officer; Statement of Smt. Sajeeda Begum,
Clerk, Kunigal Branch, to Investigating Officer; Statement
of Sri R. Madhyastha, Clerk, Kunigal Branch, to
Investigating Officer; Statement of Sri B K N Murthy, Clerk,
Kunigal Branch, to Investigating Officer; Ledger Sheet
No. 902707 of Current Account No. 65 of M/s. Siddeshwara
Fertilisers; Ledger Sheet No. 686995 of CA 58 of
M/s. Siddeshwara Service Station; Current Account
Ledger Sheet 986950 of Current Account 61 of M/s. Sudha
Printers; Ledger Sheet No. 395017 of Current Account No.
3 of Sri B K Gopalakrishna; Subsidiary Sheet No. 176207
of Current Account (from 14.10.1989 to 9.11.1989); Current
Account Chalan dated 9.11.1989 for Rs. 3700/- in respect
of cash remitted to M/s. Siddeshwara Fertilisers; Current
Account pay in slip dated 2.11.1989 for Rs. 2000/- in the
account of M/s. Siddeshwara Fertilisers; Debit slip dated
18.10.1989 for Rs. 5700/- debiting inoperative a/c of
M/s. Siddeshwara Service Station; Credit slip dated
18.10.1989 for Rs. 5700/- credited to M/s. Siddeshwara
Fertilisers; Debit slip dated 18.10.1989 for Rs. 187.11
debiting inoperative Current Account of K. Jayaprakash;
Credit slip dated 18.10.1989 for Rs. 187.11 crediting
operative Current Account of Sri K Jayaprakash; Dedit
Slip for Rs. 290/- dated 18.10.1989 debiting M/s. Sudha
Printers (inoperative a/c); credit slip dated 18.10.1989 for
Rs. 290/- crediting OD a/c of M/s. Sudha Printers; Dr. slip
dated 18.10.1989 for Rs. 960/- debiting Current Account of
Sri B K Gopalakrishna; Credit Slip dated 18.10.1989 for
Rs. 960/- crediting OD A/c of Sri B K Gopalakrishna; Debit
Slip dated 14.10.1989 for Rs. 11896.45 crediting Current
Account inoperative ledger; Cheque No. 013683 dated
18.10.1989 for Rs. 5200/- drawn by M/s. Siddeshwara
Fertiliser, Current Account 65; Current Account balancing
book pertaining to Kunigal Branch (dated 14.10.1989 &
19.10.1989); Letter 10/HO/616/89 dated 27.10.1989 of
Kunigal Branch to Circle Office, Bangalore; Letter dated
20.3.1989 of Sri G R Rao, II Line Manager, Kunigal Branch;
Letter No. 10/HO/660/89 dated 6.11.1989 of Kunigal Branch
to Circle Office, Bangalore and Letter dated 6.11.1989 of
6932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sri K R Sadashiva, Proprietor, Siddeshwara Fertilisers,
Kunigal as Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-31 respectively and after of
close the evidence of the management since the I Party
did not choose to examine any witnesses and rest
contended by giving his statement in writing after
receiving the written brief from the Presenting Officer and
the I Party preparing his enquiry finding the charge as
proved and the appropriate punishment would be dismissal
he issued a notice to the I Party on the same day i.e.
23.08.1990 to show cause why he should not recommend
for imposing the punishment of dismissal and after hearing
him on 05.09.1990 he submitted his enquiry finding to the
Disciplinary Authority proposing for dismissal and then
the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 20.10.1990
accepted the enquiry finding and the proposal made by
the Enquiry Officer for inflicting the punishment of
dismissal and communicated the same to the I Party. Then,
the I Party when preferred appeal dated 07.03.1991 to the
General Manager, the Appellate Authority after affording
an opportunity of hearing to the I Party observing that
there were no reasons to interfere either with the findings
of the Enquiry Officer or the punishment imposed
dismissed the appeal by his order dated 20.11.1991. Then
the I Party after lapse of four years when approached the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), K G F for conciliation,
the said ALC(C) registering it in File No. 7(3)95-A/K since
submitted failure report to the Ministry, the Ministry made
this reference for adjudication on the following schedule :
“Whether the management of Canara Bank,
Bangalore is justified in dismissing Sri S. Rajanna,
Staff No. 28236, Clerk from service w.e.f. 20.10.90? If
not, what relief is Sri Rajanna entitled to and from
which date?”
6. Since as already adverted to by me above, my
learned predecessor has held the Domestic Enquiry
conducted by the II Party against the I Party as fair and
proper by order dated 26.07.1999 and same is not disturbed
in the Writ Petition filed by the I Party after award dated
17.10.2002 was passed and the evidence of the I party has
been received on the alleged victimization and being not
gainfully employed the points that now arises for my
consideration are:
Point No.1 : Whether the finding of the Enquiry
Officer the charge being proved is perverse?
Point No. 2 : If not, Whether the punishment of
dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority accepting
the proposal made by the Enquiry Officer which has been
upheld by the Appellate Authority is disproportionate?
Point No. 3 : What Order/Award?
7. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence brought on record in the Domestic
Enquiry in the light of the arguments advanced before me
my finding on Point No. 1 and 2 are in the Negative and
Point No. 3 as per final order for the following
REASONS
8. Point No. 1 : Since the I Party in the Domestic
Enquiry unequivocally admitted that he did told the II
Line Manager Sh. G R Rao some of the operative, current
and OD Account holders have inoperative current
accounts and that he will transfer the balances from the
inoperative accounts to their operative accounts and that
accordingly he transferred amounts as indicated on page
2 of the Charge Sheet and also prepared the corresponding
debit and credit slips as mentioned therein and also had
taken the debit and credit slips in connection with the
transfer of amounts to II Line Manager, Sh. G R Rao without
bringing to the knowledge of Sh. K Anjanappa the Current
Accounts Supervisor of the branch and that on 18.10.1989
Sh. K R Sadashiva, Proprietor of Siddeshwara Fertilisers
came to the Bank and gave a self cheque for Rs. 5200.00
and obtained token No. 12 and handed over the same to
him for collecting the amount and accordingly he collected
cash of Rs. 5200.00 and further on 02.11.1989 and 09.11.1989
he did remit cash of Rs. 2000.00 and Rs. 3700.00 respectively
to the Current Account of Siddeshwara Fertilisers, the only
aspect that is to be seen is whether this act on the part of
I Party was bonafide or made inadvertently under the
impression that the proprietor of M/s. Siddeshwara Service
Station and M/s. Siddeshwara Fertilisers were one and
the same as tried to be made or tried to be explained by
him. Before I proceed to consider whether it was his
bonafide or inadvertent act, I wish to place here with regard
to his admission which I referred to above from his
statement to the Charge as well as the statement he has
given in his own hand writing after the evidence of the
management was concluded which reads as under :
the extract from the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer
dated 28.05.1990
“E.O. Please identify yourself.
CSE I am S.Rajanna, Staff No. 28236, Clerk (U/S) at
our Kunigal Branch.
E.O. Have you received the above referred
chargesheet
CSE Yes
E.O. Have you gone through the same and
understood its contents
CSE Yes
E.O. Do you admit the charges?
CSE I would like to make the following admissions:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6933
(1) It is a fact that I told the II Line Mgr. of our
Branch Sri G R Rao that some of the operative current and
OD A/c Holders have inoperative current accounts and
that I will be transferring the balances in these inoperative
accounts to operative accounts of the parties.
(2) It is also a fact that I have transferred amounts
as indicated on page 2 of the charge sheet and also
prepared the corresponding debit and credit slips in these
connections i.e. (a) Rs. 960/- from the inoperative current
a/c of Sri B K Gopalakrishna to the operative OD a/c of
this party. (b) Rs. 187.11 from the inoperative current
a/c of Sri K Jayaprakash to his operative current a/c (c)
Rs. 290/- from the inoperative current a/c of M/s. Sudha
Printers to their operative current (d) Rs. 5700/- from the
inoperative current a/c of M/s. Siddeshwara Service
Station to operative current a/c of M/s. Siddeshwara
Fertilisers.
(3)It is also a fact that I had taken the debit and the
credit slips in connection with transfer of amounts as
above to II Line Mgr. of our Branch Sri G R Rao without
bringing this matter to the knowledge to Sri K Anjanappa
who was the current a/c supervisor of the Branch on the
basis that such transfer of funds from inoperative accounts
was to be authorised by the manager only.
(4) It is a fact that on 18.10.1989 Sri K R Sadashiva,
Proprietor of Siddeshwara Fertilisers came to our Kunigal
Branch and he has drawn a self cheque for Rs. 5200/-
and obtained token No. 12 and handed over the said token
to me for collecting the amount. It is also a fact that I
collected cash ; of Rs. 5200/- towards this from the cashier.
(5) It is a fact that on 2.11.1989 and 9.11.1989 I
remitted cash of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 3700/- respectively to
the current a/c of Siddeshwara Fertlisers at the branch.
I deny all other allegations against me contained in
the above charge sheet.”
the extract from his statement given after the
evidence of the management
I admit that I had told the II Line Manager of our
Branch Sri G R Rao that I will be transferring some
inoperative current accounts to operative current account
and vice versa. I initiated the move to reduce the work
load and to make the department comprehensive.”
9. Moreover, the evidence adduced by management
on these aspects through MWs 2 to 6 has not been
challenged by their cross-examination. If at all the act of
the I Party transferring the amount of Rs. 5700.00 from
the inoperative account of M/s. Siddeshwara Service
Station to the operative account of M/s. Siddeshwara
Fertilisers was not qualified with any other involvement
of him in drawing that amount transferred to Siddeshwara
Fertilisers and recrediting the same his defence that the
act of transfer was bonafide or inadvertently made would
have been probable/acceptable but the evidence on record
adduced through MW 7 Sh. K R Sadashiva, Proprietor of
M/s. Siddeshwara Fertilisers when do suggest that just a
day before the amount was transferred i.e., 17.10.1989 and
also on the date on which the amount was transferred i.e.
18.10.1989 he did contact him i.e. Sh. K R Sadashiva/MW
7 to whose account M/s. Siddeshwara Fertilisers the
amount from M/s. Siddeshwara Service Station was
transferred and made him to believe that a crop loan of
Rs. 5700.00 sanctioned in his/I Party favour being credited
to his Current Account M/s. Siddeshwara Fertilisers
requested him to draw the said amount and to pay him
cash of Rs. 5200.00 after adjusting Rs. 500.00 taken from
him and accordingly on 18.10.1989 itself the said Sh. K R
Sadashiva, Proprietor of M/s. Siddeshwara Fertilisers
presented a Self cheque No. 013683 for Rs. 5200.00 and
handed over the token to him/I Party and he/I Party
collected that amount, in the absence of any evidence to
believe his/I Party version that he just collected that
amount on behalf of Sh. K R Sadashiva from the Cash
Counter and handed over it to Sh. K R Sadashiva the
imputation made against him cannot be disbelieved.
Though Sh. K R Sadashiva, Proprietor of M/s. Siddeshwara
Fertilisers examined as MW 7 in the enquiry categorically
confirmed the above fact appearing in his written statement
given to the Branch Manager as well as before the
Investigating Officer produced at Ex M-31 and M-4
respectively, I party has not challenged the same in his
cross-examination. What all he asked in his cross-
examination reads as under :
“CSE – It is alleged against me by the Bank that I
have taken Rs. 5200/- represented by Ex M26. Can you tell
me whether this is taken by me or you yourself?
MW 7 – the cash has been taken by Shri Rajanna
only.
CSE – You had given the token to me in respect of
this cheque. Have I not handed over the amount of
Rs. 5200/- to you?
MW 7 – I have not received the amount from
Shri Rajanna in respect of the Cheque 013863 for Rs. 5200/-
dt. 18.10.1990.”
10. Since the defence/version of I Party that Sh. K R
Sadashiva had given him the token just to collect the
amount from the cash counter and to hand over it to him
do suggest that he was very much acquainted with him as
such he was not knowing the Proprietor of M/s.
Siddeshwara Fertilisers and M/s. Siddeshwara Service
Station were different while making transfer is unbelievable.
If at all as tried to be made out by the I Party the Proprietor
of M/s. Siddeshwara Fertilisers namely Sh. K R Sadashiva
on 18.10.1989 after tendering the cheque for Rs. 5200.00
and collecting the token handed over the token to him/I
Party just to collect the amount and to hand over the same
6934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
later on there was no reason for Sh. K R Sadashiva to
impute him/I Party as made out in his statement marked as
Ex M-4 and evidence given in the enquiry. Absolutely, no
reasons are brought out in the cross-examination of Sh. K
R Sadashiva/MW 7 for falsely implicating him in this
fashion. Under the circumstances, the explanation or
defence that is tried to be made out by the I Party is
unacceptable and there are no reasons to say that the
finding of the Enquiry Officer charge being proved as
perverse. Accordingly, I arrive at conclusion of answering
this Point in the negative.
11. Point No. 2 : Since the act on the part of the I
Party managing to transfer the balance in the inoperative
current account of M/s. Siddeshwara Service Station to
the Operative Current Account of M/s. Siddeshwara
Fertilisers the Proprietor of which were all together
different and collecting the said money from the
proprietor of M/s. Siddeshwara Fertilisers since amounts
to a grave misconduct continuing of whom in the services
of the Bank was unsafe in the interest of customers of the
Bank as well as the Bank, absolutely, I find no reasons to
say the punishment imposed against him by the
Disciplinary Authority Dismissing him from service as
disproportionate. Accordingly, I have arrived at
conclusion of answering this point in the Negative.
12. Point No. 3 : In view of my finding on Point
No. 1 and 2, I have no other go except to say the action of
the management as justified. In the result, I pass the
following
ORDER
The action of the management of Canara Bank,
Bangalore in dismissing Sri S. Rajanna, Staff No. 28236,
Clerk from service w.e.f. 20.10.1990 is justified and that
he is entitle for any relief.
(Typed to my dictation by UDC, corrected and signed
by me on 9th JULY, 2014)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2785-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 73@2008) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@50@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2785.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/
2008) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian
Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 20.10.2014.
[No. L-12012/50/2008-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE
DATED : 16th JULY, 2014
PRESENT :
Shri S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C R No. 73/2008
I Party
Sh. Suryakant S Ratkalle,Indian Bank, C/o Ram Mahaev
Apte, Advocate, 1668/3, Ramling Khind, BELGAUM –
590 001.
II Party
The Branch Manager,Indian Bank,Khade Bazar Branch,
BELGAUM.
Appearances:
I Party
:
Shri R M Apte Advocate
II Party :
Shri G N Raichur Advocate
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/50/
2008-IR(B-II) dated 17.10.2008 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the alleged illegal termination and claim
for reinstatement into service with backwages by
Sri Suryakant S. Ratkalle against the management of
Indian Bank is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R
73/2008 when notices were issued to both sides they
entered their appearance through their respect advocates
and claim statement came to be filed on 03.03.2010 and
counter statement on 24.11.2010.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6935
3.
The I party in his claim statement asserts that he
was taken by the II party as Casual Attender on Daily
Wages in the year 1992 and engaged intermittently for a
few days in a month till 1996 showing the payments made
by him in their records as miscellaneous expenses and
from May 1997 onwards till December 2000 his services
were taken continuously except the intervening holidays
and the days he availed leave and wages paid to him in the
year 1997 are debited as amount paid to an officer for TA
and in respect of the payments made to him from 1998
onwards till December 2000 as maintenance of premises
(MOP). It is further asserted that in the initial years the
rate of daily wages was Rs. 25/- later increased from time
to time upto Rs. 80/- and abruptly from 06.11.2000 it was
reduced to Rs. 50/- per day and with malafide intention his
service was discontinued for two weeks w.e.f. 13.11.2000
saying that thereafter he would be engaged for only two
weeks in a month. Then through his lawyers notice dated
20.11.2000 informed the said facts to the Chairperson and
Managing Director of the Bank with request to withdraw
the steps taken by the Belgaum Branch Manager of
unlawfully reducing the rate of wages and creating an
artificial break and to absorb him as a regular and permanent
employee of the Bank either in the existing vacancy at
Belgaum or at any other place convenient to him but the II
Party instead of giving due consideration to the contents
of the notice and redressing his legitimate grievances
informed its concerned officers to take action against him
and thereafter the Branch Manager on 07.12.2000 at the
end of the working hours informed him his services are no
more required from the following day which amounts to
illegal retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo)
of the Industrial Dispute Act being violative of provisions
of Section 25(f) and 25(n). He has further asserted that
there were three sanctioned posts of Sub-staff and Sweeper
at the Belgaum Branch of the II Party namely One Daftry,
One Attender, One Sweeper and out of them on 29.02.1996
when Sh. Shankarlal Chauhan retired the same was vacant
and no regular permanent employee was appointed against
that vacancy, therefore, he is entitle for reinstatement in
the services of the Bank with full backwages and other
consequential benefits.
4.
The II party in its counter statement contends that
its recruitment rules for sub-staff either on permanent or
temporary basis are being as under :
“The General Manager in charge of HRM Department
at the Corporate Office should sanction the vacancy.
After getting the sanction, indent is required to be
placed with the employment exchange as per the
eligibility criteria duly signed by the Assistant
General Manager and counter signed by the Circle
Head.
On receiving the list of the candidates so sponsored
by the Employment Exchange, candidates to be
interviewed. After medical examination of the
candidates selected in the order of merit have to be
appointed in Bank service on probation.”
at no point of time it neither appointed nor issued any
appointment letter to the I Party as such there exists no
relationship of employer and employee between them as
such the dispute is outside the purview of the ID Act,
1947. It is further contended any engagement of the
I Party by the Branch if any is in accordance with Section
2(oo) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947 as such the contention of
the I Party that he is illegally retrenched does not hold any
water. It is also contended that in view of the observations
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court entertaining such claims
amounts to back door entry and is not permissible. It is
further contended that there is no oral termination as
alleged since its Branch Manager’s are not the appointing
authorities for the sub-staff and that every branch is given
daily maintenance allowance which will be spent by the
Branch Manager’s as per requirement and amount paid
from such fund cannot be treated as Wage as claimed by
the I Party. Further denying that there was vacancy and
against the same the I Party was engaged and that as per
its information he has been running a telephone booth as
such he is not entitle for any of the reliefs asked for by
him.
5.
After completion of the pleadings when the matter
was posted for evidence the Learned Advocate appearing
for the II party while filing the affidavit of Sh. B M
Parvathikar claims to have served as Branch Manager in
Belgaum Branch of the II Party from 1999 to 2002 examined
him on oath as MW 1 and closed his side, whereas, the
Learned Advocate appearing for the I Party while getting
exhibited letters addressed by MW 1 to other banks dated
22.10.1999, 15.11.1999, 15.02.2000, 03.03.2000, 24.05.2000
and 08.11.2000 under his signature; four debit slips dated
15.11.1999, 03.10.2000, 06.11.2000 and 09.11.2000 under his
signature; copy of the I Party application dated 12.12.2000
to furnish extract of the pass book along with the reply of
the then Manager; letter addressed by the Manager to I
Party regarding his request for New Pass Book as Ex W-1
to Ex W-11 and Ex W-1(a) to Ex W-10(a) in the cross-
examination of MW 1 by filing the affidavit of I Party
workman swearing to the facts of the claim statement
examining him on oath as WW 1 got exhibited copies of 15
letters issued by the Manager, Belgaum Branch to different
bank managers through I Party; copies of two consolidated
bills in respect of Honorarium of State Government Freedom
Fighters sent through I Party; copies of four vouchers for
having made payment to the I Party; copy of letter dated
18.01.2000 addressed by the Assistant General Manager
to the Zonal Office; copy of translation of news item in
6936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Tarun Bharat daily dated 15.01.1997; credit voucher dated
19.05.1998; two copies of lawyer notices dated 20.11.2000
and 16.01.2001; Original Pass Book in respect of I Party;
copy of letter addressed by one Angallar to the General
Secretary of Indian Bank Employees Union dated
24.05.1999 to take up the cause of I Party as Ex W-12 to Ex
W-14 series, Ex W-15 to Ex W-17, Ex W-18 series, Ex W-19
and Ex W-20. The learned counsel for the I Party also
while filing the affidavit of two ex-employees of the II
Party Bank namely Sh. P B Murgol and Smt. Shailaja K
Patil examined them as WW 2 and 3 respectively.
6.
With the above pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, arguments addressed by both sides were heard.
7.
The learned advocate appearing for the I Party urged
that though the II party taken the services of I Party from
the year 1992 till 1996 intermittently paying daily wages
since shown it as miscellaneous expenses in its accounts
and taken his service continuously from May 1997 till
December 2000 for the payments made in the year 1997
shown as TA paid to Officer of the Bank and from May
1998 to December 2000 for maintenance of premises it is
an
unfair
labour
practice
played
by
the
II party bank as such denying him work from 08.12.2000
amounts to illegal retrenchment and he is entitle for
reinstatement, absorption as a permanent sub-staff, full
backwages and all other consequential benefits. In support
of his arguments he cited the decisions reported in ILR
2001 KAR 3407 between UPSRTC, Kanpur and another
vs. Roadways Karmachari Sanyukt Parishad, UP and 2013
LLR 1140 between State of Karnataka & others vs. H
Ganesh Rao and others. Interalia, the learned advocate
appearing for the II party urged that there being no iota of
evidence the I Party having continuously worked for 240
days in a calendar year nor evidence having received
wages his claim that he had intermittently worked between
1992 to 1996 and continuously from May 1997 to December
2000 being baseless and as there was no sanctioned post
of Sweeper the Branch Manager by making payment under
the amount allotted for maintenance might have taken the
services of I Party for the purpose of Sweeping and made
payments from such fund as such his claim that he is a
workman of the II Party and is entitle for reinstatement,
backwages, etc., is unsustainable.
8.
On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence brought on record in the light of
the arguments put forward by the learned advocates for
both sides, I am of the opinion that I Party failed to prove
that his services was availed by the II Party against
sanctioned post intermittently between 1992 to 1996 and
continuously from May 1997 to December 2000 and
illegally terminated/ retrenched w.e.f. 08.12.2000 and that
he is entitle for reinstatement, backwages, continuity of
services etc., for the following
REASONS
9.
The I Party who alleges in the claim statement that
for his alleged services intermittently between 1992 to 1996
the payments made to him were debited as Miscellaneous
Expenses and the payments for his continuous service
from May 1997 till May 1998 as TA to an Officer and from
May 1998 to December 2000 as maintenance of premises
is not supported by any evidence except his allegations in
the claim statement and the self swearing statements in
his affidavit filed in lieu of the evidence and the bald
statements of two ex-employees examined as WW 2 and
WW 3 not probablised by any circumstances. Therefore,
the claim made on his behalf that his services on daily
wages were availed by the II Party against a vacant existing
post is not supported by any evidence. In the two decisions
cited by the Learned advocate appearing for the I Party
reported in ILR 2001 KAR 3407 and 2013 LLR 1140 on
facts it was held that the Services of a Workman were
being taken for long period against vacant existing post
on daily wages it was unfair labour practice on the part of
the management and those workmen were entitle for
regularisation/absorption prospectively from the date of
Award. From the evidence on record as urged on behalf
of the II party the Branch Manager of Belgaum Branch of
the II Party may have taken the services of I Party for the
purpose of Sweeping the premises making him payment
from the allowance provided under maintenance of
premises at his disposal and such payments made to the I
Party for his services cannot be treated as wages or him as
a workman of the II Party. Moreover, there being no
positive cogent evidence the I Party having continuously
worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year just
allegedly asking him not to come to work from a date
alleged by him as 08.12.2000 it cannot be termed or treated
as an illegal retrenchment. Under the circumstances, I
have arrived at conclusion that the alleged illegal
termination and claim for reinstatement into service with
backwages by Sh. Suryakat Ratkalle is not legal and
justified and that he is not entitle for any relief. In the
result, I pass the following
ORDER
The Reference is Rejected holding that the alleged
illegal termination and claim for reinstatement into
service with backwages by Sri Suryakant S Ratkalle
against the management of Indian Bank is illegal
and not justified and he is not entitle for any other
relief.
(Typed to my dictation by U D C, corrected and signed by
me on 16th July 2014)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6937
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2786-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 57@2007) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@91@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/
2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Canara
Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 20.10.2014.
[No. L-12012/91/2006-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE
DATED : 29th September, 2014
PRESENT :
Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C R No. 57/2007
I Party
Sh. V Munirathnam,No. 26/1, 8th Main Road,
Srinivasanagar, BANGALORE – 560 050.
II Party
The General Manager (P),Canara Bank, Head Office,
Personnel Wing, I R Section,112, J C Road,
BANGALORE – 560 002.
Appearances:
I Party
:
Shri Muralidhara, Advocate
II Party :
Shri T R K Prasad, Advocate
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/91/
2006-IR(B-II) dated 20.04.2007 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Canara
Bank in imposition of punishment of compulsory
retirement on Shri V Munirathnam, Ex-Clerk, Canara
Bank, Bevoor Branch, Bangalore Rural District w.e.f.
01.01.2001 is legal and justified? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled and from which date?”
2.
On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR
57/2007 when notice were issued to both the sides, they
entered their appearance through their respective advocate
and I party filed his claim statement on 17.08.2007 and II
Party its counter Statement on 28.03.2008.
3.
The I Party in his claim statement besides contending
that the enquiry finding was baseless and perverse and
that the enquiry was not conducted in fair and proper
manner and on the basis of such enquiry finding the
punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority which is upheld by the Appellate
Authority is not sustainable etc., and the II Party in its
counter statement while contending that the Enquiry
Officer conducted the enquiry affording all fair and proper
opportunities to the CSE/I Party and based on the
evidence placed before him he submitted the enquiry
finding charge being proved and there after the
Disciplinary Authority affording an opportunity of hearing
giving cogent reasons taking into account the
I Party is a handicapped person imposed the punishment
of compulsory retirement though the punishment of
dismissal could have been imposed and on appeal the
Appellate Authority also while affording opportunity of
hearing giving cogent reasons having upheld the enquiry
finding and the punishment imposed there are no reasons
to interfere either in the finding of the Enquiry Officer or
the punishment imposed the reference is liable for rejection.
In view of the assertion of the I Party that the enquiry was
not fair and proper while framing a Preliminary Issue as to
Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the
I Party by the II party is fair and proper?
receiving the evidence adduced by both the sides and
hearing their learned advocates the said issue was being
answered in the affirmative i.e., the Domestic Enquiry held
against the I Party by the II party is fair and proper, the I
Party was called upon to lead evidence on the points of
victimization if any and being not gainfully employed.
Accordingly, the Learned Advocate appearing for the
I Party while filing the affidavit of I Party examined him on
oath as WW 1 (V) and counsel for II Party who cross-
examined him did not lead any rebuttal evidence. Then
the arguments addressed by learned advocate appearing
for both sides were heard.
4.
The brief facts leading to this reference and award
may be stated as under.
5.
The I Party who was appointed as Clerk in the
II Party Bank on 09.02.1981 while serving at its Bevoor
Branch on 17.06.2000 served with the charge sheet as
under :
“CHARGE SHEET
You are working as Clerk at our Bevoor branch since
30th May 1998.
6938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
You are in the habit of remaining absent more
frequently and unauthorisedly, without intimation,
submitting proper leave application or obtaining
prior permission/sanction from the Competent
Authority, in utter violation of leave rules of the
Bank.
You were earlier charge sheeted on 6 occasions for
remaining absent unauthorisedly in violation of
leave rules of the Bank and appropriate punishment
were imposed on you. The details are furnished
below:
CHARGE SHEET NO.
DATE
PUISHMENT AWARDED
BLC:DAC:600:E.37:
22.4.91
Warned
CH 52/91
BLC:DAC:2006:E.37:
07.2.92
Stoppage of inc. for 6 months
CH 6/92
BLC:DAC:2055:E.37:
22.4.93
Stoppage of inc. for 6 months
CH30/93
BLC:DAC:301:E.37:
14.2.97
Stoppage of 1 inc. for 1 Year
CH 12/97
BLC:DAC:3017:E.37:
17.4.98
Stoppage of four increments
CH 8/98
Inspite of initiating disciplinary action and imposing
appropriate punishments as stated above, you have
neither chosen to improve your leave record nor
adhere to the leave rules of the Bank, thereby
affecting the smooth functioning of the branch.
In the instant case, you are remaining absent from
duties since 16.8.1999. You had, vide your letter dt.
16.8.99, received by the branch on 8.9.99, requested
for appropriate category of leave for the period from
16.8.99 to 8.9.99. You should have reported back for
duties on 9.9.99. However, you have sought
extension of leave vide your application dated
10.9.99, 1.10.99, 20.10.99 and 16.1.99 received by the
branch on 22.9.99, 16.10.99, 20.10.99 and 3.12.99
respectively till 4.12.99.
Staff Section (W), BCD vide their letter No.
BLSW:E.13:24971:99 dt. 11.12.99 had instructed you
to report back for duties immediately. However, you
had failed to report back for duties and continued to
remain absent unauthorisedly. The above letter sent
to your last known address has been returned
undelivered.
You have, further sought extension of leave from
24.12.99 to 22.1.2000 on the ground of sickness. You
have not submitted the leave application for the
period from 5.12.99 to 23.12.99.
An employee seeking privilege leave has to give
requisite one month’s notice and obtain sanction
before proceeding on leave. Similarly, an employee
seeking leave on medical grounds has to submit the
leave application immediately on remaining absent,
duly supported by a Medical Certificate issued by a
Regd. Medical Practitioner recommending leave for
a specified period. The Medical fitness Certificate
has to be submitted while rejoining the duties. The
employee seeking extention of leave has to submit
the leave application before the expiry if the leave
period already sought/ sanctioned and obtain
sanction before the commencement of extended
period of leave.
You have failed to comply with the above
requirements of the leave rules of the Bank. Your
leave record is dismal reflection of your poor
attendance to the Bank and scant regard you have
towards adherence to the leave rules of the Bank.
So far, your absence for 285 days have been treated
as on ‘Loss of Pay’, besides treating 1142 days as
‘Absence without leave’ and hence on ‘Loss of Pay’.
By your above action of remaining absent
continuously and unauthorisedly for a period of more
than 30 days, you have committed ‘GROSS
MISCONDUCT’ within the meaning of Chapter XI,
Regulation 3, Clause (r) of Canara Bank Service Code.
By your above action of not adhering to the leave
rules of the Bank inspite of clear instructions from
your higher authorities, you have disobeyed the
lawful instructions of your superiors and committed
Gross Misconduct within the meaning of Chapter
XI Regulation 3(d) of Canara Bank Service Code.
Your actions being prejudicial to the interest of the
Bank, you have also committed ‘Gross Misconduct’
within the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation3,
Clause (m) of Canara Bank Service Code.
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER”
6.
On I Party in his reply dated 14.07.2000 without
disputing being charge sheeted and punished earlier as
mentioned in the charge sheet since stated as his sister
lost her husband in May 1999 and became a psychic
patient he had to look after her treatment and conduct
ceremonies of his brother-in-law and in August 1999 he
lost his another uncle who was issueless he had to perform
his ceremonies and rights and added to it as he slipped
down and sustained hurt in left leg which has limited
movements and has become immobilized he was to take
treatment at his native place with nati vaidya and due to
this unfortunate incidents he was compelled to remain
absent and that he submitted leave applications and sent
telegram to the branch for sanction of leave from 05.12.1999
to 24.12.1999 and that its letter No. BLSW/E13/24971/99
dated 11.12.1999 was not delivered as he was in native
place taking treatment for the injury to his left leg the
absence may be viewed leniently and sympathetically. The
Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the said
reply which was not accompanied with any material/
enclosures supporting the facts he narrated in the reply
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6939
ordered for holding the Domestic Enquiry appointing
Sh. V R Iyengar as Enquiry Officer and Sh. P Shivaramu as
Presenting Officer by orders dated 24.07.2000. Then the
Enquiry Officer while causing the notice to the CSE/I Party
and the management representative securing their
presence observing the formalities of preliminary hearing
while recording the evidence of Sh. G S V Babu, Officer
and Sh. S Narasinga Rao as MWs 1 and 2 and exhibiting
Charge Sheet No. BLC:DAC:600:E-37:CH-52/91 dated
22.04.1991; Proceedings dated 27.05.1991 imposing the
punishment of Warning in respect of the above charge
sheet; Charge Sheet No. BLC:DAC:2006-E-37:CH-6/92
dated 07.02.1992; Proceedings dated 30.04.1992 imposing
the punishment of Stoppage of increment for a period of
six months without cumulative effect; Charge Sheet No.
BLC:DAC:2055:E-37:CH-38/93 dated 22.04.1993;
Proceedings dated 30.06.1993 imposing the punishment
of Stoppage of increment for a period of six moths with
cumulative effect; Charge Sheet No. BLC:DAC:2008:E-37
89/94 dated 17.11.1994; Proceedings dated 29.12.1994
imposing the punishment of ‘CENSURE’; Charge Sheet
No. BLC:DAC:3014:E-37:CH-12/97 dated 14.02.1997;
Proceedings dated 19.03.1997 imposing the punishment
of ‘Stoppage of increment for a period of one year with
cumulative effect’; Charge Sheet No. BLC:DAC:3017:E-
37:CH8/98 dated 17.04.1998; Proceedings dated
09.09.1998 imposing the punishment of ‘Stoppage of four
increments with cumulative effect’; Letter of I Party dated
16.08.1999 requesting for leave from 16.08.1999 to
08.09.1999; letter of I Party dated 10.09.1999 requesting
for extension of leave till 30.09.1999; letter of I Party
dated 28.10.1999 requesting for extension of leave till
16.10.1999; letter of I Party dated 20.10.1999 requesting
for extension of leave till 13.11.1999; letter of I Party
dated 16.11.1999 requesting for extension of leave till
04.12.1999; letter addressed to I Party dated 11.12.1999
requesting the I Party to join the duty within 3 days from
the date of receipt of this letter; Undelivered cover sent
to I Party bearing Ref. No. RL/2725/16.12.99/BLR; letter
of I Party dated 25.12.1999 requesting for extension of
leave till 22.01.2000; Circular No. 499/85 dated 18.12.85
on leave rules/norms for workmen and Proceedings dated
28.10.1999 showing that his absence from duty from
01.10.1999 to 16.10.1999 has been treated as Loss of
Pay as MEX – 1 to MEx 23 and Telegram give by the
CSE for extension of leave; Leave Sanction letter dated
23.09.1999; 30.09.1999; 01.03.2000 ad 04.08.2000 as
DEx -1 to DEx - 5 for the CSE as CSE submitted that he
has no witnesses to examine after receiving the written
briefs of the management representative and Defence
Representative submitted his report dated 17.10.2000 the
charge being proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority
while sending the copy of the enquiry report calling for
explanation and affording an opportunity of hearing by
his order dated 01.01.2001 imposed the punishment of
compulsory retirement and on appeal by the CSE/I Party
the Appellate Authority after affording him an opportunity
of hearing upheld the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 23.04.2002.
Then after lapse of about four years the CSE/I Party
approached the ALC(C), Bangalore for conciliation and
as the said conciliation failed it resulted in this reference.
7.
As already adverted to by me above the Domestic
Enquiry conducted against the I Party being held as fair
and proper and I Party has lead his evidence on the points
of victimization and being not gainfully employed and
arguments on merits have been heard the points that arise
now for my consideration are :
Point No.1 : Whether the I Party is able to
demonstrate the finding of the Enquiry Officer
being baseless or perverse necessitating the
interference by this tribunal?
Point No. 2 : If not, whether the punishment of
compulsory retirement imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority
is disproportionate to the misconduct proved
against the I Party?
Point No. 3 : What Order/Award?
8.
On appreciation of the pleadings, evidence brought
on record in the Domestic Enquiry by both the sides, the
report of the Enquiry Officer, the orders passed by the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in
the lights of the arguments addressed by the learned
advocates appearing for both the sides my finding on Point
No. 1 and 2 are in the negative and Point No. 3 as per
final order for the following
REASONS
9.
The learned advocate appearing for the I Party while
referring to MEx-13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 which are
the letter and telegram of the I Party seeking leave and
DEx-2, 3, 4 the orders sanctioning the leave urges that
all the leave applications being sanctioned/regularised
the charge of unauthorised absence is unsustainable as
such the Enquiry Officer ought to have held the charge
as not proved. With due respect to the learned advocate
appearing for the I Party from the above documents
referred to by him it is explicit that he did not apply for
leave before hand and submitted them at a later date
antedated, the first letter at MEX 13 was being received
in the office of the II Party seeking leave from 16.08.1999
to 08.09.1999 only on 08.09.1999 which is date
16.08.1999 but no evidence is produced even having
posted or forwarded this application on 16.08.1999.
Similar is the case with regard to the other applications
as well. Only because the II Party made sanction of leave
on these applications as evidenced under exhibit DEx 2,
3 and 4 it does not take away his act of habitually
remaining unauthorised absence without applying in
advance and getting the leave sanctioned. Moreover the
documentary evidence produced at exhibit MEx-1 to
MEx – 12 do indicate as stated in the charge sheet being
6940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
punished on six occasions for his unauthorised absence.
Since the six prior punishments imposed after issuing
charge sheets being not at all challenged his claim that the
said charge sheets were issued only to frame him for the
purpose of termination of services is unacceptable. Since
the evidence on record do indicate his absence for
285 days were being treated as on Loss of Pay and
1142 days as Absence without leave and on Loss of Pay
and his last action of remaining absent continuously and
unauthorisedly for a period of 30 days without any reasons
being established the Enquiry Officer did not commit any
error in holding that the charge is proved. Besides his
remaining unauthorised absence for such a long period
he sleeping over the matter for over a period of 4 years
after the impugned order of compulsory retirement was
passed in approaching the ALC(C) suggest that he had
no mind to continue in the job. Though only delay in
raising the dispute is not a ground to reject the reference
on the ground of delay as no limitation is provided in the
Act as urged by the learned advocate appearing for the
I Party relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported
in 2011 (1) LLJ 615 SC, addition to this delay his act of
remaining unauthorised absence over a period of
1427 days as observed by me indicates that he had no
mind to continue the job. Therefore, absolutely I find no
reason to say the finding of the Enquiry Officer charge
being proved as baseless or perverse. Accordingly, I arrived
at conclusion of answering the Point No. 1 in the Negative.
10.
As urged on behalf of the II Party relying on the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/s. L&T Komatsu Limited vs. Mr. Uday Kumar reported
in 2008 LLR 113 leave not being a matter of right, habitual
absenteeism amounts to gross violation of discipline
punishment of dismissal being held justified in the instant
case also having regard to the habitual absenteeism of the
I Party is rightly taken into consideration by the
Disciplinary Authority and having regard to his disability
imposed with compulsory retirement instead of dismissal
which also could have been passed for this misconduct,
absolutely, I find no reason to say that the punishment
imposed being disproportionate. Under the circumstances,
having arrived at conclusion of answering this Point as
well in the Negative, I pass the following.
ORDER
The reference is rejected holding that the action of
the management of Canara Bank in imposition of
punishment of compulsory retirement on Shri V
Munirathnam, Ex-Clerk, Canara Bank, Bevoor Brach,
Bangalore Rural District w.e.f. 01.01.2001 is legal and
justified and that he is not entitle for any relief.
(Typed to my dictation by U D C, corrected and signed by
me on 29th September 2014)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2787-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 35@2009) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@120@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 35/2009)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC & Others and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/120/2009-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.35/2009
Registered on 19.3.2010
Sh. Beshriya Ram
S/o Sh. Bangali Ram,
Village Jamthal, PO Harnora,
Bilaspur.
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6941
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No.1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No.2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/120/2009 (IR(DU)), dated
3.3.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS
Engineers & Contractors, in terminating the services
of their workman Sh. Beshriya Ram w.e.f. 31/7/2008
is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 7.8.2004
where he worked till 1.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No.2,
whereas M/s AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9315/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
6942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2788-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@26@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 26/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour
Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC & Others and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/26/2010-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.26/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Palwinder Singh
S/o Sh. Sunder Lal,
C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma
President District CITU District Committee Mandi, 221/
10, thanera Mohalla, Mandi.
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management : Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No.1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No.2
Respondent No. 3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/26/2010 (IR(DU)), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in short Act) has referred the following
industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS
Engineers & Contractors, a sub contractor of M/s
Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of NTPC,
Kol dam in terminating the services of Sh.
Palwinder Singh w.e.f. 14/8/2008 is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction
of ‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda
and has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 23.8.2004
where he worked till 14.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is
also pleaded that the management did not take permission
from the appropriate Government for effecting the
retrenchment and as such the retrenchment is illegal and
he is deemed to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai
Development Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as
respondent No.2, whereas M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors who is impleaded as respondent No.3 was
proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9075/- in lieu of notice period and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6943
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2
and filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in
the respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the
workman, Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1
and Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel
for the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of
the workman to the effect that persons junior to the
workman were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment as well the management employed several
persons after the retrenchment and therefore the
retrenchment of the workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of
his retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons
who were employed by the management after
retrenchment. The workman was required to prove the
said facts by leading cogent evidence in order to claim
the relief and his bare statement that the persons junior
to him were retained in service and the management
employed more persons after his retrenchment do not
carry any weight in the absence of any documentary and
other convincing evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot
be said that the persons junior to the workman were
retained in service or more persons were employed by
the management after his retrenchment and there is any
violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. Rather the
statement of Sh. H.R. Sharma shows that workman was
paid due compensation as required under Section 25F of
the Act at the time of effecting the retrenchment and the
same was to be effected on account of partial completion
of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2789-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@43@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2789.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 31/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC & Others and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/43/2010-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.31/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Vijay Kumar
S/o Sh. Mela Ram,
C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma
President District CITU District Committee Mandi,
221/10, Thanera Mohalla, Mandi.
Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
Respondents
6944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on : 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/43/2010 (IR(DU)), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. AKS Engineers & Contractors, a sub contractor
of M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of
NTPC, Kol dam in terminating the services of
Sh. Vijay Kumar w.e.f. 14/8/2008 is legal and justified?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 7.8.2004
where he worked till 3.9.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No.2,
whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.11,340/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2
and filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in
the respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the
workman, Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1
and Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel
for the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of
the workman to the effect that persons junior to the
workman were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment as well the management employed several
persons after the retrenchment and therefore the
retrenchment of the workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of
his retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons
who were employed by the management after
retrenchment. The workman was required to prove the
said facts by leading cogent evidence in order to claim
the relief and his bare statement that the persons junior
to him were retained in service and the management
employed more persons after his retrenchment do not
carry any weight in the absence of any documentary and
other convincing evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot
be said that the persons junior to the workman were
retained in service or more persons were employed by
the management after his retrenchment and there is any
violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. Rather the
statement of Sh. H.R. Sharma shows that workman was
paid due compensation as required under Section 25F of
the Act at the time of effecting the retrenchment and the
same was to be effected on account of partial completion
of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6945
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2790-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@33@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2790.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 24/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC & Others and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/33/2010-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. 24/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Chaman Lal,
S/o Sh. Niranjan,
Village Chhatwar,
PO Maloh, Tehsil Sundernagar,
Mandi.
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No.2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/33/2010 (IR(DU)), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. AKS Engineers & Contractors, a sub contractor
of M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of
NTPC, Kol Dam in terminating the services of
Sh. Chaman Lal w.e.f. 13/8/2008 is legal and justified?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 9.8.2004
where he worked till 14.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No.2;
whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9075/- in lieu of notice period and
6946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2
and filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in
the respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the
workman, Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1
and Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel
for the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of
the workman to the effect that persons junior to the
workman were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment as well the management employed several
persons after the retrenchment and therefore the
retrenchment of the workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of
his retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons
who were employed by the management after
retrenchment. The workman was required to prove the
said facts by leading cogent evidence in order to claim
the relief and his bare statement that the persons junior
to him were retained in service and the management
employed more persons after his retrenchment do not
carry any weight in the absence of any documentary and
other convincing evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot
be said that the persons junior to the workman were
retained in service or more persons were employed by
the management after his retrenchment and there is any
violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. Rather the
statement of Sh. H.R. Sharma shows that workman was
paid due compensation as required under Section 25F of
the Act at the time of effecting the retrenchment and the
same was to be effected on account of partial completion
of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2791-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 30@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@23@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2791.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 30/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC & Others and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/23/2010-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. 30/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Tej Prakash S/o Late Sh. Dila Ram, C/o Sh. Rajesh
Kumar Sharma President District CITU District Committee
Mandi, 221/10, Thanera Mohalla, Mandi.
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
....Respondents
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6947
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for Respondent
No.1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for Respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on : 21.8.2014
Vide Order No. L-42012/23/2010-IR(DU)), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
AKS Engineers & Contractors, a sub contractor of
M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of
NTPC, Kol dam in terminating the services of Sh. Tej
Prakash w.e.f. 14/8/2008 is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 23.8.2004
where he worked till 14.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No.2,
whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9075/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2
and filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in
the respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the
workman, Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1
and Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel
for the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of
the workman to the effect that persons junior to the
workman were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment as well the management employed several
persons after the retrenchment and therefore the
retrenchment of the workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of
his retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons
who were employed by the management after
retrenchment. The workman was required to prove the
said facts by leading cogent evidence in order to claim
the relief and his bare statement that the persons junior
to him were retained in service and the management
employed more persons after his retrenchment do not
carry any weight in the absence of any documentary and
other convincing evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot
be said that the persons junior to the workman were
retained in service or more persons were employed by
the management after his retrenchment and there is any
violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. Rather the
statement of Sh. H.R. Sharma shows that workman was
paid due compensation as required under Section 25F of
the Act at the time of effecting the retrenchment and the
same was to be effected on account of partial completion
of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
6948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2792-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33@2009) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@114@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2792.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. Case
No. 33/2009) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/114/2009-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. 33/2009
Registered on 19.3.2010
Sh. Balak Ram S/o Sh. Barlaju Ram, Village Deola-Chhamb,
PO Harnora, Tehsil & Distt. Bilaspur (HP).
....Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
....Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/114/2009-IR(DU), dated
3.3.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal :
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
AKS Engineers & Contractors, in terminating the
services of their workman Sh. Balak Ram w.e.f.
31/7/2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 7.8.2004
where he worked till 31.7.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No.2,
whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9315/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6949
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No. 2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No. 2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2793-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@32@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2793.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Case
No. 22/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/32/2010-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. 22/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Hem Raj, S/o Sh. Kala Ram, VPO Harnora, Tehsil
Sadar, Bilaspur.
....Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric
Power Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
....Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
6950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/32/2010-IR(DU), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in short Act) has referred the following
industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
AKS Engineers & Contractors, a sub contractor of
M/s Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of
NTPC, Kol dam in terminating the services of
Sh. Hem Raj w.e.f. 13/8/2008 is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction
of ‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda
and has given contract to respondent No. 2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 27.7.2004
where he worked till 14.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is
also pleaded that the management did not take permission
from the appropriate Government for effecting the
retrenchment and as such the retrenchment is illegal and
he is deemed to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai
Development Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as
respondent No. 2, whereas M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors who is impleaded as respondent No. 3 was
proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No. 1 filed written statement controverting
the averments and pleaded that workman was never its
employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No. 2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No. 3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.10,050/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No. 2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No. 2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6951
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2794-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@38@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O. 2794.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. Case
No. 20/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/38/2010-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. 20/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Mehar Singh, S/o Sh. Munshi Ram, Village Saroni, PO
Jarol, Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No. 3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/38/2010-IR(DU), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in short Act) has referred the following industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. AKS Engineers & Contractors, a sub contractor
of M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of
NTPC, Kol Dam in terminating the services of
Sh. Mehar Singh w.e.f. 31/7/2008 is legal and justified?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction
of ‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda
and has given contract to respondent No. 2 who in turn
engaged respondent No. 3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No. 3 on 26.8.2004
where he worked till 1.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is
also pleaded that the management did not take permission
from the appropriate Government for effecting the
retrenchment and as such the retrenchment is illegal and
he is deemed to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai
Development Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as
respondent No. 2; whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors who is impleaded as respondent No. 3 was
proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No. 3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.11,340/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
6952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2
and filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in
the respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No. 2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, Learned Counsel
for the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of
the workman to the effect that persons junior to the
workman were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment as well the management employed several
persons after the retrenchment and therefore the
retrenchment of the workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No. 2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2795-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@20@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2795.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. Case
No. 18/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/20/2010-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. 18/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Das Ram, S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram, C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Sharma, President District CITU, District Committee Mandi,
221/10, Thanera Mohalla, Mandi (HP).
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6953
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No. L-42012/20/2010-IR(DU), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
AKS Engineers and Contractors, a sub contractor
of M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of
NTPC, Kol Dam in terminating the services of Sh.
Das Ram w.e.f. 14/8/2008 is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No. 2 who in turn
engaged respondent No. 3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No. 3 on 12.8.2004
where he worked till 14.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No. 2 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who have been impleaded as respondent No. 2;
whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No. 3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No. 2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No. 3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.11,340/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2
and filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in
the respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No. 2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, Learned Counsel
for the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of
the workman to the effect that persons junior to the
workman were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment as well the management employed several
persons after the retrenchment and therefore the
retrenchment of the workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No. 2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
6954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2796-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 75@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@111@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2796.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Case
No. 75/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC and Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/111/2010-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. 75/2010
Registered on 26.10.2010
Sh. Sh. Naresh Kumar, S/o Sh. Neel Kanth, Village and PO
Doghari, Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi (HP)
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No. 3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No. L-42012/111/2010-IR(DU), dated
29.9.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
AKS Engineers and Contractors, a contractor
engaged by NTPC, Kol Dam Hydroelectric Power
Project, Bilaspur in terminating the services of their
workman Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Neel Kanth w.e.f.
1/8/2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No. 2 who in turn
engaged respondent No. 3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No. 3 on 29.7.2004
where he worked till 31.7.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2,
whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and Contractors who were
impleaded as respondent No. 3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No. 2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No. 3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs. 9075/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6955
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2797-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@37@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2797.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. Case
No. 15/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/37/2010-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. 15/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Ravinder Kumar, S/o Sh. Nand Lal, VPO Harnora, Tehsil
Sadar, Bilaspur
....Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
....Respondents
6956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management : Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/37/2010-IR(DU), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in short Act) has referred the following
industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
AKS Engineers & Contractors, a sub contractor of
M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of
NTPC, Kol dam in terminating the services of
Sh. Ravinder Kumar w.e.f. 31/7/2008 is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction
of ‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda
and has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 24.8.2004
where he worked till 1.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is
also pleaded that the management did not take permission
from the appropriate Government for effecting the
retrenchment and as such the retrenchment is illegal and
he is deemed to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai
Development Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as
respondent No.3; whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors who is impleaded as respondent No.2 was
proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9075/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial in
nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6957
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2798-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@30@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2798.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. Case
No. 12/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/30/2010-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. 12/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Roop Singh, S/o Sh. Keshav Ram, C/o Sh. Rajesh
Kumar Sharma, President District CITU, District Committee
Mandi, 221/10, Thanera Mohalla, Mandi (HP).
.....Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
....Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/30/2010 (IR(DU)), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
AKS Engineers & Contractors, a sub contractor of M/s.
Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of NTPC, Kol
dam in terminating the services of Sh. Roop Singh S/o Sh.
Keshav Ram w.e.f. 14/8/2008 is legal and justified? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 3.9.2005
where he worked till 14.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No.2
whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.7563/- in lieu of notice period and
6958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2
and filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in
the respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the
workman, Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1
and Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel
for the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of
the workman to the effect that persons junior to the
workman were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment as well the management employed several
persons after the retrenchment and therefore the
retrenchment of the workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of
his retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons
who were employed by the management after
retrenchment. The workman was required to prove the
said facts by leading cogent evidence in order to claim
the relief and his bare statement that the persons junior
to him were retained in service and the management
employed more persons after his retrenchment do not
carry any weight in the absence of any documentary and
other convincing evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot
be said that the persons junior to the workman were
retained in service or more persons were employed by
the management after his retrenchment and there is any
violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. Rather the
statement of Sh. H.R. Sharma shows that workman was
paid due compensation as required under Section 25F of
the Act at the time of effecting the retrenchment and the
same was to be effected on account of partial completion
of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2799-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 139@2011) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@206@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2799.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. Case
No. 139/2011) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/206/2010-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. 139/2011
Registered on 28.4.2011
Sh. Roop Singh, S/o Sh. Jodhal Ram, Dewla Chhamb, PO
Harnora, Tehsil Sundernagar, Bilaspur.
.....Applicant
Versus
1.
M/s. UR Infrastructure Company Private Limited,
Village Chamb, Post Office Harnora, Bilaspur
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi
3.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 3
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6959
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.1 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/206/2010-IR(DU), dated
1.4.2011 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. UR
Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. sub contractor of M/s.
Italian Thai Development Public ltd., a contractor of
M/s. NTPC Ltd. in retrenchment of the services of
Sh. Roop Singh S/o Sh. Joghal Ram w.e.f. 1/8/2008
without following the principle of Last come first go
is legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.3 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.1 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.1 on 23.11.2004
where he worked till 1.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.3 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who have been impleaded as respondent No.2;
whereas M/s. U.R. Infrastructures Company Private Ltd.,
who is impleaded as respondent No.1 was proceeded
against ex-parte.
Respondent No.2 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.1
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9075/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand, Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.3 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
6960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2800-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@25@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2800.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Case
No. 29/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/25/2010-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. 29/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Roop Singh, S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand, C/o Sh. Rajesh
Kumar Sharma, President District CITU, District Committee
Mandi, 221/10, Thanera Mohalla, Mandi.
.....Applicant
Versus
1.
M/s. NTPC Ltd., Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, Barmana, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur,
Himachal Pradesh, through its Project Manager.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex-parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/25/2010-IR(DU), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the aforesaid industrial disputes
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
AKS Engineers and Contractors a sub contractor of
M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of
NTPC, Koldam in terminating the services of
Sh. Roop Singh w.e.f. 14/8/2008 is legal and justified?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman appeared
and submitted statement of claim pleading that respondent
No.1 is the principal employer who is engaged for the
construction of ‘Kol Dam, Hydro Electric Power Project’
at Harmoda; respondent No.2 is its main contractor who
in turn engaged respondent No.3 as sub-contractor.
That workman was appointed through respondent
No.3 on 27.4.2005 in driver category and he worked
continuously till 13.8.2008 and his services were
retrenched.
He challenged the retrenchment on the ground that
the persons junior to him were retained in service as well
as large number of worker were appointed after his
retrenchment, and as such, there is violation of Section
25G and 25H of the Act. It is further pleaded that there are
about 700 workers and the employer has not taken
permission from the Government for effecting retrenchment.
The same is liable to be set aside.
It is pleaded that workman may be deemed to be in
service and be given all the benefits.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6961
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai
Development Co. Ltd. who have been impleaded as
respondent No.2; whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors who is impleaded as respondent No.3 was
proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9450/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That is work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
The workman did not lead any evidence and his
evidence was closed by order vide order dated 29.8.2011.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2
and filed affidavits reiterating the stand as taken up in
their respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the
workman, Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and
Sh. H.R. Sharma, Manager for respondent No.2.
The only contention raised by the learned counsel
for the workman is that respondent No.3 retrenched the
services of the workman after retaining the persons junior
to him as well the management employed several more
workers on the project after the retrenchment and as such
the retrenchment of the workman is illegal.
It may be added that workman has pleaded the above
said facts in his statement of claim but no evidence has
been led whatsoever on the file to establish that the
persons junior to the workman were retained by
respondent No.3 at the time of retrenchment; or some other
persons were also employed on the project after the
termination of the services of the workman. There is no
dispute that the workman was paid retrenchment
compensation as required under Section 25F of the Act.
Being so, the retrenchment cannot be termed as illegal
and void.
In result, it is held that the action of respondent
No.3 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2801-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 126@2011) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@215@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D Case No.
126/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Kol Dam
Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/215/2010-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. 126/2011
Registered on 28.4.2011
Sh. Kuldeep Chand, S/o Sh. Roop Lal, Village Mohra, PO
Kapahra, Bilaspur.
.....Applicant
Versus
1.
M/s. UR Infrastructure Company Private Limited,
Village Chamb, Post Office Harnora, Bilaspur
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
6962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 3
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.1 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/215/2010-IR(DU), dated
9.3.2011 the Central Government 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 (in short Act) has referred the following
industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. UR
Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. sub contractor of
M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Ltd., a
contractor of M/s. NTPC Ltd. in retrenchment of the
services of Sh. Kuldeep Chand S/o Roop Lal w.e.f.
3/9/2008 without following the principle of Last come
first go is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.3 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction
of ‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda
and has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.1 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.1 on 3.1.2005
where he worked till 3.9.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is
also pleaded that the management did not take permission
from the appropriate Government for effecting the
retrenchment and as such the retrenchment is illegal and
he is deemed to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.3 as well as by the Italian Thai
Development Co. Ltd. who have been impleaded as
respondent No.2; whereas M/s. U.R. Infrastructures
Company Private Ltd., who is impleaded as respondent
No.1 was proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No.3 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.1
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.11,340/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.3 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6963
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2802-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe gkbMªks
bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 134@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@201@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2802.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Case
No. 134/2011) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/201/2010-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. 134/2011
Registered on 28.4.2011
Sh. Kuldeep Kumar S/o Sh. Madu Ram, Village Deola
Chamb, PO Harnora, Tehsil Sadar, Bilaspur
.....Applicant
Versus
1.
M/s. UR Infrastructure Company Private Limited,
Village Chamb, Post Office Harnora, Bilaspur
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 3
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.1 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/201/2010-IR(DU), dated
1.4.2011 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. UR
Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. sub contractor of
M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Ltd., a
contractor of M/s. NTPC Ltd. in retrenchment of the
services of Sh. Kuldeep Kumar S/o Sh. Madu Ram
w.e.f. 1/8/2008 without following the principle of last
come first go is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.3 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.1 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.1 on 24.11.2004
where he worked till 1.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is
also pleaded that the management did not take permission
from the appropriate Government for effecting the
retrenchment and as such the retrenchment is illegal and
he is deemed to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.3 as well as by the Italian Thai
Development Co. Ltd. who have been impleaded as
respondent No.2; whereas M/s. U.R. Infrastructures
Company Private Ltd., who is impleaded as respondent
No.1 was proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No.2 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.1
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9075/- in lieu of notice period and
6964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.3 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2803-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2009) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@117@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2803.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Case
No. 29/2009) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/117/2009-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. 29/2009
Registered on 19.3.2010
Sh. Parminder Singh S/o Sh. Punjab Singh, VPO Karsol,
Tehsil Jogindernagar, Mandi (HP)
.....Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6965
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No.1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No. 3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on : 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/117/2009-IR(DU), dated
3.3.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. AKS Engineers & Contractors, terminating the
services of their workman Sh. Parminder Singh w.e.f.
29/8/2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No. 1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No. 2 who in turn
engaged respondent No. 3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No. 3 on 5.8.2004
where he worked till 8.9.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No. 1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2,
whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No. 3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No. 2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No. 2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.11,340/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No. 2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No. 2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
6966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2804-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@24@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Case
No. 28/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/24/2010-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. 28/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Nikka Ram, C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Sharma President District CITU District Committee Mandi,
221/10, thanera Mohalla, Mandi.
.....Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No. 3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on 21.8.2014
Vide Order No. L-42012/24/2010-IR(DU), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. AKS Engineers & Contractors, a sub contractor
of M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of
NTPC, Kol Dam in terminating the services of
Sh. Rajesh Kumar w.e.f. 14/8/2008 is legal and justified?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No. 2 who in turn
engaged respondent No. 3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No. 3 on 1.4.2004
where he worked till 14.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2,
whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No. 3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No. 2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No. 2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.7563/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6967
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2805-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 85@2010) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@120@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2805.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. Case
No. 85/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/120/2010-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. 85/2010
Registered on 26.10.2010
Sh. Mani Ram, S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, Village Ropari, PO
Kapahi, Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi.
.....Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
6968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/120/2010-IR(DU), dated
29.9.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. AKS Engineers & Contractors, a contractor
engaged by NTPC Koldam Hydroelectric Power
Project, Bilaspur in terminating the services of their
workman Sh. Mani Ram S/o Sh. Rattan Singh w.e.f.
1/8/2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 19.8.2004
where he worked till 31.7.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.2 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who have been impleaded as respondent No.2;
whereas M/s. AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.11,340/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6969
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2806-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 124@2011) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@212@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2806.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. Case
No. 124/2011) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/212/2009-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. 124/2011
Registered on 28.4.2011
Sh. Ganga Ram S/o Sh. Nank Chand, Village Jukhari, PO
Galot, Tehsil Nalagarh, Solan (HP).
.....Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
M/s UR Infrastructure Company Private Limited,
Village Chamb, Post Office Harnora, Bilaspur
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/212/2010-IR(DU), dated
1.4.2011 the Central Government 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 (in short Act) has referred the aforesaid industrial
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. UR
Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. sub contractor of
M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Ltd., a
contractor of M/s. NTPC Ltd. in retrenchment of the
services of Sh. Ganga Ram S/o Nanak Chand w.e.f.
3/9/2003 without following the principle of Last come
first go is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction
of ‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda
and has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 3.1.2005
where he worked till 3.9.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai
Development Co. Ltd. who have been impleaded as
respondent No.2; whereas M/s. U.R. Infrastructures
Company Private Ltd., who is impleaded as respondent
No.3 was proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9075/- in lieu of notice period and
6970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2
and filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in
the respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the
workman, Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1
and Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2807-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2010) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@42@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2807.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. Case
No. 16/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/42/2010-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. 16/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Rattan Lal, S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Sharma President District CITU District Committee Mandi,
221/10, thanera Mohalla, Mandi.
.....Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s. AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
....Respondents
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6971
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/42/2010-IR(DU), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS
Engineers & Contractors, a sub-contractor of M/s
Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of NTPC,
Kol dam in terminating the services of Sh. Rattan Lal
w.e.f. 14/8/2008 is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 21.8.2004
where he worked till 14.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No.2,
whereas M/s AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.11,340/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
6972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2808-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@29@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2808.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 13/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC & Others and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/29/2010-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. 13/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Muni Lal, C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Sharma, President District CITU, District Committee Mandi,
221/10, Thanera Mohalla, Mandi.
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on : 21-8-2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/29/2010-IR(DU), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in short Act) has referred the following industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS
Engineers & Contractors, a sub-contractor of M/s Italian
Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of NTPC, Koldam in
terminating the services of Sh. Rajesh Kumar w.e.f. 14/
8/2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction
of ‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda
and has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 26.8.2004
where he worked till 14.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is
also pleaded that the management did not take permission
from the appropriate Government for effecting the
retrenchment and as such the retrenchment is illegal and
he is deemed to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai
Development Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as
respondent No.2, whereas M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors who is impleaded as respondent No.2 was
proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9075/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6973
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2809-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@21@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2809.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 17/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC & Others and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/21/2010-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.17/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Ved Prakash, S/o Sh. Kamlesh, C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Sharma President District CITU District Committee Mandi,
221/10, thanera Mohalla, Mandi.
Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
6974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/21/2010-IR(DU), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS
Engineers & Contractors, a sub-contractor of M/s
Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of NTPC,
Kol Dam in terminating the services of Sh. Ved
Prakash w.e.f. 14/8/2008 is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 9.6.2005
where he worked till 14.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No.2,
whereas M/s AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.8375/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6975
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2810-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@39@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2810.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Case
No. 27/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Cum Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Kol Dam
Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/39/2010-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. 27/2010
Registered on 25.5.2010
Sh. Pyar Chand, S/o Sh. Bhagmal, Village Chullra, PO
Karoti, Tehsil Saloni, Distt. Chamba, Himachal Pradesh
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on : 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/39/2010-IR(DU), dated
12.5.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS
Engineers & Contractors, a sub contractor of M/s
Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of NTPC,
Kol dam in terminating the services of Sh. Pyar Chand
w.e.f. 29/8/2008 is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 19.8.2004
where he worked till 29.8.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No.2,
whereas M/s AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex-
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.11,340/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
6976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2811-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 86@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@121@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Case
No. 86/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Cum Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Kol Dam
Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/121/2010-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. 86/2010
Registered on 26.10.2010
Sh. Sonu Kumar, S/o Sh. Khundu Ram, Village and PO
Dhar Tatoh, Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi.
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6977
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No.3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on : 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/121/2010 (IR(DU)), dated
29.9.2010 the Central Government 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 (in short Act) has referred the following
industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS
Engineers & Contractors, a contractor engaged by
NTPC, Kol dam Hydroelectric Power Project,
Bilaspur in terminating the services of their
workman Sh. Sonu Kumar S/o Sh. Khundu Ram
w.e.f. 3/9/2008 is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction
of ‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 23.8.2004
where he worked till 3.9.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is
also pleaded that the management did not take permission
from the appropriate Government for effecting the
retrenchment and as such the retrenchment is illegal and
he is deemed to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai
Development Co. Ltd. - respondent No.2; whereas M/s
AKS Engineers and Contractors who is impleaded as
respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9075/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
6978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2812-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@116@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2812.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Case
No. 82/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Cum Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Kol Dam
Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/116/2010-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. 82/2010
Registered on 26.10.2010
Sh. Inder Raj, S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram, Village & PO Siwah,
Tehsil & Distt. Panipat, Panipat.
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
3.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 3
Respondent No.2 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/116/2010-IR(DU), dated
29.9.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS
Engineers & Contractors, a contractor engaged by
NTPC Koldam Hydroelectric Power Project, Bilaspur
(HP) in terminating the services of their workman
Sh. Inder Raj S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram w.e.f. 1/8/2008, is
legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.3 who in turn
engaged respondent No.2 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.2 on 6.8.2004
where he worked till 31.7.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No.3,
whereas M/s AKS Engineers and Contractors who is
impleaded as respondent No. 2 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.3 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.2
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.11340/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6979
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 3 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.3.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2813-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe
gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 36@2009) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@119@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- osQ- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. Case
No. 36/2009) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-abour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Kol
Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC & Others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17/10/2014.
[No. L-42012/119/2009-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. 36/2009
Registered on 19.3.2010
Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Shankar Ram, Village Jamthal,
PO Harnora, Bilaspur.
...Applicant
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2.
Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
3.
The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
6980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the Management
: Sh. V.P. Singh for respondent
No. 1
Sh. H.R. Sharma for respondent
No. 2
Respondent No. 3 ex parte
AWARD
Passed on-- 21.8.2014
Vide Order No.L-42012/119/2009-IR(DU), dated
3.3.2010 the Central Government 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 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s AKS
Engineers & Contractors in terminating the services
of their workman Sh. Sushil Kumar w.e.f. 29/8/2008
is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that respondent No.1 is the
principal employer who is engaged for the construction of
‘Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project’ at Harmoda and
has given contract to respondent No.2 who in turn
engaged respondent No.3 as its sub-contractor. The
workman was engaged by respondent No.3 on 16.8.2004
where he worked till 3.9.2008 when his services were
retrenched.
Workman has challenged the retrenchment on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and the management also appointed large number
of workers on the project after his retrenchment. It is also
pleaded that the management did not take permission from
the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment
and as such the retrenchment is illegal and he is deemed
to be in service.
The claim was contested by the NTPC i.e.
respondent No.1 as well as by the Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd. who have been impleaded as respondent No.2;
whereas M/s AKS Engineers and Contractors who were
impleaded as respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No.1 filed written statement
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never its employee and even not engaged by it.
Respondent No.2 in its separate written statement
pleaded that workman was engaged by respondent No.3
who retrenched his services on partial completion of work
after paying him Rs.9075/- in lieu of notice period and
retrenchment compensation. That work is not perennial
in nature. That the retrenchment is legal.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case the workman has appeared in
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. H.R.
Sharma, appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and
filed their affidavits reiterating the stand taken up in the
respective written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, counsel for the workman,
Sh. V.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
It was argued by Mr. M.S. Gorsi, learned counsel for
the workman that there is an unrebutted statement of the
workman to the effect that persons junior to the workman
were retained in service at the time of his retrenchment as
well the management employed several persons after the
retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the
workman is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The workman has deposed in his affidavit that the
persons junior to him were retained in service and the
management also employed more persons after his
retrenchment. But he did not name the persons who were
junior to him and were retained in service at the time of his
retrenchment. Again he did not name the persons who
were employed by the management after retrenchment.
The workman was required to prove the said facts by
leading cogent evidence in order to claim the relief and his
bare statement that the persons junior to him were retained
in service and the management employed more persons
after his retrenchment do not carry any weight in the
absence of any documentary and other convincing
evidence on the file. Therefore it cannot be said that the
persons junior to the workman were retained in service or
more persons were employed by the management after his
retrenchment and there is any violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act. Rather the statement of Sh. H.R.
Sharma shows that workman was paid due compensation
as required under Section 25F of the Act at the time of
effecting the retrenchment and the same was to be effected
on account of partial completion of the work.
In result, it is held that action of the respondent
No.2 in terminating the services of the workman is legal
and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference is 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6981
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2814-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
70@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@10@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@142@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2007)
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
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/10/2014.
[No. L-20012/142/2007-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. 70 OF 2007.
PARTIES: The Organizing Secretary,
Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union,
Krishna Nagar PO:BCCL Township,
Dhanbad.
Vs.
General Manager (Admn)
M/s BCCL, At: Koyla Bhawan,
PO: Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad.
L-20012/142/2007-IR(CM-I) dt.26.11.2007.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. N. M. Kumar,
Ld.Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D. K. Verma,
Ld.Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 3rd Sept, 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-20012/142/2007-IR (CM-I) dt. 26.11.2007.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of K.N.T.A.
of M/s BCCL in denying regularization as Supervisor
T & S Gr. B to Shri Sadhu Saran Prasad Carpenter is
justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled
On receipt of the Order No L-20012/142/2007-IR
(CM-I) dt. 26.11.2007 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. 70 of 2007 was registered on 05th
Dec., 2007 and accordingly an order to that effect was
passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court
on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said
order, notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the
parties concerned.
Both the parties made their appearances and filed
their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The
Union and the O.P./Management through their own
Learned Counsel respectively appeared in, and contested
the case.
The case of workman Sadhu Saran Prasad as
sponsored by the Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union is
that he was employed as the Carpenter, and was given the
charge to get all repairs of Carpentry properly, and to report
daily it to the Sr.Oversear (Civil) as per the Office Order
No. BCCL/TAF-21/62024 dt.30.03.1984. He was complying
the office order. Senior Overseer (Civil) T.A. Department,
Koyla Bhawan directed him to deposit the carpenter tools
store materials in the office store by August, 25, 1984
positively. Accordingly the workman complied the order.
He has been performing as the Supervisor (Civil) since
1984 without payment of any remuneration for it. The post
of work Supervisor (Civil) has been vacant since prior to
the death of Late K.D Singh who was promoted as the
General Supervisor from the Work Supervisor(Civil).The
workman also drew the attention of the Authorities to
payment of the scale of supervisor for the work being
done by him accordingly. The Union had already demanded
for regularization of the workman as the Work Supervisor
(Civil)Grade-B (Tech.Sup.) from 30.03.1984,but the
Management unjustifiably transferred him to Bhuli Town
Administration where on resumption of duty w.e.f.
6982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.10.2005 as per the Office Order dt. 6/7.10.2005, he was
allotted to work as a clerk. Alleging violation of Sec, 9A
and 25 B of the Industrial despite Act, 1947, his continuous
service on that post from 1984 to 2005, the Management
instead of regularizing the workman in the post of Work
Supervisor (Civil) has demoted him to the post of Carpenter
as per the Office Order dt.30/1.10.2005 of the Personnel
Manager (Co-ordination).The workman has been
victimized for his active trade Union activities for workers/
employees. The Management or their authorities do not
follow the standing orders and the I.D.Act, 1947; rather
they have adopted unfair Labour practice. The action of
the Management for denial to his regularization as
Supervisor T & S Grade ‘B’ is unjustified and illegal. So
the workman is entitled to the differences of wages from
31.3.1984 till the date of work Supervisor with proper relief.
3.
The Union concerned in its rejoinder has specifically
denied the allegations of the O.P./Management, further
stating that the I.I.No.37 is not applicable to the case of
the workman as a supervisor in Technical & Supervisory
Grade B. It is not a case of promotion rather that of proper
designation Scale of pay. He is a permanent workman of
BCCL, as his initial designation was of a Carpenter. The
Management has availed of the benefits of his services as
a Supervisor, neither the corresponding designation can
be denied nor scale of pay can be equated with Services
Linked Upgradation (SLU).Even on the basis of the
principle of equal pay for equal work, a workman
discharging similar duties as those in regular employment
is entitled to regular pay and other emoluments.
4.
Whereas challenging the maintainability of the
reference in law or in fact, the contra case of the O.P./
Management with categorical denials is that M/s BCCL
being a Government Company registered under the
Companies Act is a state in the terms of Art.12 of the
Constitution of India. All the employment in the Company
is public, and is based on the procedure as per the
constitution and laws of the Company. There is a Cadre
Scheme (E & M), Personnel Carpenter Helper to Pattern
Maker formulated by JBCCI as per the Constitutional
mandate and I.I. No.37 dt.25.9.1984.The workman is not
entitled for promotion to the post of Supervisorship. The
workman who is permanent employee of M/s BCCL is the
carpenter by designation. As per the provision of NCWA,
he was given Service-Linked -Upgradation (SLU) and
placed in Cat.VI w.e.f. 1.7.1990 and again was given SLU
w.e.f. 1.1.1999 and placed in T & S Gr.C.All promotions
from Carpenter helper to Pattern Maker Cat. is effected as
per the Cadre Scheme on the recommendation of
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) duly
constituted by the Cadre Controlling Authority subject
vacancy as per the Man power Budget. The workman was
never recommended by the D.P.C. for promotion is in higher
post. Therefore, the workman was granted the aforesaid
SLU as noted above. There is no provision for promotion
of a Carpenter to the post of Supervisor according to the
Cadre Scheme of the Carpenter.The sponsoring Union
raised the Industrial Dispute in contravention of the Cadre
Scheme as formulated by JBCCI. So the demand of the
Union for regularization of the workman as Supervisor in
T & C Gr. B is neither legal nor justified.
5.
The Management in its rejoinder has categorically
denied the allegations of the Union/workman as incorrect,
further alleging that workman was never authorized by
the Competent Authority to work as a Supervisor.
Moreover, the workman has no appropriate qualification
for working as a Supervisor (Civil).The transfer of an
employee does not attract/apply to the Sec. 9 A of the
I.D.Act.As such the workman is not entitled to any relief.
FINDING WITH THE REASONS
6.
In the instant Reference, two witnesses, namely,
WWI Shyam Sundar Sharma and WW2 Sadhu Saran
Prasad the workman himself, on behalf of the Union
concerned and MWI Amit Bhusan, Sr.Manager (Pers.) for
the Management have been produced and examined
respectively.
7.
On perusal of the pleadings documents relied upon
and the evidences adduced on behalf of the both the
parties, it appears no dispute the designation of the
workman Sadhu Saran Prasad is all along that of the
Carpenter and factually the workman was never promoted
to the post of Pattern Maker. In view of the aforesaid status
of the workman with various other facts evolves the
pertinent issue for adjudication as such:
Whether the workman’s claim for his regularization
as Supervisor T & S (Gr.B) is justified.
Sr. Counsel S.Paul, the Ld.Adv. for the workman
submits that the Management has admitted the working
of the workman as T & S Gr.B as per the office order
dt.17.1.2013 (Ext.W.1/7). The Management misinterprets it
that it is Technical Supervisor, rather in order to declare
Supervisor, there is no need to be Technical and it is also
admitted by the Management that Mr.K.D.Singh and Mr.
S.N. Singh had been promoted as Supervisor; as the post
of Supervisor requires no technical as also admitted by
the Management witness (MWI).Mr. Paul further submits
the designation of the workman depends upon the nature
of job he performed; that the Management has given the
workman the grade but no designation. In such situation
Implementation Instruction (I.I.No.37) related Cadre
Scheme of E & M Personnel has no application in the
reference, as it is not the demand for the promotion of
Supervisor T & S, rather the workman was given the job of
supervisor as per the Office Order dt.30.3.1984 of Shri Guru
Nam Singh, the Engineer (Civil), (Ext.W.1 = W.1/1) and the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6983
workman as per the letter of Mr. J.N.P. Singh, Sr. Oversear
(Civil)dt.24.8.1984 was directed to deposit the Store
materials as per the list. According to Mr. Paul, Service
Linked Upgradation was given to the workman so SLU/
SLP can not be equated with the post of Supervisor; since
a workman officiating higher Grade rendering continuous
service demands for classification is not a demand for
promotion and not beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
over the Industrial Dispute as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of workmen H.L Ltd. Vs Hindustan Lever
Ltd. reported in AIR: 1984(SC) 1683 (CB).Regularization
means as submitted by Mr. Paul a corrective procedure to
regularize some methodological irregularity as held by
Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Forest &
Veg.Dept, Corp.Vs.State of Bihar, 1991 PLJR 377.Here the
workman has been given the benefit of Service Linked
Promotion in the Technical & Supervisory, Grade -C
(Previous Grade/Cat)) and thereafter to T & S ,Grade B
w.e.f. 01.01.2007 as per the office order dt.17.01.2013
(Ext.W.1/7), so he has to be regularized. Relying upon the
case of workmen Vs. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central
Coalfields, reported in 2006 SCC (L & S) 530 (DB) Mr. Paul
submits as held therein, that in case of temporary or adhoc
appointment for long, the Court presumes that there is a
regular need for the services on a regular post and
accordingly considers regularization, as 39 workmen in
the same Colliery were regularized by the respondent
employer.
8.
Whereas vehemently opposing to the aforesaid
argument of Mr.Paul,Mr.D.K.Verma,Learned Counsel for
the O.P./Management has contended that admittedly the
workman had been all along working as a Carpenter, and
the Cadre Scheme of E & M Personnel provides for
Carpenter Helper to Pattern Maker (Grade I) as last as per
I.I.No.37 dt.25.9.1984 (Ext.M.1);so there was no
promotional avenue in the Cadre Scheme, the Management
has given the workman the SLP/SLI Grade/Category for T.
& S B w.e.f. 01.01.2007. According to the Job Nomenclature,
as Mr.Verma has argued the posts of the Engineer the
Senior Overseer and the Overseer under Grades A.B and
C respectively come, and there is no post of any Supervisor
as claimed by the workman,; thus his claim or regularization
as Supervisor T & S B is legally unsustainable.
On deep consideration of the materials available on
the case record, I find that the entire claim of the workman
for classification by way of regularization as Supervisor T
& S Gr.B is based on the office order dt.30.03.1984 (Extt.W.1
= W 1/1 being the same) which is nothing except a direction
to look after the proper working of other Carpenter only
for 4 months 25 days. This is not any authorization to
work as Supervisor as self assumed by the workmen. The
workman has all along been working as a Carpenter as
evident from his all aforesaid documents. His claim for it is
not only against the Cadre Scheme but also against the
nomenclature of the job. None of the rulings as cited by
Mr. Paul Ld.Counsel for the workman appears to be
applicable to the present case as it stands before me.
In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby
responded and accordingly awarded that the action of
the Management of K.N.T.A. of M/s BCCL in denying
regularization as Supervisor T & S Grade ‘B’ to Shri Sadhu
Saran Prasad, Carpenter is quite justified and legal. Hence,
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2815-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
98@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@10@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@135@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2013)
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
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/10/2014.
[No. L-20012/135/2012-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. 98 OF 2013.
PARTIES : The Vice President,
Jharkhand Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor
Union,
Mohalbani, PO : Bhowra,
Dhanbad
Vs.
6984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The General Manager,
Barora Area of M/s BCCL,
PO : Nawagarh, Dhanbad.
Ministry’s Order No L-20012/135/2012-
IR (CM-I) dt.01.03.2013.
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 16th September, 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/
135/2012-IR(CM-I) dt. 1.3.2013.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of WJA
Moonidih of M/s BCCL in not paying the Tramming
rate etc. as per NCWA-VIII to P.R. Workers of WJA
Moonidih is fair and justified? To what reliefs are
the concerned workmen entitled to?”
2.
Not any Union Representative for Jharkhand Mines
Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union, Mohalla-Bani, Bhowra,
Dhanbad nor any workers appeared nor any written
statement with documents filed on their behalf but
Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld.Advocate for O.P/Management as usual
is present.
On going through the case record, I find three Regd.
Notices dtt.3.5.13, 22.10.13 and 14.3.2014 were issued to
the Vice President, of the Union on his address noted in
the very reference for filing written statement with
documents on their behalf, yet till now neither of the Union
Representative and the P.R.Workers of the WJA,
Moonidha appeared and responded to any notices. As
such the very conducts of the Union Representative as
well as the workers (unlisted) appear to be quite reluctant
to fight or pursue the case of final adjudication. In such
circumstances, it appears no industrial dispute existent.
Accordingly, an order for No Dispute Award is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2816-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
99 of 2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@133@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/2013)
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
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/10/2014.
[No. L-20012/133/2012-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. 99 OF 2013.
PARTIES : The Vice President,
Janta Mazdoor Sangh
Vihar Building, PO: Jharia,
Dhanbad
Vs.
The General Manager,
Barora Area of M/s BCCL,
PO: Nawagarh, Dhanbad
Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/133/2012-
IR(CM-I) dt.01.03.2013.
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 16th September, 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/
133/2012-IR(CM-I) dt. 1.3.2013.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6985
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of
Phularitand Colliery/OCP of M/s BCCL in not
regularizing S/Shri Amit Kumar,Vidya Sagar, Krishna
Kumar Chouhan, Kamaljeet, Ramesh Thakur, Ramesh
Kumar Pandey, Ashok Kumar Pandey and Santosh
Kumar Sinha as Dispatch Loading clerk is fair and
justified? To what reliefs are the concerned workmen
entitled to?”
2.
None appeared for Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Jharia,
Dhanbad nor any of the eight workmen Amit Kumar &
others appeared nor any written statements with
documents filed on their behalf, whereas Mr. D.K. Verma,
Ld. Adv. for the O.P./Management is present.
Perusal of the case record clearly reveals that three
Regd.Notices dtt.6.5.13, 14.3.14, and 24.7.2014 were issued
to the Vice President of the aforesaid Union concerned on
the basis of his address as noted in the reference itself,
yet none of the Union or the workmen concerned could
respond to any of the notices of the Tribunal. The Union
Representative and the workmen by their conducts appear
to be quite uninterested in contesting or pursuing the
case. Thus it appears no Industrial Dispute existent. Hence,
accordingly an order for ‘No Award Dispute’ is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2817-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
96 of 2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@5@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/2013)
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
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/10/2014.
[No. L-20012/5/2013-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. 96 OF 2013.
PARTIES : The Executive Member,
Jharkhand Colliery Shramik Union,
Vinod Market,
Near Randhir Verma Chowk, Hirapur,
Dhanbad..
Vs.
The General Manager,
Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL,
PO Kusund, Dhanbad.
Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/5/2013-IR
(CM-I) dt.21.3.2013
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
: None
On behalf of the Management
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dhanbad, the 16th September, 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/
5/2013-IR(CM-I) dt. 21.03.2013.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda
Area of M/s BCCL in not fixing the basic pay of
Smt.Kabiya Kamin correctly while converting from
PR category to TR category is fair and justified? To
what relief the concerned workwoman is entitled to?
2.
Neither Union Representative for Jharkhand Colliery
Sharmik Union, Hirapur, Dhanbad nor workwoman
Smt. Kabiya Kamin appeared nor written statement with
documents filed on her behalf just as none appeared for
the O.P./Management.
On perusal of the case record, it stands clear that
the case has all along been pending since 26.06.2013 for
filing written statement with documents on behalf of the
workwoman. It is also clear that three Regd. Notices
dtt.6.5.13, 22.10.13 and 14.3.2014 were issued to the Union
Representative on his address as noted in the Reference
6986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
itself, though Mr. Nitish Sahay Ld. Advocate for the O.P./
Management almost regularly represented the O.P./
Management except today The Union Representative and
the workwoman by their own conducts clearly appear to
be quite unwilling to pursue the case for its finality. It
appears that there is no Industrial dispute existing now.
Hence the case is closed and accordingly ‘No Industrial
Dispute’ order is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2818-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VhLdks ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 108 of
1997) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@10@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@230@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/
1997) 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. TISCO, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/10/2014.
[No. L-20012/230/1996-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. 108 OF 1997.
PARTIES : The General Secretary,
Rastriya Mazdoor Union,
Telipara, Hirapur, Dhanbad.
Vs.
The General Manager,
Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.,
At/PO : Jamadoba, Dhanbad.
Ministry’s Order No L-20012/230/96/IR
(C-I) dt. 9.97
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the
: Mr. Chandrika Prasad,
workman/Union
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the
: Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dhanbad, the 30th Sept., 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-20012/230/96/IR(C-I) dt. 9.97.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Tata Steel
Rural Development Society in stopping the
employment of Shri Shyam Sunder Singh after
engaging him as casual for a long period is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman
entitled ?
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/230/96/-
IR(C-I) dt.9.97. 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. 108 of 1997 was registered on 21.10.1997 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
Representative/ Learned Counsels appeared in, and
contested the case.
2.
The case of workman Shyam Sundar Singh as
sponsored by the Rastriya Mazdoor Union is that he was
engaged as the Nursery Supervisor by the Management
of Tata Steel Rural Development Society (TSRDS) in the
year 1981 and worked till February 1993.He was paid
Rs.24/- per day, but it was paid on monthly basis. His
appointment was on the post of permanent and perennial
nature. It continued uninterruptedly in service from 1981
to 1993. In view of the permanent nature of work, the
Management is wing of M/s. TISCO.When the workman
demanded for regularization in service with wages equal
to those of the TISCO workers, he was stopped from work
without complying with the provisions of the Industrial
Dispute Act,1947. At raising the Industrial Dispute by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6987
Union before the A.L.C.(C), Dhanbad for his regularization,
the Management admitted in their comments that the
Society had done afforestation welfare activities at
different places around the colliery area for purpose of
improving the environment condition. The Management
also accepted the engagement of the workman as casual
unskilled worker for performance of the duties incidental
to afforestation work such as digging of earth, planting of
scuplings, watering and putting enclosures on the sapling
etc. the Workmen worked for ore than 240 days kms. a
year and years together continuously till his illegal
stoppage for work. His termination was without any notice.
Further alleged on behalf of the workman that the
Management got sanctioned the post the workman was
working on, but the Asstt.Manager (RD)Sunil Kumar
Pandey got his brother-in-law employed on that post, and
the was threatened of dire consequences and assured of
the consideration for his regularization. The other workers
of the Management have been regularized, and be made
permanent employees of TISCO Ltd. such as
S/Shri Ashok Mishra, Brij Kishor Singh, Sujan Mahato,
Ram Kishun etc, in other jobs. But the workman has been
deprived of his legitimate demand for regularization. In
course of services on the fracture of his leg, the workman
had got free treatment at the Tata Central Hospital,
Jamadoba as the other employee. Only for the period of
hospitaisation, he remained asbent, after which he joined
his duty till termination of his service.The workman as
victimized due to the Trade Union activity. The action of
the Management is illegal and unjustified. The workman
is entitled to reinstatement/regularization with full back
wages.
The Union Representative in the rejoinder for the
workman has specifically denied all the allegations of the
O.P./Management, further alleging that the Tata Steel Rural
Development Society is the Regd. one of Organizations,
and a part and parcel of the TISCO. It carries on and
promotes the activities of rural economy and welfare in
Coal Mines and Steel Plants. It functions in the whole
Tata’s Organization.
3.
Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./
Management with categorical denials is that the reference
is legally unmaintenable. The Tata Steel Rural Development
Society (TSRDS) is a Registered Organization as No. 438/
78-79 of March 1979 under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 with the main object to undertake, carry on and
promote the actives of rural economy and Welfare in the
villages situated in Industrial are like coal, Mines and Steel
Plants. The Society is an independent and autonomous
institution, but not an Industry for any profit. It gets fund
from the subscriptions from its members who are four
kinds; patrons, members, Coprporate bodies and
honourry.The Society from time through the Managing
Committee duly elected by its members as per the rules
and bye-laws of it. The Committee runs the institution as
a voluntary organizations carry on welfare activities of
the villages for no profit. The Society maintains its own
accounts under the audit statutorily every year. In course
of welfare activities of the Society for the seasonal a
forestation works at different villages adjacent to Industrial
Areas of Coal Mines with a view to improve environmental
condition of the villages during the years 1990, 1991 and
1992 Daily rated, Casual Workers were engaged for digging
of earth, planting of saplings and putting enclosures
around the saplings for their safety in its growing period
whenever required. The workman Shyam Sundar Singh
was accordingly engaged for the aforesaid work during
the said years of the plantation season, he was paid his
wages at prevalent rate slightly higher than the prescribed
rate under Minimum Wages Act for agricultural work.
Since thereafter the Society had not got sufficient
fund from its subscription of its members and others so it
could not undertake welfare activities after 1993 in any
industrial Area situated within the State of Bihar. The
Society could not force to undertake the seasonal works
and to provide Daily Rated/ casual workers the afforesting
work at their discretion. The Society is a Registered
Organization under the aforesaid Societies Registration
Act and it is not an Industry for any profit, so the Central
Government is not appropriate Authority to refer any
Industrial Dispute because no Industrial Dispute exists at
all. The workman was never engaged as a permanent
worker on any permanent post. His engagement was on
Daily Rated basis for a temporary period in connection
with the aforesaid jobs purely dependent upon the season
of rain and growing of scapplings. So the workman can
neither claim for regular employment nor can have claim
any grievance against the management for not getting a
job.
The Management in its rejoinder has categorically
denied all the allegations of the workman as false, baseless
and imaginary. In view of the nature of the case of the
Management, the violation of provisions of Industrial
Dispute Act in terminating the workman is wrong and
baseless. Further alleged on behalf of the Management
that M/s TISCO has its own recruitment policy according
to which it gives preference to the workmen belonging to
local villages adjacent to its establishment. In that regard,
some workers got their employment on the basis of
selection, but not as the workmen of the Societies. The
workman has not right to demand for regularization of his
6988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
service under the Management of the Society or M/s
TISCO Ltd. So far as the Medical treatment of the workman
at the Hospital of Tisco, he had got for his injury, is
concerned, as the Society is the Voluntary Organization it
requests different parties/Companies to render medical
assistance as well as to pay subscriptions for undertakings
welfare activities. At the request of the Society, the
workman has got medical treatment for his injury during
the period of his engagement as a Casual worker of the
Society. As such the workman is not entitled any relief.
FINDING WITH REASONS
4.
In the instant reference,WW1 Shyam Sunder Singh
now as the Teacher on behalf of the workman and MW1
Sinjan Kumar Das the Supervisor for the Management
have been produced and examined respectively. On
meticulously going through the pleaded evidences of both
the parties, the indisputable fact appears to be that
workman Shyam Sunder Singh was a casual worker
engaged by the Management of Tata Steel Rural
Development Society.
Mr.Chandrika Pd.,Learned Advocate cum the
Union representative for the workman had worked under
the Management from 1991 to 1993 during which for
more than 240 days in a year, but on his representation
for regularization of his service (Ext.W.7), he was stopped
by the Management from the working; thereafter,the
Management had engaged Ashok Mishra, broher-in-law
of Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Manager, TSRDS, and some
workmen Ashok Mishra, Brij Kishro Singh, Sujan Mahato
others were regularized by the Management in their
services, though he (workman) had got free medical
treatment from the hospital of the Management at
Jamadoba for his leg fractured in course of his service as
the Doctors’ prescription (Ext. W4 & 4/1). The statement
of the workman(WW1) reveals that as per his two
application dated 9.10.84 and 98.1984 (Ext.W.1 & 2
respectively), he had applied for sanction of job and
labourers, he had got the order dt. 29.7.1984 from the
Management (Ext.W.3) about pits. The workman had
submitted his bill (for July 1986 - Ext.W.6) to the
management for his work. There is also the site report
dt.6.10.88 (Daily Inspection Programme in Social Forestry
for a week (Ext W.6)soothe workman’s claim for
regularization is jsutified as urged by his aforesaid Learned
Counsel.
5.
Just contrary to it Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld.Counsel for the
O.P./Management has contended that the RSRDS is one
NGO Registered under the Society Registration Act as per
its Memorandum (Ext.M.1) and its works for welfare, but
not for any profit; the workman was a casual worker in
plantation job which was quite seasonal. This registered
Society has no connection with the TISCO. The Registered
Society has no authority to recommend to the latter for
regularization of any such seasonal casual worker;
moreover, no casual worker in lack of employer-employee
relationship can be regularized.
6.
In view of the aforesaid materials available on the
case record, I find that the Management of TSRDS being
a Registered Society Registration Act is non-
governmental Organisations, it is a charity or an
Association independent of the management of Tisco and
its business. The Registered Society does not appear to
be for any business or industry, rather it carries on the
social welfare activities such as forestation in the
industrial area. It is an acknowledged fact the registered
Society used to casually engage casual labourers like the
present workman in plantation of sapling only in rainy
season. So the job of the workman was purely temporary
nature. The argument of Mr. Verma, Learned counsel for
the O.P./management appears to be quite reasonable as
that of Mr.Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Union seems
meritless absolutely.
Under these crcumstancces,it is hereby awarded that
no question arises as to the action of the Management of
TSRDS in stopping the employment of Shri Shyam
Sunder Singh, who has no proof of his working for a
longer period of time which appears to be impossible
in the nature of his purely temporary engagement for
plantation. Hence the workman is not entitled to any
relief. The alleged Industrial dispute devoid of the vital
factor of “industry” is not at all an industrial dispute.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Office
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2819-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40
of 2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@10@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@107@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º
,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2014
S.O.
2819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2013)
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
workmen, received by the Central Government on
20/10/2014.
[No. L-20012/107/2012-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6989
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 40 OF 2013
PARTIES : The Orgn. Secretary,
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,
Rajendra Path, Dhanbad
Vs.
General Manager (HR)
P.B.Area of M/s BCCL,
PO: Kusunda, Dhanbad
Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/107/2012-
IR(CM-I) dt.11.02.2013
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Mines
Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd Sept, 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-20012/107/2012-IR(CM-I) dt.11.02.2013.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s
BCCL in not promoting Brijnandan Sah as Foreman
in T&S Grade-C w.e.f. 10.05.1997 and in T&S
Grade-B w.e.f. 21.10.2004 is fair and justified? To
what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?”
2.
Mr.N.G.Arun, the Union Representative-cum-
Advocate for workman Brijnandan Sah is present but
neither the workman appeared nor any written statement
with documents filed on his behalf. Likewise none appeared
for the O.P./Management.
On perusal of the case record, it transpires that
despite three Regd. Notices having been issued to both
the parties, the workman did not appear nor any written
statement with his documents filed. The case has been
pending right from very beginning for it. The conducts of
the workman appears to be uninterested in contesting the
case up to its final disposal. In such circumstances, the
case is closed as No Industrial Dispute. Accordingly, an
order of ‘No Industrial Dispute’ existing is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2820-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2007) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@56@2006&vkbZvkj (ch-&1)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 21st October, 2014
S.O.
2820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 13/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
14/10/2014.
[No. L-41012/56/2006-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/13 of 2007
Employers in Relation to the Management of
Western Railway
The Divisional Railway Manager (E),
Western Railway, DRM’s Office
Mumbai Central
Mumbai-400 008
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The Divisional Secretary
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad
Chapra Building
Near Plaza Cinema
Dadar (W)
Mumbai-400 028
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
: Mr. Abhay Kulkarni,
Advocate.
6990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
FOR THE WORKMEN
: Mr. M. B. Anchan,
Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 25th August, 2014
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-41012/56/2006-IR (B-I),
dated 27.02.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred
the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Western
Railway, Administration, Mumbai Division, Mumbai
in not granting the upgradaton benefits to Ms.
Meena More, Head Clerk is justified? If not, what
relief Ms. Meena More, Head Clerk is entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, notices were issued
to both the parties. In response to the notice, second
party union filed statement of claim at Ex-8. According to
the second party union, workman Ms. Meena More was
initially appointed as a Junior Clerk w.e.f. 14/6/1983. She
was promoted as Sr. Clerk w.e.f. 24/12/1983. She was further
promoted as Head Clerk w.e.f. 1/1/1984. The next
promotion was to the post of Chief Clerk/Office
Superintendent- II in the scale of Rs.5,500-9000. However
instead of promoting her, the management promoted Ms.
Neelam R. Karnik who was immediate junior to the workman
in general category. She was promoted as a Head Clerk in
the scale of 425-700/5000-8000 w.e.f. 18/7/1988 and as Chief
Clerk/Office Supdt-II in the scale of 1600-2660/5500-9000
w.e.f. 11/10/1996 and further promoted as OS-I in the scale
of Rs.6500-10500 from 8/1/2002. The workman was
promoted as Head Clerk from 1/1/84 and she was not given
any further promotion though she was senior to Ms.
Neelam Karnik. Workman, Ms. Meena More had appeared
for written test for the post of Chief Clerk/OS-II in the year
1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2006 & 2007. She had also appeared
for viva in the year 1996, 1998 & 2000 before the Selection
Committee. In the year 1998 she had passed the test for
Office Superintendent-II with general standard. In spite
of it she was not considered for promotion to the post of
OS-II and those employees who have passed with relax
standard with the taking of notional seniority marks have
been considered for the post of OS-II in the scale of Rs.5500-
9000. During last ten years the workman has not been
communicated any adverse remarks against her in annual
confidential report. The promotion order if any during
the period 17/6/1995 to 7/3/2002 as per base grade seniority
shall be revised according to the instructions contended
in the Railway Board’s letter dt. 8/3/2002. Till date no
seniority has been revised by the administration. The
Railway Administration has promoted several juniors to
the workman to the post of Chief Clerk/OS-II and Office
Superintendent. Therefore union prays that workman may
be promoted to the post of Chief Clerk/ Office
Superintendent and as OS-I from the dates her juniors
were promoted and the action of the management not
granting upgradation benefit to the workman be declared
not justified and she be given arrears of wages from the
date of her promotion as per the seniority.
3.
The first party management resisted the statement
of claim vide their written statement Ex-9. According to
them the competent authority of Railway after perusing
the reference and after taking overall picture with regard
to the service record and merit criteria, have decided to
promote Ms. Meena More to the post of OS-II in the scale
of 5500-9000 (RSRP) w.e.f. 20/09/1998 on pro forma basis
on pay Rs.6375/-. They further submitted that select list
for promotion to the post of OS-I scale Rs.6500-10500/
9300-34800 & Rs.4600 GP was issued by the Competent
Authority on being found suitable, the name of Ms. Meena
More OS-II in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 & Rs.4200 GP is
interpolated in the same. In consequence of the said
interpolation Ms. Meena More OS-II E/RTI Cell is promoted
to the post of OS-I in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 & Rs.4600
GP w.e.f. 9/5/2006 on pro forma basis with reference to the
date of promotion of her junior. Ms. Meena More had
duly accepted the aforesaid order without any protest and
has already assumed charge of the new post w.e.f. 20/02/
2010. In the circumstances according to the first party the
substantial part of the reference has become infructuous.
According to them the workman is not entitled to the
arrears of wages on account of ground that she has not
worked on promotion post and as per clause 228 of the
Indian Railway Establishment Manual which provides that
in case of pro forma promotion no arrears shall be payable
to the concerned workman.
Workman Ms. Meena has accepted the pro forma
promotion without any protest and has already assumed
her charges. Hence she is estopped from claiming any
arrears of wages for promotional posts where she has not
actually worked. Therefore the management prays that
the reference be dismissed with cost.
4.
Following are the issues for my determination. I
record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow :
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1.
Whether the management of Western
Yes.
Railway, Mumbai Division is justified
in not granting the upgradation benefits
to Ms. Meena More, Head Clerk?
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6991
2.
Whether Ms. Meena More is entitled
No.
to the upgradation benefits claimed for?
3.
What order?
As per
order below.
REASONS
Issues nos. 1 & 2:-
5.
Both these issues are in respect of the benefit for
the arrears from the due date of promotion. Therefore
both these issues are discussed and decided
simultaneously. In this respect the fact is not disputed
that due to administrative error workman Ms. Meena
More was not promoted to the post of Chief Clerk/Officer
Superintendent-II w.e.f. 20/09/1998. The fact is also not
disputed that her further promotion was due as OS-I in
the pay scale of 9300-34800 + GP Rs.4600/- from 9/5/
2006. The fact is also not disputed that after this
reference, in the year 2010 the management realized the
mistake and they have given proforma promotion to the
workman from the due date without any arrears.
According to the management the workman is not entitled
to the arrears as Rule 228 of Indian Railway
Establishment Manual prescribes that in case promotion
is not given to any employee due to administrative error,
proforma promotion can be given to him from the due
date. In such cases the workman is not entitled to the
arrears. Secondly the ld. adv. for the first party submitted
that the workman is estopped from claiming the arrears
as she has accepted the proforma promotions from the
year 2010 without any protest. The ld. adv. for the first
party submitted that above referred Rule 228 is still in
existence as the same is not set aside by any Court. After
perusing the language of this Rule 228 it is clear that
due to administrative errors if a staff is overlooked for
promotion to higher grade, he can be given proforma
promotion from the due date. However he is not entitled
to the arrears on that account as he did not actually
shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher post.
Furthermore though the reference was pending the
workman has accepted the promotion unconditionally
without any protest.
6.
In the circumstances I hold that though the
workman was entitled to the promotion from the due
dates, as she had not worked on the promotional post,
she is not entitled to the arrears claimed in this reference.
Though the management was not justified in giving her
promotion on the due dates, the action of the management
refusing to pay arrears is quite justified. Accordingly I
hold that the management was justified in not giving the
upgradation benefits / arrears of upgradation to the
workman. Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in the
affirmative. Consequently I hold that the workman is not
entitled to the upgradation benefits claimed for.
Accordingly I decide this issue no.2 in the negative. In
this respect the fact is not disputed that during pendency
of the reference the management has given the proforma
promotions to the workman from the due dates. Therefore
the prayer in respect of directing to give promotion has
become infructuous. The only point was to be considered
in respect of arrears which was decided against the
workman.
7.
In this respect the fact is required to be taken into
account that the workman was not promoted on the due
dates due to administrative error and the workman was
required to raise industrial dispute. She was unnecessarily
required to fight the legal battle for her promotion.
Thereafter during pendency of this reference, management
realized the administrative error and has given her the two
proforma promotions w.e.f. 1998 & 2006. As per Rule 228
and the reasons discussed herein above the workman is
not entitled to the arrears in case of proforma promotions.
However she is very well entitled to the cost of the
proceeding. Thus to meet the end of justice I think it
proper to award cost of Rs.25,000/- to the workman.
Accordingly I dispose of this reference as dismissed.
ORDER
The reference is disposed of with cost of Rs.25,000/-
payable by the management to the workman.
Date: 25/08/2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2821-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p Mh ,iQ lh
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 115@11) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@88@2011&vkbZvkj (ch-&1)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 21st October, 2014
S.O.
2821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 115/
11) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
No.2 Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of HDFC and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/10/2014.
[No. L-12012/88/2011-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
6992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT - II, KARKARDOOMA
COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 115/11
Sh. Vikash Lahariya,
353 , Bankey Lal Market,
Badarpur, New Delhi.110044.
Versus
1.
Vice President Human Resources,
HDFC Bank, Human Resources Division,
HDFC Bank House,
2nd floor, Sonpati Bapat Marg,
Lawer Parcel,Mumbai.
2.
Zonal Head,
HDFC Bank Limited,
2E /25 1st floor, Jhandewalan Extn.,
ND-110055
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No L-12012/88/2011-IR(B-I)) dated
30.11.2011 referred the following industrial Dispute to
this tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
HDFC Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of Sh.
Vikash Lahariya is legal and justified? To What
relief the workman is entitled?”
On 19.12.2011 reference was received in this
tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 115/11 and
claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in
fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was
required to be accompanied with relevant documents and
list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant Sh.
Vikash Lahariya not filed claim statement but
management in response to reference filed response
wherein it mentioned as follows:-
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
At the outset the Management submits that the
Workman has not filed any Claim Petition and /or has
not supplied any claim petition inter alia substantiating
and /or prove his alleged claim before this Hon’ble Court.
In any case, the Management denies all allegations as
though the same thereof have been specifically set forth
and traversed herein, save and except to the extent the
content(s) thereof are specifically admitted. The
Management thought reserves its right to file detailed
and para -wise reply to the claim petition, in case the
Workman has filed the same.
Without prejudice to the below facts, it is submitted
that this Hon’ble Court should be pleased to dismiss the
present case on the ground that no claim petition has
been filed by the Workman till date. Apart from the above,
it is submitted the Workman is absent from the
proceedings right from the inception of the case and has
not come forward to file any claim petition.
The present reply is being filed by the Management
as per the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court (despite
the objection put forth by the Management) that no claim
petition has been filed by the Workman and hence this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the same.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
The following preliminary objections (the “PO”)
goes to the root of the matter in dispute and without
prejudice to each of the POs; the alleged Claim (though
no claim petition has been filed) is liable to be dismissed
on each of the grounds set out hereinafter:
I.
The Workman has filed the present case with
malafide intention, which contains false averments
and incorrect facts (as explained hereinafter). It is
an effort to harass the Management and to put
undue pressure on them so that the Management
indirectly succumbs to the illegal demand and
gratification of the Workman. As such the claim is
liable to be dismissed on this ground alone with
exemplary cost with regard thereto as per provisions
of Section 35 A of CPC, 1908. The Workman who is
seeking equitable relief must prove his bonafide
intention (viz. a viz. his performance standards)
and should first come forward before this Hon’ble
court with clean hands.
II.
At the outset, the Workman has not come with clean
hands before this Hon‘ble Court. The alleged relief
(though no claim petition has been filed by the
Workman) sought by the Workman are not
maintainable. Hence, the present claim is liable
be dismissed forthwith on the grounds of being
malafide, baseless and lacking any bonafide cause
of action.
III.
As per the Fixed Term Contract dated October 25,
2008, the Management reserves the right to
terminate the services of the Workman without
giving any compensation or notice. The
Management had given numerous opportunities to
improve his performance, however, as the Workman
failed to meet the specified work/task and no
sufficient cause was given for his non-performance
and further the Workman went on leave from
24.07.2009, which was not approved or sanctioned
by the Management and thereafter, the workman
never turn back to office as he voluntarily
disengaged from his services. The Workman/
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6993
Claimant took the said leaves, without giving any
prior intimation to the Management’s senior
Officers. In view of the Workman’s constant default
vis-à-vis clause 7 of the FTC and his unwarranted
ceaseure from the services of Management, the
employment of Workman got terminated in August
2009. In view thereof, it is apparent that the Workman
had concealed this material fact from this Hon‘ble
Court and has approached this Hon‘ble Court with
unclean hands stating the distorted and inchoate
facts, with malafide intentions of misleading this
Hon‘ble Court. The alleged Claim (though no claim
petition has been filed by the Workman) suffers from
the virus of suggestio falsie and suppressio varie as
explained in the subsequent pleadings. Hence, the
present alleged claim (though no claim petition has
been filed by the Workman) is liable to be rejected at
the threshold.
IV.
The relationship between the Claimant and the
Management are governed by the private contract
between the parties and hence the Claimant cannot
be termed as ‘Workman’ as defined under Section 2
(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Act”). Thus, the Workman is not
entitled to invoke the provision of the said Act. The
Workman has approached this Hon’ble Court on
taking all possible frivolous grounds against the
Management /Bank though such grounds are just a
camouflage to coerce the Management to pay the
alleged amount or relief.
V.
The engagement/appointment of the workman
governed by the personal contract. Therefore, the
termination of the personal contract does not fall
under the purview of the definition “Industrial
Dispute” as defined under Section 2 (k) and /or under
section 2A of the Act. Hence the alleged Claim
(though no claim petition has been filed by the
Workman) is not maintainable & liable to be
dismissed by imposing heavy cost.
VI.
The present issue/dispute is related with two
individual parties, and can’t term as Industrial
Dispute as defined under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Moreover, the Workman has not made
out and/or shown how the said provisions are
attracted in the instant case. As in the catena of
judgments, it has been held that in order to invoke
the adjudicatory machinery of the this Hon’ble
Court, the existence of an industrial disputes on the
date of invoking the jurisdiction under the Act is a
basic requirement, the absence of which will take
away the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to proceed
further with the adjudication. Hence the alleged claim
(though no claim petition has been filed by the
Workman) is liable to be dismissed not only on the
ground of No Cause Of Action arises in favor of the
Workman and against the Management and no relief
can be granted by this Hon’ble Court but also this
Hon’ble Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain
the present matter in view of the bar imposed as per
Section 10 (4A) of the Act.
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS / FACTS:
1.
The Management is a banking institution having its
registered office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat
Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400013 and is engaged
in the legitimate business of providing banking service
and is having its branch office at B-2, Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi.
2.
That Mr. Raja Saha, Branch Manager and duly
authorised officer of the Management has been duly
authorised to represent the Management and to defend
the cases filed against the Bank before this Hon’ble Court.
The Authority Letter executed by the HDFC Bank Ltd. in
favor of Mr. Raja Saha is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE
M - 1.
3.
That Mr. Vikash Lahariya i.e. the Workman had
applied for the post of ‘Contract Sales Executive’. The
Workman provided it’s Resume and other related
documents. The interview was conducted and the
Management considered his candidature for the Post of
‘Contract Sales Executive’. As per the procedure, Interview
Record Sheet was prepared and New Recruit Details (NRD)
Format was also duly filled by the concerned officer of the
Management inter alia giving the details, where the Fixed
Term Contract shall be dispatched to the Workman. The
Original New Recruit Details (NRD) Format, Resume,
Certificates, Interview Record Sheet are annexed herewith
as ANNEXURE M - 2 (Colly).
4.
Accordingly, a Fixed Term Contract dated October
25, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “FTC”) was executed
between the parties, whereby the Workman agreed to
adhere to the terms of employment as enumerated there
under. The appointment of the Workman was purely
Contractual and in view thereof, the FTC (as stated above)
was executed in between the parties; for a term of two
years with effect from November 1, 2008. Pursuant thereof,
the employee code i.e. 66061 was generated for the
Workman/Vikas Lahariya. The relevant terms of the
contract, which are necessary for the adjudication of the
present matter are reiterated herein under for the ready
reference of the this Hon’ble Court:
Clause 4 : “You will be entitled to leave only on completion
of Six months from the Date of Joining as a Contract Sales
Executive. You will be entitled to Twenty Five working
days annual leave in a calendar year at a time to be
determined by the Bank, subject to exigencies of service.
6994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In case you are already on leave of any sort you may be
recalled by the Bank if circumstances warrant your
immediate return on duty.
Clause 5 : You will not be entitled for any sick leave. Except
in exceptional cases leave may be granted at the discretion
of the Bank after adjusting the leave of 25 days, but the
Bank reserves the right to terminate your employment
forthwith and without previous notice in the event of
absence of work due to ill health for a periods totaling at
least four weeks in consecutive period of twelve calendar
months”.
Clause 7 : “Notwihtstanding the provisions of clause 11 is
hereof in the event of any willful or continued neglect by
you of your duties, any serious misconduct or any breach
of this contract on your part, the Bank reserves the right
to terminate your employment forthwith and without notice
or payment in lieu of notice and you shall be bound by
such a decision and shall not question the same.
Clause 11 : “The contract may be terminated by either
party giving to the other not less than one month’s and
not more than thirty days prior written notice to that effect
expiring at any time after the commencement of your service
hereunder or by the Bank paying you one month’s basic
salary in lieu of Notice (wherein before or after such notice
of termination is given by you). The Bank shall be entitled,
whether such notice of termination is given by you or the
Bank, to require you to proceed on leave at the time of
receiving or giving such notice of termination or at any
time thereafter. The unavailed leave may be adjusted
against the notice period, at the discretion of the
management. The Bank shall also be entitled to terminate
your service forthwith by paying one month’s salary in
lieu of notice.
Clause 12 : “On expiry of two years from the date of
commencement of this contract, your services will
automatically come to an end without any further act of
the Bank.
From the terms of the FTC, it was apparent that the
continuation of the employment of the Workman would
be subject to adhering the terms and FTC as well as meeting
of the business targets determined by the Bank from time
to time. The Original FTC dated October 25, 2008 is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE M - 3.
5.
That Vikash Lahariya (in terms of the FTC) started
working with the Management /Bank with effect from
November 1, 2008 under the Managerial Capacity and was
drawing monthly salary of Rs. 4,500/- (Rupees Four
Thousand Five Hundred Only) and monthly conveyance
allowance of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five
Hundred Only). Apart from the salaries and the allowances,
the Workman was provided group medical insurance for a
sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The Workman was even provided as
well as asked to be participating in the Bank’s Staff
provident Fund.
6.
In terms of the FTC, the Workman was required to
perform his work at New Delhi or such other place or places
in or outside India as the Bank or its associates or
subsidiaries may from time to time specify. The Workman
was to report to his Reporting Manager namely Shri
Mahesh Joshi at Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi branch of
the Bank. In view of the employment, a Salary Bank
Account bearing no. 0013851040000262 was also opened
in the name of the Workman, wherein the monthly salary
of the Workman was directly deposited by the Bank.
7.
That the Workman was assigned his work and
responsible for managing the work during his tenure are
as under:
(a)
The workman was mainly responsible for maintaining
the relationship with merchants mapped him;
(b)
He was responsible for generation of volume and
cross sell;
(c)
He was responsible to make daily visits to merchants
and ensure that the merchants contribute volume
for the Bank;
(d)
To complete the profile sheet for the complete
merchant base mapped to him, which give details of
the merchant;
(e)
For managing the relationship with the merchant, in
case if any merchant has any sales/service related
issues;
(f)
To ensure that the merchants utilize/inform any
additional features provided by the Bank;
(g)
For sourcing of merchants;
(h)
To collect KYC documents for sourcing merchants
form and send the same CANI/branch for CA
opening;
(i)
For sourcing merchants from competition banks.
It is pertinent to state that the performance of the
Workman was under par, right from the inception of his
job and much below the assigned work given by the Bank.
That the Workman (during tenure of his job) never perform
his duties successfully.
8.
The Workman was coached, trained and assisted to
carry on the job assigned by the Bank. It was noticed that
the Workman, on numerous occasions failed to perform
his duties under the FTC. That the Management through
its Reporting Manager constantly and reminded the
Workman to improve his performance and also pointed
out the derelictions in his duty, which had no heed on the
Workman.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6995
9.
Despite, numerous opportunities given to the
Workman to improve his performance, he failed to perform
his duties/responsibilities. Instead of concentrating on
the service and improving his performance, the Workman
went on leave without any due approval of his immediate
Reporting Manager with effect from July 24, 2009. That
thereafter, the Workman never contacted the Bank and
voluntarily disengaged his services without intimating
Management with the plausible reasons. Moreover, the
Workman never assigned his duties to any other manager
nor he has given charge of his job and responsibilities of
the team to any other employee, which clearly shows
breach of his responsibilities. Failing to improve his
performance and further going on leave without any due
approval /sanction. In view of the Workman’s constant
default vis-à-vis clause 7 of the FTC and his unwarranted
ceaseure from the services of Management, the
employment of Workman got terminated in August 2009.
The table below shall show the details of number of days
worked, number of days absent and the salary received
and credited the Salary Account of the Workman:
S#
Month
Number of
Salary paid
days present
1
Jan ’09
31
Rs. 20,767/- salary for the month
of December’ 08 and Jan, 2009
along with incentive.
2
Feb ’09
28
Rs. 7,025/- salary along with
incentive
4
Mar ’09
31
Rs. 7300/- salary along with
incentive.
5
April ’09
30
Rs. 8,175/- salary along with
incentive.
6
May ’09
31
Rs. 7,775/- salary along with
incentive.
7
June ’09
30
Rs. 8,100/-, salary along with
incentive.
8.
July ’09
23
Rs. 8,600/- salary along with
incentive.
The copy chart explaining the Salary pay slip for
the workman during the tenure of his service is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE M - 4. The Workman duly
acknowledged and utilized the Salary paid for the notice
period; meaning thereby accepting the termination.
10.
Despite, failure in achieving the targets as well as
going on unapproved /unsanctioned leave, Vikash
Lahariya (not being Workman as per the provision of the
Act) has approached this Hon’ble Court with the alleged
present false, frivolous and vexatious claim (though no
claim petition has been filed) before this Hon’ble Court.
That prima facie the alleged Claim is clearly an
afterthought and has been instituted by the Workman with
malafide intention and ulterior motive. It is an effort to
harass the Management to put an undue pressure on them
so that the Management in directly succumb to the
unlawful demands of the Workman. That from the above,
it is evident that the Workman has been unnecessarily
filing the frivolous and futile litigations against the Bank,
who acted within the terms of the FTC. It is the Workman,
who is in breach of the terms of the FTC and as such is
estopped from alleging to the contrary. The Management
reserves its rights to initiate proper proceeding against
the Workman for the loss of name and damages for the
wrongful effort to defame the reputation of the
Management Bank.
PARA-WISE REPLY TO THE CLAIM:
AS NO CLAIM PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE
WORKMAN; HENCE THE MANAGEMENT IS UNABLE
TO GIVE ANY PARA WISE REPY TO CLIAM ON MERIT
AND RESERVES IT RIGHT TO REPLY AS WHEN THE
NEED ARISES.
PRAYER
IT IS THEREFORE, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED
THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
(a)
Dismiss the above alleged Claim, in the interest of
justice and equity with punitive and exemplary costs
being awarded to the Management; and in that
behalf
(b)
pass any order or further order/orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE
MANAGEMENT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
PRAY.
On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The
proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded further.
Hence proceedings of the case are liable to be dropped
and no dispute award is liable to be passed. Which is
liable to be passed.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 28/08/2014
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2822-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 60@1991) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@32@91&vkbZvkj (ch-&1)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 21st October, 2014
S.O.
2822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/1991)
6996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.2
Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Western Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14/10/2014.
[No. L-41012/32/91-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
vuqcUèk
vuqcUèk
vuqcUèk
vuqcUèk
vuqcUèk
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k] t;iqj
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k] t;iqj
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k] t;iqj
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k] t;iqj
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k] t;iqj
dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 60@1991
dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 60@1991
dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 60@1991
dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 60@1991
dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 60@1991
jSQjSal %
jSQjSal %
jSQjSal %
jSQjSal %
jSQjSal % dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh
dk vkns’k Øekad ,y&41012@32@91&vkbZ-vkj-
¼Mh-;w-½ fnukad 30-10-1991
?khlwyky iq= Jh cq)kjke fV-ua- 24405] bySDVªksIysMj
xzsM&II] vkxsZukbftax lhØszVjh] if’pe jsyos deZpkjh
ifj"kn] jsyos DokVZj la[;k 1188@,] jkexat
jsyos dkWyksuh] vtesj&305001
&&& izkFkhZ
cuke
cuke
cuke
cuke
cuke
1-
egkizcaèkd] if’pe jsyos] ppZxsV] cEcbZA
2-
eq[; dkj[kkuk izcaèkd] yksdks vtesjA
3-
mi eq[; ;kaf=d vfHk;ark dSjst dk- vtesjA
&&&vizkFkhZx.k
mifLFkr
mifLFkr
mifLFkr
mifLFkr
mifLFkr
ihVklhu vfèkdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu+]
ihVklhu vfèkdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu+]
ihVklhu vfèkdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu+]
ihVklhu vfèkdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu+]
ihVklhu vfèkdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu+]
vkj-,p-ts-,l-
vkj-,p-ts-,l-
vkj-,p-ts-,l-
vkj-,p-ts-,l-
vkj-,p-ts-,l-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
% Jh foØe flag uSu
vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls
% Jh iw.kZsUnz 'kekZ
fnukad vokMZ % 07-02-2014
fnukad vokMZ % 07-02-2014
fnukad vokMZ % 07-02-2014
fnukad vokMZ % 07-02-2014
fnukad vokMZ % 07-02-2014
vokMZ
vokMZ
vokMZ
vokMZ
vokMZ
1-
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk
Øekad 41012@32@91 fnukad 30-10-1991
ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn “Whether the the action
of the management of Western Railway, Ajmer in
terminating the services of Shri Ghisulal, Electroplater,
T, No. 24405/25 in C&W at Ajmer w.e.f. 08.01.88 is justified?
If not, to what relief the workmen concerned is entitled
to?” vfèkfu.kZ; gsrq bl vfèkdj.k dks izkIr gqvk
gSA
2-
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse
is’k dj dFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnukad
02-05-76 dks dYpjy LiksVZ dksVs ds vkèkkj ij
[kyklh ds in ij dSfjt dkj[kkus esa gq;h
FkhA izkFkhZ }kjk viuh HkrhZ ds le;
viuh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ,oa tUe frfFk dk
dksbZ izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk]
dsoy ?kjokyksa ds crk;s vuqlkj tUefrfFk
fy[kok;h Fkh vkSj QkeZ Hkjus okys fyfid
,oa lfoZl 'khV Hkjus okys ckcw us mls
vkBoha ikl fy[k fn;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks
dsoy ukVd esa lQy ,oa lcy vfHku; ds
izn’kZu ds vkèkkj ij gh ukSdjh esa fy;k
x;k FkkA izkFkhZ ds fo:) f’kdk;r djus
okys O;fDr us dksbZ Hkh izek.k i= izLrqr
ugha fd;k fd izkFkhZ dksbZ 'kS{kf.kd
;ksX;rk j[krk gS ;k vk;q xyr gSA vizkFkhZ
}kjk foHkkxh; tkap esa vfu;ferrk cjrrs
gq;s foHkkxh; tkap dj xyr <ax ls
lsoki`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk
lsoki`Fkd vkns’k ds fo:) vihy dh x;h]
ftldk dksbZ mRrj ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ
lsoki`Fkd dh fnukad ls gh csjkstxkj gSA
vr% izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok esa fy;k tkdj
lHkh ykHk&ifjykHk fnyk;s tkosaA
3-
vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ
Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj izkjfEHkd vkifRr
dh fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa
ugha vkrk gS rFkk vkS|ksfxd fookn
vfèkfu;e 1947 ds izkoèkkuksa ds vUrxZr
b l f o o k n d k s l q u u s d k v f è k d k j
U;k;kfèkdj.k dks ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk
fu;qfDr ds le; xyr tUefrfFk ,oa 'kS{kf.kd
;ksX;rk fn;s tkus ij fu;ekuqlkj ukSdjh
l s g V k ; k x ; k g S A x q . k k o x q . k i j
vizkFkhZx.k dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dh
fu;qfDr dYpjy dksVk ls ugha dh tkdj
vu,izwCM lClhV~;wV [kykhl ds in ij
fnukad 02-07-76 dks dh x;h FkhA izkFkhZ
}kjk HkrhZ ds le; viuh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk
vkBoha crk;h x;h Fkh rFkk lk{;kadu izi=
Hkh is’k fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa vkBoha
d{kk mRrh.kZ o Ldwy NksM+us dh rkjh[k
02-07-62 fy[kh gq;h FkhA jsyos iz’kklu }kjk
izkFkhZ dh vk;q o 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dh lacafèkr
fo|ky; ls tkap djus ij] izkFkhZ dk mDr 'kkyk
esa vè;;ujr ugha gksuk vkSj vkBoha d{kk mRrh.kZ
ugha djuk ik;s tkus ij fu;ekuqlkj izkFkhZ ds
fo:) xyr rF; crkdj ukSdjh izkIr djus ds
vkjksi esa foHkkxh; tkap djkdj vkjksi fl) ik;s
tkus ij fnukade 08-01-88 dks lsoki`Fkd fd;k
x;k gSA tks fofèkvuwdwy gSA vr% Dyse [kkfjt
fd;k tkosA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6997
4-
U;k;kfèkdj.k ds vkns’k fnukad 05-
10-98 }kjk foHkkxh; tkap dks v’kq) ,oa
vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA foi{kh dh vksj
ls dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha gksus ij fnukad
19-05-99 dks lk{; foi{kh can dh x;hA
lk{; izkFkhZ esa Lo;a izkFkhZ Jh ?khlwyky
dk 'kiFk i= is’k gqvk gSA
5-
U;k;kfèkdj.k ds vkns’k fnukad 23-
08-99 }kjk izkFkhZ dks varfje jkgr ds
:i esa ipkl izfr’kr osru vnk djus ds
vkns’k fn;s x;sA foi{kh }kjk vUrfjr jkgr
dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;s tkus ij U;k;kfèkdj.k
} k j k
v o k M Z
f n u k a d
31-07-2000 }kjk izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok esa fy;k
tkdj fiNys osru HkRrksa lfgr lsok esa fy;s tkus
dk vkns’k fn;k x;kA
6-
vizkFkhZx.k }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa
mDr vokMZ ds fo:) fjV ;kfpdk is’k fd;s tkus
ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk iqu% izdj.k dk
xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkj.k fd;s tkus ds vkns’k fn;s
x;sA
7-
mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;hA i=koyh dk
voyksdu fd;k x;kA
8-
izkFkhZ izfrfufèk dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dh
fu;qfDr fnukad 02-07-76 dks dYpjy LiksVZl
dksVs ls [kyklh ,oth ds in ij vLFkk;h :i ls
dh x;h Fkh] ftls ckn esa LFkk;h dj fn;k x;kA
izkFkhZ dks O;kolkf;d ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus ij
fnukad 15-11-1980 dks bySDVªksIysVj xzsM&I ,oa
fnukad 03-04-86 dks bysDVªksIysVj xszM&II ds in
ij inksUur fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ izfrfufèk dk rdZ
gS fd foi{kh dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ds fu;ferhdj.k]
inksUufr] lfoZl cqd vkfn U;k;kfèkdj.k ds vkns’k
ds ckotwn izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSaA mDr fjdkMZ
[kksus ds lacaèk esa dksbZ jsdkMZ is’k ugha fd;k
x;kA izkFkhZ izfrfufèk dk rdZ gS fd foi{kh }kjk
[kyklh ds in ij D;k fuèkkZfjr ;ksX;rk Fkh] bl
lacaèk esa dksbZ foKkiu rFkk fu;e is’k ugha fd;s
x;s gSaA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fdl dksVs ds rgr dh
x;h] bl lacaèk esa Hkh dksbZ izys[k is’k ugha fd;k
x;k gSA izkFkhZ izfrfufèk dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ
}kjk 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds lacaèk esa dksbZ izek.k
i= is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj tUe frfFk
ekrk&firk ds crk;s vuqlkj fy[kk;h x;h gSA
izkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ QthZ nLrkostkr~ izLrqr dj
ukSdjh izkIr ugha dh x;h gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls
U;k;kfèkdj.k ds le{k vkt rd iwjk jsdkMZ
izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 05-10-98 dks
foHkkxh; tkap dks v’kq) ?kksf"kr fd;k
tk pqdk gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ
lk{; is’k ugha gq;h gSA tkap esa izkFkhZ
dks nLrkostkr miyCèk ugha djk;s x;sA
tkap vfèkdkjh ,oa foHkkxh; izfrfufèk dc
fu;qDr fd;s x;s vkSj bldh lwpuk Hkh
izkFkhZ dks ugha nh x;hA izkFkhZ dks
O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k x;kA
tkap izfrosnu dh izfr miyCèk ugha djkbZ
x ; h A
i z k F k h Z
d k s
f n u k a d
08-01-88 dks lsoki`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA ftlds
fo:) izkFkhZ }kjk vH;kosnu fnukad 07-
09-87 dks is’k fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk
izLrqr vihy] fjohtu nksuksa [kkfjt dj
nh x;haA foi{kh dks fuokZg HkRrs dk
Hkqxrku ugha fd;s tkus ij U;k;kfèkdj.k
} k j k
f o i { k h
d s
f o : )
f n u k a d
31-7-2000 dks vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tk pqdk gSA
foi{kh dh vksj ls izkFkhZ dks fuokZg HkRrs dk vkt
rd Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk iwjh tkap
esa ;gh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd og i<+k&fy[kk
ugha gS] og dsoy gLrk{kj djuk gh tkurk gSA
izkFkhZ izfrfufèk dk dFku gS fd foi{kh }kjk
U;k;kfèkdj.k dks jsQjsal lquus dk {ks=kfèkdkj
ugha gksus ds lacaèk esa foi{kh jsQjsal dks pSysat
djrs] vc brus o"kksZ ckn ;g rdZ ugha fn;k tk
ldrkA vr% izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus
rFkk fiNys osru&HkRrs rFkk lHkh ykHk fnyk;s
tkus dk vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ izfrfufèk
}kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d
n`"Vkar is’k fd;s x;s gSa %&
1-
1992 ysc vkbZ lh 2391 ¼,l-lh-½ LVsV
vkWQ iatkc o vU; cuke jke flag
2-
2001 II ,y ,y ts 1721 ¼enzkl½ eSustesaV
vkWQ vkWjks QwM fy- cuke ih-vks-
3-
¼1999½ 1 ,l lh lh 517 uhrk dfIy’k
cuke ih-vks- yscj dksVZ o vU;A
4-
¼1999½ 1 ,l lh lh 529 LVsV vkWQ
xqtjkr o vU; cuke lw;Zdkar pquhyky
9-
foi{kh ds fo}ku izfrfufèk dk dFku gS fd
izkFkhZ Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA
U;k;kfèkdj.k dks vkS0fo0vfèk0 1947 dh èkkjk
7 d¼1½ ds rgr lquus o fuf.kZr djus dk
vfèkdkj ugha gSA vizkFkhZ izfrfufèk dk rdZ gS fd
izkFkhZ }kjk fu;qfDr ds le; 08-11-76 ds
lk{;kadu i= ds dkWye la[;k 10 esa] ftls
jktif=r vfèkdkjh ls lR;kfir djkdj o vius
gLrk{kj dj is’k dh x;h Fkh] ftlesa izkFkhZ ds
6998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fo|ky; dk uke jk0m0izk0fo|ky; vyoj xsV]
vtesj] fo|ky; esa izos’k dh fnukad
08-09-1959] fo|ky; NksM+us dh fnukad
02-07-1962 rFkk ;ksX;rk vkBoha ikl fy[kh
gq;h FkhA izkFkhZ ds tUefrfFk o 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk
dk lR;kiu djkus ij jkt0m0izk0fo0 vyoj
xsV] vtesj ds izèkkukpk;Z us vius i= fnukad
22-10-86 o 13-12-86 esa Li"V fd;k fd
mDr fo|ky; 1961 rd NBoha d{kk rd Fkk
rFkk mlds ckn vkBoha rd esa ifjofrZr fd;k
x;kA vr% Jh ?khlwyky dk fo|ky; esa vè;;u
djuk ,oa vkBoha mRrh.kZ gksuk nksuksa gh xyr gSA
izkFkhZ }kjk fu;qfDr ds fy;s xyr rF; ,oa izek.k
i= fn;s tkus ij vkjksi i= tkjh dj
fu;ekuqlkj foHkkxh; tkap djk;h x;h]
ftlesa vkjksi lgh ik;s tkus ij lsoki`Fkd
fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us tkap fjiksVZ ls
H k h l a r q " V g k s u k c r k ; k g S A i z k F k h Z
izfrfufèk }kjk fyfid }kjk ;ksX;rk Hkjk tkuk
crk;k gS] ysfdu ;g ;ksX;rk Hkh izkFkhZ ds dgs
tkus ij gh fyfid }kjk Hkjh gksxh] blesa fyfid
dk D;k bUVsa’ku FkkA izfrfufèk dk rdZ gS fd
[kyklh ds in gsrq vkBoha d{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk
vko’;d gSA izkFkhZ ds vkBoha mRrh.kZ ugha ik;s
tkus ij mls lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk
izLrqr vihy dks Hkh lkjghu ekudj n.M ;Fkkor
j[kk gSA izkFkhZ izfrfufèk }kjk viuh ;kfpdk esa
viuh tUefrfFk o 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds izek.k
i= is’k ugha djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha crk;k gSA
izfrfufèk dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk fuèkkZfjr
;ksX;rk ugha j[kus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd
fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse [kkfjt
fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vizkFkhZ izfrfufèk }kjk vius
rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is’k
fd;s x;s gSa &
1-
¼2012½ 8 ,l lh lh 748 tSusUnz flag
cuke LVsV vkWQ mRrjizns’kA
10- mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa dk euu fd;kA i=koyh
dk xgurk ls voyksdu o vè;;u fd;k x;kA
izkFkhZ Jh ?khlwyky dh fu;qfDr fnukad
01-07-76 dks fnukad 02-07-76 ls fjDr [kyklh
ds in ds fo:) vLFkk;h voth [kyklh ds in
ij vLFkk;h :i ls dh x;h FkhA izkFkhZ Jh
?khlwyky }kjk fnukad 02-07-76 dks mDr in
ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k x;kA fnukad 15-02-
80 ds vkns’k }kjk izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnukad 02-
07-76 ls [kyklh ds in ij fu;fer :i ls
ekuh x;h gSA izkFkhZ dks O;kolkf;d ijh{kk mRrh.kZ
djus ij fnukad 15-04-80 ls bysDVªksIysVj
xzsM&I ds in ij ,oa vkns’k fnukad 07-05-86
}kjk bysDVªksIysVj ds in ij inksUur fd;k
x;k gSA
11- foHkkxh; tkap dks U;k;kfèkdj.k ds
vkns’k fnukad 05-10-98 }kjk v’kq) ,oa
vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA foi{kh dh
vksj ls dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha gksus ij
U;k;kfèkdj.k }kjk lk{; foi{kh fnukad
19-05-99 dks can dh x;h rFkk lk{; izkFkhZ
esa Lo;a izkFkhZ dk 'kiFk i= is’k gqvk
g S ] f t l l s f o i { k h i z f r f u f è k } k j k
i z f r i j h { k k u g h a d h x ; h g S A i z k F k h Z
?khlwyky us vius 'kiFk i= esa c;ku fd;k
gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk viuh fu;qfDr ds le;
dHkh Hkh Lo;a dks vkBoha mRrh.kZ ugha
crk;k x;k rFkk mldh fu;qfDr ukVd dksVs
ds vkèkkj ij gksuk dFku fd;k gSA izkFkhZ
Jfed us vius c;kuksa esa crk;k gS fd
foi{kh }kjk mldh fu;qfDr ds le; cuk;h
x;h lfoZl 'khV] O;fDrxr i=koyh
U;k;kfèkdj.k ds le{k is’k ugha dh x;h
gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ ?khlwyky ls dksbZ
izfrijh{kk ugha dh x;h gSA vr% izkFkhZ
}kjk izLrqr lk{; vdkV~; gSA
12- foi{kh izfrfufèk dh vksj ls ;g rdZ
fn;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 08-
11-76 dks is’k lk{;kadu izi= esa viuh
tUefrfFk 15-04-1947 rFkk Lo;a dks
jk0m0izk0fo|ky;] vyoj xsV]vtesj ls
vkBoha d{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk vafdr fd;k
gSA mDr fo|ky; ls 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dh
lR;kiu djkus ij izkFkhZ mDr fo|ky; esa
vè;;u ugha djuk rFkk vkBoha mRrh.kZ ugha
gksuk crk;k gSA esjs fouez er esa fdlh
Hkh fu;qfDr ds fy;s igys foKkiu izdkf’kr
fd;k tkrk gS] mlh ds mijkar fuèkkZfjr
izfØ;k viukdj fu;qfDr iznku dh tkrh gSA
foi{kh }kjk fopkj.kh; izdj.k esa ,slk
dksbZ foKkiu is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS] fd
[kyklh ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq dksbZ foKkiu
izdkf’kr fd;k x;k gksA foi{kh }kjk [kyklh
ds in gsrq fuèkkZfjr ;ksX;rk vkBoha
mRrh.kZ gksuk crk;k gS] ijUrq foi{kh
}kjk ,sls dksbZ lsokfu;e is’k ugha fd;s
gSa] ftuesa ;g vafdr gks fd [kyklh ds
in dh fuèkkZfjr ;ksX;rk vkBoha mRrh.kZ
gSA vr% foi{kh }kjk foKkiu] lsok fu;e
U;k;kfèkdj.k ds le{k is’k ugha djuk
foi{kh ds izfr izfrdwy voèkkj.kk izdV
djrk gSA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
6999
13- izkFkhZ }kjk vius rdksZa esa viuh
fu;qfDr dYpjy LiksVZ ds vkèkkj ij fd;k
tkuk crk;k gS] ijUrq foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ
dh U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds ckotwn O;fDrxr
i=koyh is’k ugha dh x;h] ftlls ;g fl)
ugha gks ldrk fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fdl
dksVs esa gq;hA foi{kh }kjk U;k;ky;
vkns’k ds ckotwn okafNr nLrkostkr~ is’k
ugha djuk foi{kh dh vksj izfrdwy voèkkj.k
izdV djrk gSA
14- esjs fouez er esa fdlh Hkh fu;qfDr
ls iwoZ fuèkkZfjr ;ksX;rk lacaèkh izek.k
i=ksa dk lR;kiu djus ds mijkar gh fu;qfDr
iznku dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ ?kklwyky dks
fnukad 02-07-76 ls [kyklh ds in ij
fu;qfDr nh x;h gS vkSj izkFkhZ }kjk
fnukad 08-11-76 dks lk{;kadu izi= is’k
fd;k x;k gS] tks fu;qfDr ds 04 ekg ckn
is’k fd;k x;k gSA lk{;kadu izi= ds dkWye
la[;k 07 esa izkFkhZ dh tUe frfFk fnukad
15-04-1947 rFkk dkWye la[;k 10 esa
i z k F k h Z d h ' k S { k f . k d ; k s X ; r k v k B o h a
mRrh.kZ vafdr gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fu;qfDr
ds le; dksbZ Hkh izek.k&i= is’k ugha
djuk rFkk ekrk&firk ds crk;s vuqlkj tUe
frfFk vafdr djkuk crk;k x;k gSA foi{kh
}kjk Hkh ,slk dgha ugha dgk x;k gS fd
i z k F k h Z u s Q t h Z v k B o h a m R r h . k Z d h
vadrkfydk fu;qfDr ds le; is’k dh gksA
izkFkhZ }kjk laiw.kZ tkap esa] tokc rFkk
cgl esa ;gh dgk x;k gS] fd og i<+k&fy[kk
ugha gS] og dsoy gLrk{kj djuk tkurk gSA
lk{;kadu izi= Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a Hkjdj
is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa
bl rdZ ij fo’okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd
izkFkhZ }kjk viuh fu;qfDr ds le; viuh
'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vkBoha mRrh.kZ crk;h
x;h gksA oSls Hkh izkFkhZ us viuh HkrhZ
dYpjy LiksVZ dksVs ds rgr gksuk crk;k
gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh O;fDrxr i=koyh
vkSj fuèkkZfjr ;ksX;rk vkBoha mRrh.kZ
gksus ckcr~ dksbZ lsokfu;e is’k fd;s
x;s gS vkSj u gh bl lacaèk esa dksbZ
e k S f [ k d l k { ; f o i { k h d h v k s j l s
U;k;kfèkdj.k ds le{k is’k dh x;h gSA
vr% foi{kh izfrfufèk dh ;g vkifRr Lohdkj
dh tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA
15-
esjs fouez er esa [kyklh ds in
gsrq fdlh rduhdh f’k{kk dh vko’;drk ugha
gksrh gSA mDr in ij dk;Z dh izd`fr dks
Hkh dalhMj djrs gq;s fu;qfDr iznku dh
tk ldrh gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh
l s o k ; s a
m l d h
f u ; q f D r
f n u k a d
02-07-76 ls fu;fer ekuh x;h gSaA izkFkhZ dks
mlds lsokdky esa O;kolkf;d ijh{kk mRrh.kZ
djus ij bysDVªksIysVj xzsM&I ,oa bysDVªksIysVj
xszM&II ds in ij inksUur fd;k x;k gSA fdlh
Hkh inksUufr ls iwoZ mlds lsokdky esa dksbZ
izfrdwy izfof"V ugha gksus ,oa fu;fer lsok gksus
ds mijakr gh fdlh deZpkjh dks inksUufr iznku
dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ dks mlds lsokdky esa nks ckn
inksUufr iznku dh x;h gSA ftlls ;g lkfcr
gksrk gS fd mldh lsok;sa fu;fer Fkha ,oa mlds
lsokdky esa dksbZ izfrdwy izfof"V vafdr ugha FkhA
16- foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar
¼2012½ 8 ,l lh lh 748 tSusUnz flag cuke
LVsV vkWQ mRrjizns’k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;
}kjk izfrikfnr fl)kar voSèk fu;qfDr ds lacaèk esa
gS] tcfd fopkj.kh; izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr
fu;fer fu;qfDr gSA vr% mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar
gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu
gksus ds dkj.k gLrxr izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrk
gSA
17- foi{kh }kjk ;g vkifRr dh x;h gS fd
izkFkhZ Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS vkSj
U;k;kfèkdj.k dks jsQjsal lquus o fuf.kZr djus
dk vfèkdkj ugha gSA bl lacaèk esa ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; ,oa loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fofHkUu
U ; k f ; d n ` " V k a r k s a e s a ; g f l ) k a r k s a
izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd U;k;kfèkdj.k
dk {ks=kfèkdkj jsQjsal ds fookfnr fcUnq
rd gh gS vkSj U;k;kfèkdj.k jsQjsal ls
ckgj tkdj fuf.kZ; ugha ns ldrkA vr%
U ; k ; k f è k d j . k d k s i z k I r j s Q j s a l e s a
fookfnr fcUnq ij gh viuk fu.kZ; ikfjr
djuk gSA vr% foi{kh izfrfufèk dh mDr
vkifRr Lohdkj dh tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA
18- izkFkhZ izfrfufèk dh vksj ls izLrqr
U ; k f ; d n ` " V k a r k s a e S a u s c k j h d h l s
vè;ksikar fouezrkiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA
mijksDr lHkh n`"Vkarksa ds rF; ,oa
ifjfLFkfr;kWa gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa
,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls lekurk j[krs gSa]
vr% mDr lHkh U;kf;d n`"Vkar izkFkhZ ds
dsl esa ykxw gksrs gSaA ftudk izHkko
;Fkksfpr :i ls Åij foospuk esa fn;k x;k
g S A
7000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19- mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa
fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS %&
vokMZ
vokMZ
vokMZ
vokMZ
vokMZ
“izkFkhZ Jh ?khlwyky dks foi{kh jsyos izcaèku }kjk
fnukad 08-01-88 ls lsoki`Fkd fd;k tkuk vuqfpr
,oa voSèk gSA mDr lsoki`Fkd vkns’k vikLr fd;k
tkrk gSA izkFkhZ Jh ?khlwyky fnukad 08-01-88 ls
iqu% lsok esa vkus dk vfèkdkjh gS rFkk fnukad
08-01-88 ls izkFkhZ dh fu;fer lsok ekuh
tkosxhA pwWafd izkFkhZ ?khlwyky viuh lsokfuo`fr dh
vfèkokf"kZdh vk;q iw.kZ dj pqdk gS] vr% izkFkhZ
lHkh lsokfuo`fRr ykHk&ifjykHk izkIr djus dk
vfèkdkjh gSA fnukad 08-01-88 ls lsokfuo`fRr
fnukad rd lHkh osru ykHk&ifjykHk uks’kuy :i
ls izkFkhZ dks
ns; gksaxs ysfdu lHkh lsokfuo`fRr
ykHk&ifjykHk uxn esa ns; gksaxsA**
20- vokMZ vkt fnukad 07-02-2014 dks [kqys
U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz
ljdkj dks izdk’kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA
gseUr dqekj tSu] U;k;kèkh’k
ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2014
dk-vk- 2823-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
eSlwj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 56@2008) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@129@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 21st October, 2014
S.O.
2823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 56/2008) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of Mysore
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 14/10/2014.
[No. L-12012/129/2008-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE
Dated : 8th October, 2014
PRESENT : Shri S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C R No. 56/2008
I Party
Sh. R P Nagarajachar,
4th Main, 4th Cross,
Neelakanthagar, HARIHARI – 577601.
Since deceased rep. by LR’s
II Party
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
Regional Office, 6-119,
Mandipet, DAVANGERE–577 001.
Smt. Vishalakshi,
W/o Late R P Nagarajachar,
3rd Main, 5th Cross,
Kalidasanagar,
HARIHAR – 577 601.
Appearances
I Party
: Shri M Rama Rao,
Authorised Representative
II Party
: Shri S K Hegde, Advocate
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/
129/2008-IR(B-I) dated 04.08.2008 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of Mysore, Davangere in discharging their
workman Sri R P Nagarajachar, from service w.e.f.
8-2-2007, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
is the workman concerned entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the reference registering it in C R 56/
2008 when the notices were issued to both the sides, they
entered their appearance through their respective
advocates and claim statement of the I Party came to be
filed on 22.09.2010, whereas, the counter statement of the
II Party on 28.04.2011.
3.
The I Party in his claim statement asserted that he
who was appointed as Peon at Harapanahalli Branch of
the II Party on 16.06.2003 was later transferred to Harihar
and then to Davangere branches and that he worked
sincerely and that on account of physical illness, Jaundice
and Fever he applied for grant of leave alongwith medical
certificates from time to time and the II Party without
considering the same issued him charge sheet dated
24.03.2006 alleging unauthorised absence from 19.12.2005
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 25] 2014@dk£rd 3] 1936
7001
to 31.03.2006 for a period of 93 days through incompetent
authority and the enquiry was held without causing him
notice exparte and based on such report he has been
illegally discharged without paying retrenchment
compensation and as the conciliation petition filed by him
before ALC(C), Hubli ended with failure report the
Government of India made this reference for adjudication
and as he is not employed anywhere the order of discharge
be set aside with direction to reinstate him with continuity
of service, full backwages and other consequential
benefits. INTERALIA, the II party in its counter statement
without disputing that he was appointed on 16.06.2003
and was transferred from Harapanahalli to Harihar and
then to Davangere branches contended that while he was
working in the Davangere branch since remained absent
for duty unauthorisedly from 19.12.2005 to 21.03.2006
without taking prior permission and leave at his credit the
Assistant General Manager who happens to be the
Disciplinary Authority issued him charge sheet on
24.03.2006 calling upon him to give explanation and as he
failed to respond an order was made to conduct
departmental enquiry appointing Sh. H H Ramappa as
Enquiry Officer and Sh. P Sundar Raman as Presenting
Officer and as the Enquiry Officer after conducting the
enquiry affording all opportunities submitted his report
as charge being proved the Disciplinary Authority issued
him show cause notice and as he did not give any
explanation and he also did not avail the opportunity
provided for personal hearing he passed the order dated
08.02.2007 discharging him from service. Having regard
to the allegations made in the claim statement that the
enquiry was conducted exparte without causing any
notice, by framing a Preliminary Issue as to
“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I
Party by the II party is fair and proper?”
after receiving the evidence adduced by both the sides
and hearing the arguments addressed by both the sides
while answering the said issue in the negative i.e., the
Domestic Enquiry conducted is not fair and proper mainly
on the ground that there was no material having served
the notice of enquiry on the I Party by order dated
11.12.2012 the II Party was called upon to lead evidence to
substantiate the charge levelled against the I Party. Then
the learned advocate appearing for the II party while filing
the affidavit of Sh. H R Prakash the Manager of the
Davangere Branch of the relevant period of the alleged
unauthorised absence reiterating the contents of the
counter statement while examining him on oath as MW 1
(M) got exhibited copy of the call letter issued to the I
party calling back to duty dated Nil; copy of report given
by the manager to the Regional Manager reporting his
unauthorized absence bearing the acknowledgement of
the I party; letter by AGM to the I party dated 22.3.2006
calling for his explanation for unauthorized absence from
19.12.2005; postal acknowledgement having served the
letter dated 22.03.2006 on I Party; charge sheet issued to
the I party dated 24.03.2006; show cause notice issued to
the I party after receipt of the enquiry finding dated
05.12.2006; the undelivered postal cover containing the
show cause notice returned with shara as not claimed dated
18.12.2006; copy of the final discharge order dated
10.01.2007; undelivered postal cover containing the
discharge order; copy of the discharge notice dated
08.02.2007 by AGM; Vijaya Karnataka daily dated
11.02.2007 publishing the discharge notice as Ex M-1(m)
to Ex M-11(m) respectively and closed his side. Then the
learned advocate appearing for the I Party reporting the
death of I Party workman applying to bring his Wife as
Legal Representative on record as there was no objection
for the same by the II Party bringing her on record as the
LR of the deceased I Party workman filing her affidavit
reiterating the contents of the claim statement examining
her on oath as WW 1 (M) got exhibited Photostat copy of
I Party death certificate; Voter ID of I Party; heirship
certificate issued by Revenue Department and Genealogy
issued by Village Accountant as Ex W-1 to Ex W-4
respectively.
4.
With the above pleadings, evidence brought on
record when the learned advocates appearing for the
parties were called upon to address arguments, the learned
advocate appearing for the I Party urged that the II Party
having failed to produce the attendance register to show
alleged unauthorised absence the very unauthorised
absence being not proved the charge be held as not proved
and as the I Party workman is no more II Party be directed
to pay his wife who has come on record as his legal
representative the amount equivalent to the wages that
he would have drawn from the date of his discharge till the
date of his death. INTERALIA, the learned advocate
appearing for the II party urged that as the absence for the
relevant period incorporated in the charge sheet being
admitted contending that he had forwarded applications
for leave from time to time there is no necessity to produce
the attendance register to show that he had remained
absent for the said period and it was for the I Party to
produce evidence that during this period he was suffering
from Jaundice and fever and had sent leave applications
with medical certificates from time to time but having failed
to substantiate the same by producing any evidence the
charge has to be held as proved and the punishment
imposed discharging him from service be upheld and
reference be rejected.
5.
On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence brought on record in the light of
the arguments put forward by the learned advocates, I
have arrived at the conclusion that the II Party proved the
deceased I Party workman having unauthorisedly
remaining absent from duty from 19.12.2005 to 21.03.2006
7002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 25, 2014/KARTIKA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for a period of 93 days without taking prior permission
and leave at his credit and II Party is justified in imposing
the punishment of discharge from service for the following
REASONS
6.
As rightly urged on behalf of the II Party the I Party
workman who was alive while filing the claim statement
since did not dispute having remained absent for the
relevant period of charge having pleaded that as he was
suffering on account of physical illment, Jaundice and
Fever applied for grant of leave with medical certificates
from time to time and II Party without considering them
issued him the charge sheet for unauthorised absence for
the said period there was no necessity for the II Party to
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
demonstrate that he had remained absent for the relevant
period by producing the attendance register and it was for
the I Party workman to prove by producing relevant
material/evidence that during that period he was suffering
from illness like Jaundice and Fever and had sent
applications for leave from time to time but no evidence in
that regard being brought on record terming the absence
in question as unauthorised without leave at his credit
cannot for any reason be held unjustified or illegal or
perverse. The wife of the deceased I Party workman who
gave evidence came out with a version in the cross-
examination that her husband had taken treatment as
inpatient in Chigateri Hospital in Davangere for a period
of three months for Backbone pain but failed to produce
any medical records in that regard. Moreover, the
allegation in the claim statement being that during the
relevant period he was suffering from Jaundice and Fever
her version that he was admitted in the Chigateri Hospital
for Backbone pain suggest that he must not have been
suffering from any illness. Moreover, as already adverted
to by me above no material/evidence being produced
having submitted leave applications with medical
certificates from time to time as alleged in the claim statement
the absence has to be treated as unauthorised without
any leave at his credit. Therefore, I have arrived at
conclusion the II Party having established the charge of
unauthorised absence for 93 days from 19.12.2005 to
21.03.2006 without leave at his credit. Since there is no
evidence the I Party even having sent a letter of request
for grant of leave on account of his illness and even failed
to give his explanation when the Disciplinary Authority
issued him show cause notice and also did not avail the
opportunity of hearing provided to him it suggest that he
had no mind to work and continue in the job as such the
Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of
discharge from service cannot be for any reason termed
as disproportionate to the proved misconduct of
unauthorised absence over a period of 93 days. Hence, I
arrived at conclusion that the action of the management
of State Bank of Mysore, Davangere in discharging Sh. R
P Nagarajachar w.e.f. 08.02.2007 is legal and justified. Under
the circumstances, I pass the following
ORDER
The Reference is Rejected holding that the action of
the management of State Bank of Mysore, Davangere in
discharging Sh. R P Nagarajachar w.e.f. 08.02.2007 is legal
and justified and that he/his LR is not entitle for any relief.
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer