रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन.) 04/0007/2003-05
REGD. NO . D. L. ( N ) 04/0007/2003-05
भारतको राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 46 ]
No. 46 ]
नई दिल्ली, नवम्बर 9 नवम्बर 15 , 2014 , शनिवार/ कार्तिक 18 कार्तिक 24 , 1936 NEW DELHI , NOVEMBER 9- NOVEMBER 15, 2014 , SATURDAY/KARTIKA 18-KARTIKΑ 24, 1936
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II-खण्ड -उप-खण्ड (ii)
PART II- Section 3-Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)
स्वास्थ्यएवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय
( स्वास्थ्यएवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग )
शुद्धि पत्र
नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर , 2014
का. आ. 2881.- इस विभाग की दिनांक । जुलाई , 2014 की अधिसूचना सं.यू-12012 / 557/2014 - एमई( पी -11 ) के क्रम में भारतीय चकित्सा परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) के खण्ड 11 के उप -खण्ड ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार , त्द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती हैं, नामतः :-
विश्वविद्यालय का नाम निम्नानुसार पढ़ा जाए :
"वीर कुंवर सिंह विश्वविद्यालय सासाराम , बिहार " की बजाय "वीर कुँवर सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , आरा , बिहार "
[सं. यू-12012/557 / 2014 - एम ई ( पी- II ) ]
सुधीर कुमार , अवर सचिव 37Gi/14
(7155) 7156
[PART II-SBC. 3 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and FamilyWelfare)
CORRIGENDUM
NewDelhi, the24th September, 2014
S.O. 2881.-In continuation to this Department's Notification No. U - 12012 / 557/2014 - ME (P. II ) dated 01 2014 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical CouncilAct (102 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the namely:-
The name ofUniversity may be read as follows:
"Veer Kunwar Singh University,Ara, Bihar " instead of" Veer Kunwar Singh University, Sasaram, Bil
[No. U. 12012/557/2014/ME SUDHIR KUMAR, Und
भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय
(भारी उद्योग विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 13 नवम्बर , 2014
का. आ. 2882.--सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अनधिकृत रहने वालों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की भा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार इस विभाग की दिनांक 30.10.2009 और 12.11.2013 की फा. सं. 1 ( 12 ) /2008- अन्तर्गत जारी अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में एतद्वारा नीचे दी गई सारणी के कॉलम 1 में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को , राजपत्रित समकक्ष होने के नाते , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है , जो प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे सारणी के कॉलम -2 में विनिर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक परिसरों के संबंध में अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र की संपदाओं के संबंध में कर्त्तव्यों का पालन
सार्वजनिक परिसरों के वर्ग तथा अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्था अधिकारी का नाम व पदनाम
श्री हरिशंकर चट्टोपाध्याय, कार्मिक और उपनगर अधिकारी , स्टॉफ सं. 5566 के स्थान पर
(i ) परिसर हिन्दुस्तान केबल्स लिमिटेड, रूपनारायणपुर । तथा साथ ही एचसीएल , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , कोलका है।
(ii) 315 जोधपुर पार्क, कोलकाता-700068स्थित श्रीबासुदेव डे
डीजीएम (इकाई प्रमुख ) , रूपनारायणपुर इकाई , हिन्दुस्तान केबल्स लिमिटेड, कोलकाता
(iii ) गोल्फ लिंक अपार्टमेंट्स, 50 चांदीताला लेन, कोलका स्थित चार फ्लैट्स ( फ्लैट सं. जे.ओ. , ई-1 , ई- II ,
( iv) मशीन टूल्स वर्क्स, पी.ओ. नरेन्द्रपुर-700103
श्री एम. के. गर्ग
हैदराबाद इकाई के लिए
डीजीएम ( एस एंड एम ) , हैदराबाद इकाई
एफओपी/ नैनी इकाई के लिए
श्रीअनुराग अग्रवाल
एम ( यूएच ) , नैनी इकाई, इलाहाबाद
[सं. 1 ( 12 )/2000- एल. सी. राम, 7157 [ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2014/ कार्तिक 24, 1936
MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
(Department of Heavy Industry)
New Delhi , the 13th November , 2014
S.O. 2882.- In Exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act 1971 ( 40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government in continuation of this Department's Notification issued under No. 1 ( 12 ) /2008 - PE - II , dated 30.10-2009 & 12-11-2013 hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column 1 of the table below, being officer , equivalent to rank of gazetted officer of Government to be an Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estates of his jurisdiction in respect of he public premises specified in column 2 of the said Table.
Name & Designation of the Officer
Categories of public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction
hri Basudev Dey
(i) Premises belonging to the undertaking of Hindustan Cables Ltd. , Rupnarainpur Unit Township as will as premises of HCL , Regional Office , Kolkata.
GM ( Unit Head) , Rupnarainpur Unit , Hindustan Cables Ltd. olkata in place of Shri Hari Shankar Chattopadhyay , ersonnel & Township Officer, Staff No. 5566 .
(ii) Premises at 315 Jodhpur Park, Kolkata - 700068
( iii) 4 Flats (Flat Nos . J. O. , E -I , E - 2 and L - 2 ) at Golf Link Apartments , 50 Chanditala Lane , Kolkata -700040.
( iv) Machine Tool Works , P. O. Narendrapur -700103 .
ForHyderabad Unit
hri M. K. Garg DGM ( S & M ) . Hyderabad Unit
ForFOP/Naini Unit .
ari Anurag Agarwal
(UH) . Naini Unit , Allahabad .
[No. 1 ( 12 )/2008 -PE - IT]
L. C. RAM , Under Secy.
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )
नई दिल्ली, 27 अक्तूबर , 2014
का. आ. 2883.-- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक एतदृद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :
अनुसूची
भामा भाग अनु वर्ष स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता
म लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल
2)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(4)
(7) (8 ) ( 9 )
1-2680765 03.04.2014
2004
पैकेजबन्द पेय जल
भैसर्स आरएस ग्रुप सर्विस,
मकान नं. 49 , एमडी सीनियर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक
मिनरल जल के
सैकेंडरी स्कूल के पास , पट्टी
अलावा)
किलहोर , बीपीओ झाड़सा ,
जिला गुड़गांव-122001 ( हरियाणा)
7158
[PART II SBC. 36
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24 , 1936
(3)
(4) (2)
(1)
2. L - 2682365 15.04 2014
(6)
(5)
( 8 ) ( 9 )
(7)
15633
2005 स्वचल वाहन-सवारी कारों के लिए वातिल टायर- आड़ी और रेडियल प्लाई
मैसर्स योकोहामा इण्डिया प्राईवेट लिमिटेड प्लॉट नं. 1 , सैक्टर-4 बी , एचआईआईडीसी, बहादुरगढ़ -124507, जिला झज्जर , ( हरियाणा )
15.04 2014
3. L-2682870
2
3
302
2007
घरेलू और समान विद्युत साधित्रों की सुरक्षा -विवरणात्मक अपेक्षाएं - विद्युत इस्तरी
मैसर्स अनुशा एप्लाइसैंस , खसरा नं. 1679 , भाग बी , एमआईई के पीछे, बहादुरगढ़ -124507 , जिला झज्जर , ( हरियाणा )
4. L -2682971 15.04 2014
366
विद्युत इस्तरी
मैसर्स अनुशा एप्लाइसैंस , खसरा नं. 1679 , भाग बी, एमआईई के पीछे, बहादुरगढ़ -124507 , जिला झज्जर , ( हरियाणा )
15.04.2014
5. L-2683064
2
302
201 2008
घरेलू और समान विद्युत साधित्रोंकी सुरक्षा - विशेष अपेक्षाएं - बिजली के निम्मजय वाटर मीटर
मैसर्स अनुशा एप्लाइसैंस, खसरा नं. 1679 , भाग बी, एमआईई के पीछे , बहादुरगढ़ -124507 , जिला झज्जर , ( हरियाणा )
6.
15.042014
L - 2683165
2
4159
आवरणों पर खनिज भरने के लिए हीटिंग एलीमेंट
मैसर्स अनुशा एप्लाइसैंस , खसरा नं. 1679 , भाग बी , एमआईई के पीछे , बहादुरगढ़-124507 , जिला झज्जर , ( हरियाणा )
7. L- 2683266 16.04.2014
368
199 पानी गरमाने के डबाऊ हीटर
मैसर्स अनुशा एप्लाइसैंस , खसरा नं. 1679 , भाग बी, एमआईई के पीछे , बहादुरगढ़-124507 , जिला झज्जर , ( हरियाणा )
25.04.2014
8. L-2688074
14543
20 पैकेजबन्द पेय जल ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
मैसर्स निसान इनफराटेक ( इण्डिया ) प्राईवेट लिमिटेड खसरा नं. 231 , प्लॉट नं. 41/5/2/2 , गरही, सांपला , जिला रोहतक
30.042014
9. L- 2690162
15683
पोर्टेबल फायर एक्सटिंगशर परफोर्मेंस और क्रंसट्रक्सन
मैसर्स स्टैण्डर्ड फायर , सोलूशन , ई/ 54 , संजय कालोनी , सैक्टर -23 , जिला : फरीराचार -121005 , (हरियाणा) 7159 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
(7)
(5)
(6)
(8 ) ( 9 ) (3)
(4)
( 2 )
( 1 )
02.05.2014
1806
1975 10. L-2694675
माल्टयुक्त दूध भोजन
मैसर्स इम्पीरियल माल्टस लि. गॉव घसौला , ओमेक्स प्लाजा के पीछे , सोहना रोड , डाकघर बादशाहपुर, जिला-गुड़गांव-122101 , (हरियाणा)
2404
1993 11. L -2694776 02.05.2014
माल्टसार
मैसर्स इम्पीरियल माल्टस लि. , गॉव घसौला , ओमेक्स प्लाजा के पीछे, सोहना रोड़ , डाकघर बादशाहपुर , जिला- गुड़गांव-122101 , (हरियाणा)
12. L-2692873 20.05.2014
14543
2004
पैकेजबन्द पेय जल (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
मैसर्स श्री बालाजी प्रोडक्टस , प्लॉट नं. 7436 , गली नं. 235 , वार्ड नं. 6 , 40 फुट रोड , संजय कालोनी , गोंछी चौक के पास , जिला-फरीदाबाद , (हरियाणा)
03.06.2014
14543
2004 13. L-2696477
मैसर्स ए - वन वाटर वर्कस , प्लॉट नं. 7436 , गली नं. 235 , झिरका , ( हरियाणा )
पैकेजबन्द पेय जल ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
13.06.2014
14543
2004 L- 2696578
पैकेजबन्दपेय जल ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )
मैसर्स राजेन्द्रा फूड्स बेवरेजिस , प्लाट नं. 232, ऊंचा गांव , यादव कलोनी , तहसील बल्लभगढ़ -121004, जिला- फरीदाबाद , ( हरियाणा )
14543
2004 15. L - 2698686 13.06.2014
पैकेजबन्द पेज जल ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
मैसर्स तृषा एक्वा प्रा. लि. , बेवरेजिस, आसाराम बापू आश्रम और नन्दल भवन के पास , गांव बोहर , जिला-रोहतक , ( हरियाणा )
2007 16.
-2699584 18.06.2014
15778
मैसर्स एचआईएल लि. , सैक्टर-25, जिला-फरीदाबाद-121004 , ( हरियाणा)
तप्त और अतप्त पेय जल वितरण व्यवस्थाके लिए क्लोरीनकृत पॉलीविनायल क्लोराइड (सीपीवीसी ) पाइप 7160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
(1) ( 2)
(3)
(4)
17. L-2700139 19.06.2014 मैसर्स भूरजी प्लास्टेक सोलूशन प्रा. लि. , प्लाट नं. 34 , फेस -1 , उद्योग विहार, गुड़गांव-122016 , (हरियाणा )
18. L-2701343 26.06.2014
मैसर्स इण्डोटेक ऑटो पार्ट्स , प्लॉट नं. 208 , सैक्टर -4 , आईएमटी मानसेर , गुड़गांव- 122016, (हरियाणा)
19. L-2701444 26.06.2014 मैसर्स हर्बल इन्टरप्राइसिस , बेवरेजिस , प्लॉट नं. 232, वार्ड नं. 6 , फरीदाबाद, (हरियाणा)
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]
(5)
(6) (7) (8 ) ( 9 )
9537
03
1983 कन्डयूट्सफॉर इलैक्ट्रीकल
इन्सटालेशन्स भाग 3 : रिजिड प्लेन कन्डयूट्सऑफ इन्सूलेटिंग मैटिरियल्स
03
9537
1983 कन्डयूट्सफॉर
इलैक्ट्रीकल
इन्सटालेशन्स
भाग 3 : रिजिड प्लेन कन्डयूट्स ऑफ इन्सूलेटिंग मैटिरियल्स
14543
2004 पैकेजबन्द पेय
जल ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )
[सं. सीएमडी-13:11 ]
बिन्दु कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs )
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS )
New Delhi , the 27th October, 2014
S.O. 2883.-In pursuance of sub - regulation 5 of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations. 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :--
SCHEDULE
Licences Grant
Name and address of SI. No. No.CM/L- Date
the Licensee
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
1 L-2680765 03.04.2014
M/ s. R.S. Group Services,
House No. 49 ,
Part Sec. Year Title of the Standard
IS No.
(5)
(6)
(7) (8) (9)
2004
Packaged Drinking 14543
Water(Other Than Natural Mineral
Water)
NearM.D. Senior Secondary School , Patti Kilhore, V. P. O. Jharsa,
Distt. Gurgaon - 122001
(Haryana)
2.
15.04.2014
L-2682365
M/ s. Yokohama India
Private Limited, PlotNo. 1. Sector -4B. HSIIDC. Bahadurgarh - 124507 ,
Distt . Jhajjar . ( Haryana)
15633
Automotive
2005
Vehicles -
Pneumatic Tyres forPassenger Car
Vehicles - Disgonal and Radial Ply 7161 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
(4)
(1) (2)
(3)
(6)
(7)
(5)
(8) (9)
2
3 3. L-2682870 15.04.2014
302
2007 M/ s. Anusha Appliances , Khasra No. 1679 , Part B , Behind M.I.E. , Bahadurgarh - 124507 , Distt . Jhajjar , Haryana
Safety of household , and similar electrical appliances: Part 2 Particular Requirements Section 3 Electric Iron
366
4. L-2682971 15.04.2014
Electric Iron
1991 M/ s . Anusha Appliances , Khasra No. 1679 , Part B, Behind M.I.E. , Bahadurgarh - 124507 , Distt . Jhajjar , Haryana
2 5. L- 2683064 15.04.2014
302
201 2008 M/ s . Anusha Appliances , Khasra No. 1679 , Part B , Behind M.I.E. , Bahadurgarh - 124507 , Distt . Jhajjar , Haryana
Safety of household , and similar electrical appliances : Part 2 Particular Requirements Section 201 Electric Immersion Water Heater
4159
2002 6. L- 2683165 15.04.2014
Mineral Filled Sheathed Heating Elements
M / s . Anusha Appliances , Khasra No. 1679 , Part B , Behind M.I.E. , Bahadurgarh - 124507 , Distt . Jhajjar, Haryana
7. L- 2683266 16.04.2014
1992
Electric Immersion 368 WaterHeaters
M/ s . Anusha Appliances , Khasra No. 1679 , Part B , Behind M.I.E .. Bahadurgarh - 124507 , Distt . Jhajjar, Haryana
8.
25.04.2014
L-2688074
2004
Packaged Drinking 14543
Water(Other than Natural Mineral Water)
M/ s . Nissan Infratech (India) Pvt . Ltd. , Kh . No. 231 , PlotNo. 41/5/2/2 Garhi Sampla Industrial Area, Sampla , District - Rohtak - 124501 Haryana
2006
15683
9. L -2690162 30.04.2014
Portable Fire Extinguisher- Performance and Construction
M/ s. Standard Fire Solution , E- 54 , Sanjay Colony , Sector - 23 , Distt . Faridabad- 121005 Haryana 7162
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24 , 1936
(4)
(1)
(3)
(2)
02.05.2014
10. L-2694675
M/ s. Imperial Malts Ltd. , VillageGhasola, Behind Omaxe Plaza, Sohna Road, PostBadshahpur, Distt . Gurgaon- 122101 , Haryana
11. L-2694776 02.05.2014 M/s. Imperial Malts Ltd. , VillageGhasola, BehindOmaxe Plaza, Sohna Road, PostBadshahpur, Distt. Gurgaon- 122101 , Haryana
12. L-2692873 20.05.2014
(5)
(6)
(7) (8) (9)
1806
1975 MaltedMilk Foods
2404
1993 MaitExtract
2004
Packaged Drinking 14543
Water (Other than Natural Mineral Water)
M/s . Shree Balaji Products , Plot No. 7436 , Gali No. 235 , Ward No. 6 , 40 Ft . Road, Sanjay Colony, Near Gounchi Chowk, Faridabad Haryana
03.06.2014
13. L-2696477
2004
M/s . A-One Water Works , PlotNo. 7436, Gali No. 235 , Ward No. 6, Jhirka
13.06.2014
14. L-2696578
PackagedDrinking 14543 Water(Other than Natural Mineral Water)
2004
PackagedDrinking 14543
Water(Other than NaturalMineral Water)
M/ s. Rajendra Food Beverages , Plot No. 232 , Village Uncha Gaon, Yadav Colony, Tehsil Ballabgarh - 121004, Distt . Faridabad , Haryana
13.06.2014
15. L-2698686
2004
Packaged Drinking 14543
Water(Other than Natural Mineral Water )
M/s . Trisha Aqua Pvt . Ltd. , NearAsharam Bapu Ashram and Nandal Bhawan, VillageBohar, Distt . Rohtak, Haryana
18.06.2014
16. L-2699584
M/s. HIL Ltd. , Sector -25 , Distt. Faridabad- 121005, Haryana
19.06.2014
17. L-2700139
M/s.Bhurji Plastek
Solution Pvt . Ltd. , Plot No. 34 , Phase 1 , Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon -122016 Haryana
2007
15778
CPVCPipes for Potable Water Supply
03 1983
9537 Conduits for Electrical Installations Part3 Rigid Plain Conduits of InsulatingMaterials 7163
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
(3)
(1) (2)
(4)
18. L-2701343 26.06.2014
(6)
(9) (5)
(8)
9537
1983
03
M/ s. Indotech Enterprises , Plot No. 208 , Sector-4, IMT Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon , Haryana
26.06.2014
19. L-2701444
Conduits for Electrical Installations Part3RigidPlain Conduits of InsulatingMaterials
2004 Packaged Drining 14543
M/s. Herbal Enterprises , Beverages , Ward No. 6 , Faridabad, Haryana Water(OtherThan Natural Mineral Water)
[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]
BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अक्तूबर , 2014
का. आ. 2884.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियन , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया हैं :-
अनुसूची
लाइसेंस संख्या
लाइसेंसधारी का
नाम व पता
सीएम/एल
क्रम संख्या
01
एल-2626759
मै. वी. के. फैबरीकेटर्स , 16/5 , मथुरा रोड , गुडियर टायर के पास , फरीदाबाद -121002 , हरियाणा
रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
04.04.2014 स्टील दरवाजों के फ्रेम आईएस 4351 : 2003
[सं. सीएमडी-13 : 13 ]
बिन्दु कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi ; the 27th October , 2014
S.O. 2884. In pursuance of sub- regulation ( 6 ) of regulation of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certificate) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each : -
SCHEDULE
SI .
No.
Licences No.
Name & Address ofthe Party
L-2626759
01
M/ s . V. K. Fabricators , 16/5 , Mathura Road, Near Goodyear Tyre , Faridabad- 121002 Haryana
4337 G1/14-2
Date of Cancellation Article/Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled/ suspension
04.04.2014 Steel Door Frames IS4351: 2003
[No. CMD/ 13 : 13]
BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer 7164
[PART II SBC. 3 ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIKA 24, 1936
कोयला मंत्रालय
आदेश
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर , 2014
का. आ. 2885.-कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उ अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के राजपत्र, असाधारण , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( 1 ) तारीख 17 फरवरी , 2014 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का.आ. संख्यांक 414( अ) , तारीख 14 फरवरी , 2014 के प्रकाशन पर, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 374.00 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 924.15 एकड़ (लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में (किये इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) या उस पर के सभी अधिकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर , आत्यंतिक रूप में केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे :
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है , कि वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र ) (जिसे इसमें इसके सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है ) , ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जिन्हें केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन के लिए रजामंद है ;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रम शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है, कि 374.00 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 924.15 एकड़ ( लगभग ) उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाए , तारीख 17 जुलाई , 2014 से निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शों के अधीन सा हुए, सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्:-
(1) सरकारी कंपनी , उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज, नुकसानियों और वैसी ही मदों की किए गए सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ;
(2) शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजनों के लिए उक्त अधिनिय की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और उक्त अधिकरण की सहायता लिए नियुक्तव्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय , सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे और इस प्रकार निहित उक्त या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत उपगत , सभी व्यय भी , सरकारी कंपनी वहन किएजाएंगे
(3) सरकारी कंपनी, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की , ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी जो इस प्रकार उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पद्धारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यकार संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;
(4) सरकारी कंपनी को केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि और उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के इस प्रकार मि अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी ; और
(5 ) सरकारी कंपनी , ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का पालन करेगी जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के वि क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं ।
[फा. सं. 43015/24/2009-पीआरआई
दोमिनिक डुंगडुंग , अवर
MINISTRY OF COAL
ORDER
NewDelhi , the 14th November, 2014
S.O. 2885. Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Cool number S.O. 414(E) , dated the 14th February, 2014 in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , Sub -section (ii ), Extraordi dated the 17th February, 2014 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisitio Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), the land measuring 374.00 hectares (approxim or 924.15 acres ( approximately ) as all rights in or over the said land descibed in the Schedule appended to th notification (hereinater referred to as the said land) are vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encum under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act .
7165 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
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 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 374.00 hectares (approximately) or 924.15 acres ( approximately ) in or over the said land so vested shall with effect from 17th February , 2014 iristead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , vest in the Government Company, subject to the followingterms and conditions , 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 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 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 thatmay 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 persons 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 land as and when necessary .
[F. No. 43015/ 24/2009 -PRIW- I ] DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 17 नवम्बर , 2014
का. आ. 2886.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि , इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;
और रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल /बीएसपी /जीएम ( पीएलजी ) / भूमि/ 456 , तारीख 7 अगस्त , 2014 का जिसमें उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि क्षेत्र के ब्यौरे अन्तर्विष्ट है , निरीक्षण कलक्टर , जिला अनुपपुर ( मध्य प्रदेश ) तथा कलेक्टर, जिला कोरिया ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता 700001 के कार्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपतोड , बिलासपुर - 495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , पूर्वोक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।
उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति
( i ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के अधीन की गई कार्रवाई से हुई क्षति या संभावित क्षति अधिनियम की धारा 6 कीउप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन किसी नुकसानी के लिए प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या 7166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
( ii ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन समाप्त हो गई पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों के संबंध में या उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) के अधीन समाप्त हो गए खनन पट्टे के लिए प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( i ) से खंड ( iv ) में विनिर्दिष्ट मदों के संबंध में उपगत व्यय को उपदर्शित करने के लिए उक्त भूमि से संबंधित सभी मानचित्रों, चारों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को सुपुर्द करेगा ।
इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व ) , साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर 495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को सौंपेगा ।
अनुसूची
राजनगर , डोला , उत्तरी झगड़ाखांड ब्लाक , हसदेव क्षेत्र जिला - अनुपपुर, मध्य प्रदेश और जिला कोरिया, छत्तीसगढ़ (रेंखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी ) / भूमि/456 , तारीख 7 अगस्त, 2014)
सभी अधिकार :
जिला
तहसील
क्रम सं
ग्राम का नाम
साधारण नम्बर
पटवारी हल्का नम्बर
394
49
टिप्पणियां क्षेत्र हेक्टर में (लगभग)
भाग
कोतमा
डोला
1.
2.
48 112.076
अनुपपुर
कोतमा
516
नक्तीटोला
34
14 3. खोंगापानी
0.976
भाग
अनुपपुर
190.228
कोरिया
भाग
मनेन्द्रगढ़
कुल : 303.280 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 749.91 एकड़ ( लगभग )
सीमा वर्णन :
क - ख रेखा , बिन्दु ' क ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम डोला में पश्चिमी भाग से होती हुई ग्राम डोला , नक्तीटोला के सम्मिलित सीमा मेंबिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।
ख - ग रेखा , बिन्दु ' ख ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम नक्तीटोला के दक्षिणी भाग , ग्राम डोला के उत्तरी भाग , ग्राम खोंगापानी के मध्य भाग से होती हुई बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है ।
ग - घ रेखा ग्राम खोंगापानी में बिन्दु ' ग ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम खोंगापानी के मध्य भाग से होती हुई ग्राम खोंगापानी के दक्षिणी सीमा में बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है ।
घ - क रेखा, बिन्दु ' घ ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम खोंगापानी के दक्षिणी भाग , ग्राम डोला के उत्तरी भाग से होती हुई आरंभिक 'क ' पर मिलती है ।
[ फा. सं. 43015/ 13/2014- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]
दोमिनिक डुंगडुंग , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 17th November , 2014
S.O. 2886. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Andwhereas , the plan bearing number SECL/BSP /GM (PLG )/LAND/456 , dated the 7th August , 2014 containing details of the area covered by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Collector , District Anuppu (Madhya Pradesh ) and District Korea ( Chhattisgarh ) or at the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Stru भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7167
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
Solkata - 700001 or at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Section ) , Seepat Road , Bilaspur -495006 Chhattisgarh);
Now, therefore , in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government ereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule;
Any person interested in the land described in the afore mentioned Scheudle may -
(i) claim compensation under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action taken under sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 4 thereof; or
( ii) claim compensation under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 13 of the said Act , in respect of prospecting license ceasing to have effect or under sub- section (4 ) of Section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect, and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses ( i ) to ( iv ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 13 of the said Act ,
the Officer- in- Charge or Head of the Department ( Revenue ) , South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road , Bilaspur- 495006 ( Chhattishgarh ) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette .
SCHEDULE
Rajnagar , Dola, North Jhagrakhand Block , Hasdeo Area District- Anuppur , Madhya Pradesh and District Korea , Chhattisgarh
(Planbearing number SECL /BSP /GM (PLG ) LAND/456 , dated the 7th August, 2014)
All Rights:
Sl . Name of General Patwari Tehsil District Area in Remarks
No. Village number halka hectares
number (approxi-
mately)
1. Dola 394 49 Kotma Anuppur 112.076 Part
2. Naktitola 516 48 Kotma Anuppur 0.976 Part
3. Kongapani 34 14 190,228 Part
Manendragarh
Korea
Total: 303.280 hectares (approvimately ) or 749.41 acres ( approximately)
Boundary Description:
A-B Line starts from point ' A' in village Dola and passes through western part of village Dola and meets at point ' B ' on the common boundary of villages Dola, Naktitola.
B-C Line starts from point ' B ' in village Naktitola and passes through Southern part of village Naktotola , northern part of village Dola and middle part of village Kongapani and meets at point ' C ' .
C-D Line starts from point ' C ' in village Kongapani and passes through middle part of village Kongapani and meets at point ' D ' on the southern boundary of village Kongapani .
D-A Line starts from point ' D ' in village Kongapani passes through southern part of village Kongapani , northern part of village Dola and meets at starting point ' A' .
[F. No. 43015/ 13/2014- PRIW - I ] DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
7168
[PART II-SBC. 3( 1 ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKΑ 24 , 1936
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2887.-राष्ट्रपति, श्री शुभेन्द्र कुमार को 20.10. 2014 ( पूर्वाहन ) से केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधीकरण -सह - श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर , के पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में 25.08.2018 तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , नियुक्त करते हैं।
[सं. ए-11016/02/2013- सीएलएस- II ]
एस. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2887. The President is pleased to appoint Shri Shubhendra Kumar as Presiding Officer ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Kanpur w.e.f. 20.10.2014( F.N . ) for a period up to 25.08.2018 or until further orders , whichever is earlier .
[No. A - 11016/02/2013 -CLS . - II ]
S. K. SINGH , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 21 अक्तूबर , 2014
का.आ. 2888.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/10/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/46/1998 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 21st October , 2014
S.O. 2888. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 60/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the WCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 21/10/2014 .
[No. L-22012/46/ 1998 - IR(CM- II) ]
Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/ LC/R/60/2004
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Rajesh Prasad,
C/o Smt. Kamla Wadia, Ex.MLA,
Madhuban Colony,
Chhindwara
Workman
Versus
Chairman-cum - MD,
Coal Estate,
Nagpur
General Manager , WCL, Kanhan Area,
Dungaria, Chhindwara
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 9th day of September, 2014
1. As per letter dated 7-5-04 by the Government India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , the reference received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act , 1947 as per Notification No.L 22012/46/98 - IR (C- II) . The dispute under reference relatos to:
"Whether the action of the management of WCL Kanhan area , PO Dungaria, distt . Chhindwara (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Reject Prasad S / o Ramanand and 378 others Cat -I Mazdoors of Tandsi Project w.e.f. October 93 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference , notices were issued to the parties. Ist party filed statement of claim at page 3/1 to 3/11 . Case of Ist party workman is that Shri Rajesh Prasad and 378 other workmen shown in the list enclosed with order of reference claims to be resident of villa Damua, Sukri , Tamia, Jhatachhappar, Lalpathar, Pendra, Neemkheda, Bhata, Lakadbadi , Tehsil Junnardeo, Distt . Chhindwara. That most of the workers belong to SC/ST they were appointed as Mazdoor Category I as NCWA - III . They were working with IInd party from October 88 to October 1993 continuously for a period of 5 years . Their services were terminated without assigning any reasons for violation of provisions of I.D. Act. Workmen are illiterate and ignorant of the prevailin laws . That they raised dispute before ALC, Chhindwara in 1995. The conciliation proceedings were belated and failure report was submitted on 12-1-98 . Government declined to refer dispute for adjudication as per letter dated 27-1-99 . Filing Writ Petition 5003 of 99 , Hi Court of MP at Jabalpur order of refusal , reference challenged . As per order dated 27-1-99 , Government was directed to make reference within 3 months . That service conditions of the employees are governed as per recommendations of Central Wage Board accepted by Ministry of Coal , Govt . of India and NCWA - I to VI .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936 7169
3. Workmen further submits that they were initially. termination. Without considering the facts claimed before
appointed as Category I mazdoor in Tandsi Project of Conciliation Officer , reference has been made . That
WCL for job of extracting coal . Their services are also appropriate Government had refused to entertain
covered by standing orders , provisions of Mines Act and representations of management . Writ petition No. 18700/
Regulations and circulars . After their initial appointment 2006was filed challenging order of reference . Application
in October 1988 , they were deployed in various jobs of for stay was rejected . Therefore IInd party filed Written
Category I mazdoor from extracting coal from mine in Statement in the matter. That subsequently names of
Tandsi Project . As per provisions under Mines Act, claimants were supplied on 6-9-06 whereas the reference
employer is required to maintain statutory records from order was passed on 7-5-04 . The claimants / workmen have
the Attendance Register . Management was maintaining not revealed their particulars about identification . In
such record about their attendance . They were working absence of such particulars , it is not possible to ascertain
3 shifts Ist shift from 8 AM to 4 PM , IInd from 4PM to identification of each of the workmen . After Govt.'s order
12 AM , and IIIrd from 12hours night till 8 AM. Their of refusal to make reference , claimant Rajesh Prasad
attendance was maintained by management . Management filed Writ petition No. 5003 of 99 at High Court , Jabalpur .
had control and supervision over all the workers . They It is submitted that without application of mind , the
were continuously working till October 1993. He dispute has been referred. That as per letter dated 24-7-
completed 240 days continuous service during each of 98, dispute w.r.t Dadulal and 350 others was referred for
the year . They were treated as monthly rated workers . adjudication to this Tribunal bearing R/ 83 / 98 . Reference
Wages were paid to them as per NCWA . Termination of was also made in the matter of Amar Kumar and others
their service amounts to retrenchment under Section 2 ( oo) bearing No. R/ 197 / 98 . That names of the workmen
of L.D. Act . Their services were dispensed with by included in present reference were also appearing in
nanagement by oral order without paying any benefits . above references . That the order of reference speaks
fermination of their services was in violation of Section Rajesh and others were working as General Mazdoor
5 - F of I.D. Act . That as per standing orders , all the Category - I at Kanhan Area . Their services were
workers attained status of permanent/ regular employees . terminated . The above conclusion of the Govt . is incorrect .
Their services were terminated without assigning reasons The reference was made arbitrarily. It is reiterated that
s void . It is also submitted that they were not served in R/ 83 / 98 , 197/98 , there were common names of the
with showcause notice . No chargesheet was issued to workmen . The documents could not be available with
hem . DE was not initiated against them . They were not the management after period of 3 years .
aid retrenchment compensation . Reasons for termination 6.
vas not informed . There were no circular from Govt . of IInd party further submits that appointment in CIL
ndia. are governed by statutory rules , regulations and procedure
prescribed . Only after compliance of such procedure ,
It issubmitted that Tandsi Project was profit making regulation , appointments can be made Coal India Ltd
roject . Termination of services of workman in violation and its subsidiary company. General manager is
provisions of I.D.Act is illegal . As per provisions of empowered to make appointments following procedure
Sanding orders employees continuously working for more for appointment , names are required to be called through
an 180 days is required to be classified as regular Employment Exchange . Workmen in present case were
mployee . If the workers worked more than 240 days in not sponsored by Employment Exchange . That as per
consecutive months , retrenchment of such workers Mines Act , Rules and Regulations , management is
thout compensation is void . That principles of last come required to maintain statutory records , Form- B , C , D in
rst go was not applied while terminating their services . r / o each of the employees . Token number for
ney were retained by IInd party violating provisions of identification is to be given . PF Scheme Contributions
ection 25 - G, H of I.D. Act . It is reiterated that all those are deducted from wages which are deposited in CMPF.
orkers have completed 240 days continuous service . The workmen has not produced any document in that
der Section 25 B of I.D.Act , worker completing 190 / regard.
days continuous service of 95/110 days within six 7.
onths are considered in continuous service . For IInd party submits that tender notice 1 /93-94 was
issued on 2-4-93 for execution of Inclines 3,4 Tandsi
mination of their service for violation of provisions of
Project , its details are given in Para - 21 . Said tender was
2.Act , workman prays for setting aside order of their
for Rs . 10,18,43,000/- . The contractor M/ S Shanti Kumar
mination and reinstatement with back wages .
Sancheti had executed agreement for execution of work.
IInd party filed Written Statement denying claim Engagement of contract labours are not prohibited in
those workmen . It is submitted that reference is illegal driving drift rather it was permitted by Notification dated
f incorrect . That list of workers were sent on 6-9-06 . 21-6-88 issued by Govt . of India. It is submitted that
s not case of termination of the claimants . They were contractor M/ s . Shanti Kumar Sancheti was engaged for
ver employed by WCL . There was no question of their work of Incline No. 3 , 4. The contract labours not having
7170
[PART II-SEC THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014 /KARTIKA 24, 1936
Tandsi Project w.e.f. October 93 is legal and justified?
Asperfinal ord
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
REASONS conversant of provisions of Mines Act, they were guided by Mining owned by Sirdar etc. All material contentions ofworkman that they were engaged as Mazdoor Category I from October 88 to October 93 have been denied. IInd party admitted that management maintained record like Form B Register , Attendance Register required under Mines Act . Workmen were never employed by IInd party therefore their names were not appearing in Form B register , statutory record . It is denied that the services of workmen wereterminated without notice , chargesheet or conducting Departmental Enquiry. It is reiterated that workmen were not engaged by IInd party . There was no question of termination of their services . Ist party workmen have not disclosed details of persons retained in service after their termination . On all such grounds , IInd party prays for rejection of claim .
10. Before dealing with dispute under reference on it isappropriate to deal with the argument advanced tenability of reference , the order of reference Govt. is not challenged therefore contentions of Iind about tenability of reference cannot be considere order of reference is binding on this Tribunal . Within to delay in making reference , there is no contro between parties from pleadings that after FOC in 1999 , Writ Petition 5003/99 was filed, said Writ p was decided on 16-3-04 and as per directions of H High Court , the dispute is referred for adjudication Tribunal therefore the workers cannot be blamed for in making reference.
8. Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating most of its contentions in statement of claim . That their statement of claim was filed on 3-3-05 whereas Written Statement was filedby IInd party on 14-11-08 after long delay. Workmen have reiterated that they were employed as Category I mazdoor in underground mine of Tandsi Project . Under Notification dated 21-6-88 , Govt . of India prohibited employment of contract labour . Workmen were regular employees . They were directly appointed by IInd party. There was no contractor as contented by IInd party for job of over burden removal , earth cutting , stone drifting and miscellaneous works . That they were working all 365 days except on holidays . The lists of workers was submitted by Govt. on 6-9-06. All adverse contentions of IInd party in its written Statement have been denied . It is denied in Reference 83/98 , 197/98 , common names of workers were given . That provisions of limitations are not applicable . Management of IInd party is responsible for delay in reference for dispute . That their appointment were made directly made in accordance of rules . Management admitted statutory register are maintained by it . Management adopted unfair labour practice to deny their services . That their services were terminated on 30-10-93 in violation of provisions of I.D. Act . That granting tender to contractor M / S Shanti Kumar Sancheti doesnot establish those workers were working as contract labours .
11. The parties are in dispute about legali termination of services of Rajesh Prasad and 378 Workmen claims to be directly appointed by mana whereas the IInd party in its Written Statement direct engagement of the workmen rather it is sub that work of Incline No.3,4 of Tandsi Project to the contractor calling tenders . The documents M- 1 is copy of order of refusal to make reference Government . Exhibit M -2 is tender notice dated 2 Exhibit M - 3 is tender notice of the same date ofdrivage of Incline No.3,4 . Exhibit M -4 is for Rs . 10,18,43,000/- in favour of M/ S Shant Sancheti , contractor . Exhibit M -5 is copy of with above said contractor , Exhibit M - 7 is co certificate dated 23-3-96 . Exhibit M - 8 is licence to above said contractor bearing No. 6291 engagement of 95 contract labours for execution . in Tandsi Project of WCL . Those workmen chal working with IInd party from October 88 to O whereas those documents pertains to subsequen Letter of intent Exhibit M - 3 is dated 5-11-93 order dated 8-2-94 . Thus those documents don the disputed period of working by Ist party 9. Considering pleadings on record , the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under . My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below: -
Partly in Negative w.r.t. workmen Suresh S/ o Ayodhya and Shri Shiv Prasad, S/o Chhotelal .
(i ) Whether the action of the management of WCL , Kanhan area , PO Dungaria, Distt . Chhindwara ( MP) in terminating the services ofShri Rajesh Prasad S/ o Ramanand and 378 others Cat- I Mazdoors of
12. Shri Suresh S / o Ayodhya and Shri Shiv submitted affidavit of their evidence contending were directly engage by IInd party from 10-3- respectively . That all the 379 workers were won IInd party. Their work was supervised by the st management . Their services were terminated notice . Suresh S/ o Ayodhya says he and other were doing work of excavation, they were also underground removing the coal . There was no Their attendance was maintained in the reg Prasad in his affidavit says he was working
भाग .11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936 7171
Category I. Basket , shoes were supplied by the payment . In entire cross -examination of Shri Suresh , there
management . Their wages were paid by the management . is no suggestion that he was working as contractor's
In his cross - examination , workman Suresh says he labour in 1994. His cross -examination is devoted about
not member of Union . He has not approached any training given to the workmen . The certificates were issued
Limon. Any of the workers are not members of Union . to each of the workmen . Those documents are also not on
Dispute is raised in their individual capacity. He further record . in para - 58 of his cross - examination suggestion is
says that he was authorized by workman for prosecuting denied by the witness that he was working as contractor's
the dispute . His signatures were made in register in 1993 , labour . As far as evidence in cross - examination of Shiv
ts zerox copy was produced before ALC , Chhindwara . Prasad is devoted on point that the wages were paid to
That workman covered under R/ 83 / 98 , 197/98 are not him on 10th day of the month . The wages were paid on
party to the present reference . He was unable to explain monthly basis . If he was not working , the wages were
what was the difficulty in not showing the details about reduced . That he was working with IInd party from
dentification of all workmen like age , residence etc. That 1-1-1988 but he had not submitted application . The post
50 workmen were appointed with him . However the was not advertised . His name was not sponsored through
vacancies were not displayed on notice board . His name Employment Exchange . That he worked in January 1994 .
was not sponsored through Employment Exchange . That
He was doing the work of digging road for underground
mis physical test was carried on 10-3-88 . The test of others
mines.115 labours were doing work of loading coal . He
was taken on 11-3-88 . In the beginning Mr. Saxena was unable to tell names of other labours . That work of
Manager of Tandsi Project was conducting test.
digging road was carried by the contractor . That Manager
Appointment order in writing was not given to him . That
Mr. Khan was giving instruction to Mining sirdar and he
shot 500 persons were working in the project . Out of
wasgiving directions for the work . His name was recorded
hem 379 were terminated . That he was told by Shri
inForm B after few months . He was unable to tell whether
polchand about abolition of contract system in Ind party .
Form B of other workers was prepared . That he had handed
le reiterated that he and other persons were working
tom 1988 to October 1993. On termination , any letter over photocopy of documents . He has furnished name of
writing was not given to him. Their services was his father and permanent address for filling Form B. The
rminated for the reasons that mine has been closed. Provident Fund is deducted in coal mines . He claims
ey had approached Manager Subbarao who told him ignorance whether he was member of said scheme . That
hat he was helpless because of order of CMD . Their pay register was remaining in custody of Manager Saxena
ages was paid by clerk, work was carried in 3 shifts , and not with the clerk . The lamp clerk was issuing lamp
to 200 workers were working in each shift . Mr. Khan after obtaining signatures in the register . He claims
Under Manager & Saxena and Subbarao were ignorance whether all 379 labours had signed on
Manager . He was unable to tell number of days worked application submitted to ALC . That in 1988 , his age was 18
bim. He has not kept any document with him . Copy of years . There was no person by name Tiwari working as
dewance register is produced but Ist party did not make supervisor. He denies suggestion that he was working as
ffon for proving those copies by adducing necessary contract labour. He doesnot know contractor M/ S Shanti
vidence . That original of attendance register is with Kumar Sancheti and denies that said contractor was
nagement . That Attendance Register for 1988 to 1991 allotted tender work Rs . 10,18,43,000/ - . He denies that he
as maintained by clerk Nagendra . Workmen handed and other workers were working with contractor . The
copies to him, the witness could not explain . He evidence in cross - examination of both the witnesses is
also unable to tell whether those copies were bearing clear that they donot work in the mine rather the suggestion
of authority.It is surprise to see that copies of is that they were working as contract labour .
ttendance Register produced by workmen are not
14. Ist party workman filed affidavit of Shri Khamchand
wed required evidence is not adduced on the point .
supporting their claim that all those workmen were working
Dove witness in his further cross - examination says all
with IInd party from March 88. He was maintaining their
erkers have signed in the application submitted before
attendance . Zerox copy of attendance register is produced .
.He was unable to tell about provisions of standing
Those workmen were working as per directions issued by
Gers referred in affidavit . That they were doing work
the officer authorized by the management . Their leave
catting stones , making arch , concrete , pulling cables ,
applications were sanctioned by Manager Saxena and
mould . That they were granted leave by he Manager
Are was unable to tell details of leave taken during Subbarao . In his cross - examination , Khemchand says that
88 to 1992. They were paid overtime wages , entries he was appointed as General Mazdoor in mine in 1975. His
name was not sponsored from Employment Exchange . He
re taken in register , any documents in that regard is
produced . Some of the employees were allotted quarter was directly appointed . Appointment letter in writing was
was unable to tell quarter number . That they were givento him . He was unable to tell his Token No. that from
Falay for 16 hours . Clerk Nagendra was making overtime 1975 to 1987 , he was working in Mohan colliery. He admits
7172
[PART II-SEC. 3(i )) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24 , 1936
working at Nagpur Headquarter. Contractor did not si agreement in his presence . He admits that without consen of Mines Manager , the concerned persons cannot in the mine. That as he had seen list of persons , on basis , he said that workmen never employed by the management . Work of Incline No. 1,2 was completed befo Incline No.3,4. Ifdocuments M - 2 to M - 8 are considered pertain tothe year 1994 , work of Incline No. 1,2 was carm before 1994. The witness says work of Incline No. 1,21 donethrough department.About400 workers were wark as employees of WCL the documents Exhibit M - 8 , M produced by IInd party donot contain names of any above workers . Above factual position was not in dis during course of argument . I may further make it clear the zerox copy of attendance register is produced by party but are not proved by adducing any kind of eviden
16. Management has filed affidavit of Shri Pancham Hadipur, Sham Kumar Chourasia, Srikant Lokhande , Ch Nagle, Hari Prasad Soni , Mohd. Hanif but they were a made available for cross - examination therefore the evidence cannot be considered.
thatMohan colliery and Tandsi Project are different . Both mines areunder General Manager, KanhanArea. That Form Bregister of the employees are maintained . Service book was separately prepared . He was working as Attendance Clerk. The witness has undertaken to produce copy of order but no such order is produced by the witness . In his further cross -examination, Khemchand says about 400 labours were working in Tandsi Project . Form B register of allworkerswere maintained. Those workers were working in 3 shifts . That he had not handed over zerox copy of attendance register. Rajendra, Bhagwat, Gulabrao were working.Nagendra singh died and other two are alive. He claims ignorance whether names of workmen were called from Employment Exchange . Those workers were interviewedby General Manager Subbarao. Vacancies were not advertised . He was unable to tell his Token number. In 1986, work of Tandsi Project started . Underground work was carried . Work of incline was not carried by the contractor. In his further cross - examination , witness says hewas not concerned with granting leave to the workers orpayment of their wages . He has not stated about it in his affidavit. He was not concerned with training of workers . Workers who were given VTC training, certificate were issued to them . That he knows 2-4 workers but he was not knowing permanent address of any of the labours . The witness has admitted that chargesheet was issued to him and he was dismissed from service on 12-4-99 . Document Exhibit M - 10 is copy of award passed in this matter. Entire evidence is considered, the copies of attendance register produced on record are not proved by this witness . No evidence in that regard is adduced . Witness was terminated from service in 1999. He claims ignorance on material particulars asked to him . Therefore his evidence appears not worth of reliance.
15. Management submitted evidence on affidavit Shri Subbarao Manager. The substance of his affidavit is that any of the claimant/ workers were not working in the mine. The appointments of III , IV employees in Coal Industry are made by General Manager. That as per provisions of Mines Act , records like Form B register, Attendance Register is mandatory. Each of the employee is given token number for identification . The employees covered under PF Act, contributions are deducted from wages. That the contract of the work was issued to M/s . Shanti Kumar Sancheti . The work order was issued on8-2-94. Letter of intent was issued on 5-11-93 and other details of tender notice and agreement are stated by him. The drivage work was given to contractor for opening and excavation . From his further evidence , documents Exhibit M -2 to M - 8 are proved . Those documents relates to subsequent period i.e. in 1994 whereas the workman claims to be working during October 88 to October 1993 . This witness in his cross - examination says Form B Registers were separately maintained. That he was not
17. Management's witness Satish Kumar Dubey in hi affidavit has stated that he was working as Dy.Mana (P) .management maintains Form B Register, Attende Register. There are entries of 740 employees working 1988 to 1994. It is not possible for management to pre attendance register for all those years . From evidence thosewitness Exhibit M - 8 to M- 11 are proved . It is su to say that names of workmen are not appearing in those documents . In his cross - examination , witness that hewas appointed in 1986 as Pharmacist . In 1988, in Personnel Deptt. That Form B ,C , D are maintained authority of Mines Manager. He was not given le MinesManager to present those documents in Such letter is not required . Genuiness of entries in documents is not challenged in his cross - examination . I admits that names of employees working under mines are entered in Form C Register. He denies su that he found Form B wage register but same produced deliberately. Names of 740 workers work mine are given in his affidavit. If evidence in examination of Shri Suresh S/o Ayodhya and Shiv iscarefully considered , they have narrated details of working in mine , payment of wages , control/ super oftheir work. There is no suggestion to both of ther theywere working as contract labour from 1994 and is also no suggestion that they were not working mine from October 88 to 1993. Suggestions given to I that they were working as contractor labour and engagedby management is eloquent about their w in Tandsi project. Those workmen are semi - literate received education upto 7th , 8th standard. They negligent in prosecuting their claim since 1996. Then any how prolonged for one or other reasons. suggestion is given to them that they were workin 7173
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
contractor's labours as per evidence of management's witnesses Form B was maintained in respect of all employees , management has not produced Form B register of those witnesses therefore I donot find reason to discard 'heir evidence .
18. Learned counsel for workmen Shri R. C. Srivastava celied on ratio in
Case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. versus Brijnandan Pandey and others reported in AIR - 1957 - SC - 1 . Their Lordship dealing with powers and duties of Industrial Tribunal held the discretion which an Industrial Tribunal has must be exercised in accordance with well recognized principles . There is undoubtedly a distinction between commercial and industrial arbitration . Industrial arbitration may involve the extension of an existing agreement , or the making of a new one or in general the creation of new obligations or modifications of old ones , while commercial arbitration generally concerns itself with interpretation of existing obligations and disputes relating to existing agreements . A Court of law proceeds , on the footing that no power exists in the courts to make contracts for people and the parties mustmake their own contracts .
In present case , legality of termination of 379 workers or violation of Section 25 - F is challenged . The pleadings parties are clear . IInd party denies employment of Ist arty. The defence is that workmen were contract labours . he ratio in above case has no direct bearing between the Ontroversy between parties .
On the point of jurisdiction of Tribunal , learned Dunsel for workmen Shri Srivastava relies or ratio held
Case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat versus Perfect Pottery Company Ltd. reported inAIR 1979 - SC- 1356.
Their Lordship held the jurisdiction of Tribunal in industrial disputes is limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and to matters incidental thereto and the Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference . Where the very terms of references showed that the point in dispute between the parties was not the fact of closure of its business by the employers and the references were limited to the narrow question as to whether the closure wąs proper and justified , the Tribunals by the very terms of the references , had no jurisdiction to go behind The fact of closure and inquire into the question Mether the business was infact closed down by the management.
The facts of present case are not comparable as ms of reference are clear whether termination of services workmen is in violation of Section 25 - F of I.D. Act .
principles laid down by the Lordship in at ove case cannot be beneficially applied to the case at hand .
20. On the point of completion of 240 days continuous service , learned counsel for workmen submitted that workmen have completed 240 days continuous services from 88 to 93. In support of his argument reliance is placed on ratio held in
Case of H.D.Singh versus Reserve Bank of India and others reported in 1985 (4 ) SCC 201. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25( B)( 2)( a)( ii ) held actual working for not less than 240 days in a year. The evidence regarding employer's failure to produce attendance register to controvert workman's claim on the facts held , workman's claim acceptable .
In present case , the evidence of witnesses Suresh and Shiv Prasad that they were working with IInd party from 1988 is not shattered. The defence of IInd party that they were working as contract labour is not supported by documents as the documents Exhibit m - 2 to M - 8 are of the period 1994. Those documents donot pertain to the disputed period . As per evidence in cross- examination of management's witness Subbarao , the work of Incline No.1,2 was carried departmentally prior to work of Incline No.3,4 . Therefore the ratio cannot be applied beneficially.
21. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.Shashi submits that workman have not discharged burden of proving 240 da Continuous service . For non - production . of documents , adverse inference could not be drawn against IInd party . Reliance is placed on ratio held in
Case of U.P.State Warehousing Corporation and another versus Presiding Officer and another reported in 2013 - III - LLJ - 213 ( Allahabad) . His Lordship dealing with burden of proof held Labour Court considering that petitioners failed to prove that workers were engaged by contractors and directed reinstatement . Held person who files a claim is required to prove his case . Industrial dispute raised by Union , burden of proof is upon Union and its workers to prove their claim before Labour Court . Union did not prove that they were appointed or engaged directly by petitioners . Workers not proved that they worked for more than 240 days in calendar year or that they were paid wagesby petitioners . Labour Court ørred in putting entire burden upon employer . Award of Labour Court cannot be sustained and is quashed . Petition allowed.
In present case , the evidence of Suren and Shiv Prasad about their working with lind party during 1998 to 1993 is not shattered . The defence of workman [PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] 7174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014 /KARTIΚΑ 24 , 1936
they were contract labours . However Form B Register are not produced . Therefore the evidence of both witnesses cannot be rejected outright .
22. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.Shashi on the point of delay in raising dispute relies in ratio held in
24. For reasons discussed above . I hold that Shri Suresh and Shiv Prasad were working as employees of IInd party. Their services are terminated in violation of Section 25 F of I.D. Act . therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 partly in Negative in respect of Shri Suresh and Shri Shiv Prasad.
25. Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No. 1 , question arises whether Shri Suresh and Shiv Prasad entitled for reinstatement with back wages . Their evidence in cross - examination shows that recruitment process not followed at the time of appointment . Learned counsel for workman Shri R. C. Srivastava submits that workmen were continued on daily wages and therefore the workmen are entitled for reinstatement .
Case of Chandrappagol A.G versus Asstt . Executive Engineer , Ghataprabha Right Bank Canal Construction reported in 2004 - II - 2003-460 . Their Lordship of Karnataka High Court dealing with scope of Section 10( 1 ) held Government to exercise power in deemed industrial disputes . Dispute can cease to exist on account of delay . Government can reject request for reference of dispute on this ground . Labour Court can also reject state dispute/ claim .
Reliance is placed on ratio held in The ratio cannot be applied to present case as workmen are knocking door for justice from 1996 . Initially the Government rejected to make reference . They were required to file Writ Petition which was decided in 2004. For above reasons , ratio cannot be applied to present case at hand .
In case of Surendranagar District Panchayat vrs . Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported in 2005 (8 ) SCC - 750 , their Lordship dealing with Section 25 -F, B , 2 ( oo ) & 2 ( s ) of I.D. Act held facts that must be proved by workman to claim protection under Section 25 - F are that ( i) there exists relationship of employer and employee , ( ii ) he is a workman under Section 2 ( s ) , ( iii ) establishment in which he is employed in an Industry within meaning of the Act and ( iv) he has put in not less than one year of continuous service.
Case of BSNL versus Bhurumal reported in AIR- 2014 - SSC - 1188 . Their Lordship held the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages , when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases . While that may be a position where services of a regular permanent workman are terminated illegally and/ or malafide and / or by way of victimization , unfair labour practice etc. However when it comes to the case termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect , namely in violation of section 25- reinstatement with back wages is not to automatic . Instead the workman should be giv monetary compensation which will meet the ends justice.
In present case , workmen were not appointed following recruitment process . They were working on daily wages , they were not regularly appointed therefore reinstatement with back wages would not be justified.
The evidence of both workmen satisfies all those test as their evidence is not shattered in cross - examination about their working in 1988 to 1993 and form B Register of workman is not produced by management despite of its defence that workmen were contract labours . The ratio held in the case therefore cannot be applied to this case beneficially.
On the above point , reliance is also placed on ratio held in
Reliance is also placed in ratio held in case of General Manager ( OSD ) Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills versus Bharat Lal reported in 2011 - I - LLJ - 321 . Their Lordship held employee had to prove the facts which would satisfy about tests . He did not discharge the onus to prove the facts which would satisfy the above tests .
Considering evidence of both workmen discussed above , the ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand .
Case of Anoop Sharma versus Executive Engineer , Public Health Division No.1 , Panipat ( Haryana) reported in 2010 (5 ) SCC 497. Their Lordship restored reinstatement with back wages directed by Labour Court observed that High Court reversing , award in writ jurisdiction on ground that workman's initial engagement was not legal . High Court: erred interfering with award of Labour Court in absence of pleadings that initial engagement was illegal .
23. Other workmen have not signed statement of claim , they have not entered in witness box . As per evidence in cross - examination of Shri Suresh , dispute was raised individually and not by Union . In absence of any pleadings on behalf of rest of Union , it is surprised to say that their claim cannot be accepted .
In present case , both witnesses Suresh and Shiv Prasad were not appointed following recruitment process therefore ratio held in the case cannot be applied to c at hand . On the point of reinstatement with back was भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7175
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
cannot be granted to workmen , reliance is placed by Shri A. K. Shashi on ratio held in
AIR- 2005 -SC - 1790 , 2007 - I - SCC -408 , 2006 (2 ) SCC-716 , 2011 - LAB - I.C.4322 . The principles laid down in all those case that mere completion of 240 days continuous services does not give right for regularization of service . Creation of posts , appointment , regularization , fixing of pay scales , continuation in service , promotion etc. authorities competent to take decisions in respect of such matters . That all the said functions are executive or legislative and it is highly improper for Judges to step into this sphere , except in rare and exceptional case .
Considering evidence on record discussed above nd facts of the case , as the workmen were not appointed Following conciliation process , they were engaged on daily ges , they are not entitled for reinstatement with back Bages , they are not entitled for reinstatement with back ges . Workman Shri Suresh and Shiv Prasad deserves asonable compensation for termination of their service Violation of Section 25 - F . Considering evidence and med of working , compensation Rs . One Lakh to each of nem would be reasonable . Accordingly I record my finding Point No.2 .
in the result , award is passed as under: -
(1 ) The action of the management of WCL , Kanhan area , PO Dungaria , distt . Chhindwara ( MP) in terminating the services of Shri Suresh and Shri Shiv Prasad is not legal and proper. The claim of rest of the workers is rejected.
( 2 ) Ind party is directed to pay compensation Rs.1 Lakh to each workmen namely Shri Suresh and Shri Shiv Prasad .
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 trom the date of award till its realization .
Original Form B Register produced on record be Purned to the IInd party.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 29 अक्तूबर , 2014
का.आ. 2889. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का ( 4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी . एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम यायालय , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 01/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29/10/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/36/1998- आईआर ( सीएम-2 ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th October , 2014
S.O. 2889.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 01/1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Asansol now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Hospital Kalla of M/s . ECL and their workman , received by the Central Government on 29/10/2014 .
[No. L - 22012/ 36/ 1998 - IR( CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑΙK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra , Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . 01 OF 1999
PARTIES: The management of CMO , Central Hospital Kalla of M/ s . ECL
Versus
Late Khudiram Badhyakar
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management : Sri . P.K. Das , Ld . Adv.
For the union (Workman) : None
INDUSTRY : COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated- 17.10.2014
AWARD
Inexercise 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/ 36/ 98 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 11 / 15.12.1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .
SCHEDULE
" Whether the action of the management in not providing employment to the dependent of Late Khudiram Badyakar , Ex - Staff of Kalla Hospital , M/s . ECL isjustified and legal ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "
Having received the Order of Letter No. L - 22012/36/ 98 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 11 / 15.12.1998 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a Reference Case No. 01 of 1999 was registered on 06.01.1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue 7176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIKA 24 , 1936
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. is present on behalf of the management but none appeared on behalf of the union. On perusal of the record I find that after 11.03.2010 none appeared on behalf of the union/workman . Since then more than 20 opportunities were given but to no effect. Registered notice was sent to the union on 16.07.2014 as a last chance for appearance of the claimant . More than one month has already been passed but even then nane appeared on behalf of the union. It seems that the workman is no more interested to proceed with the case further . This is one of the oldest case in the year 1999 . I find no reason to keep this old record pending . As such the case is closed and accordingly a ' No Dispute Award ' maybe 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
नई दिल्ली , 29 अक्तूबर , 2014
का.आ. 2890.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ई . सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 04/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29/10/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/596/1999- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th October , 2014
S.O. 2890.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 04/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the Perbelia Colliery ofM/ s . ECL and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 29/10/2014.
[No. L - 22012/ 596/ 1999 - IR ( C - II ) ]
Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Desk Officer
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO . 04 OF 2004
PARTIES : The management of Perbelia Colliery of M/ s . ECL
Versus
Shri Shivnandan Pandit
REPRESENTATIVES :
: Sri . P. K. Das , Ld . Adv. For the Management
For the Union ( Workman ) : None
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated- 13.10.2014
AWARD
Inexercise of powers conferred by clause (d) ofSub- 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/ 596/ 99 / IR ( C - II ) dated 16.01.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Parbelin Colliery of M/ s . ECL in not protecting the pay of the workman , Shri Shivnandan Pandit at the time of his conversion from piece rated to time rated job is local and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
Having received the Order of Letter No. L - 22012/ 596/ 99 / IR ( C - II ) dated 16.01.2004 of the above said referenow from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a Reference Case No. 04 of 2000 was registered on 04.02.2004 and accordingly an orde to that effect was passed to issue notices through 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 al of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .
On Perusal of the case record I find that predecessor ( Late M. R. Pattnaik , the then P.O. ) reserved an award in this case because the union /workman neither appeared nor took any step after 09.11.2006.1 seems that the workman is no more interested to proceed with the case further . As such the case is closed accordingly a ' No Dispute Award ' may be passed .
7177
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 15, 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
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
नई दिल्ली , 29 अक्तूबर , 2014
का.आ. 2891.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी . एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29/10/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/110/2007- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th October, 2014
S.O. 2891.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 53/2007 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the Jhanjra Area of M/ s . ECL and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 29/10/2014 .
[No. L- 22012/ 110/2007 - IR( CM - II ) ]
B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA , Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO . 53 OF 2007
PARTIES : The management of Jhanjra 1 & 2 Incline , ECL
Versus
ri Khudiram Bouri
EPRESENTATIVES :
: Sri P. K. Das , Ld . Advocate or the Management
or the Union ( Workman) : Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, CMC
DUSTRY: COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
dted - 20.10.2014
AWARD
Inexercise 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/ 110/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 09.07.2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . ECL in dismissing Sri Khudiram Bouri w.e.f. 17.08.2006 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? "
Having received the Order No. L -22012 / 110/2007- IR ( CM - II ) dated 09.07.2007 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 53 of 2007 was registered on 26.07.2007 . 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 ofwitnesses 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 .
In brief the fact stated in the written statement of the workman is that workman namely Sri Khudiram Bouri was in employment of the company Jhanjra 1 & 2 Incline Jhanjra Area , ECL as U /G loader . Workman Sri Khudiram Bouri fell sick . He was treated at Bankola area Hospital w.e.f. 19.01.2006 . Since there was no improvement , for better treatment he went to private practitioner . Being declared fit he reported for duty. But management did not allow him to rejoin his duty. The concerned workman was charge sheeted vide charge sheet No. AGT/ JNP / 1 & 2 / P / CS/06 / 31 dated 25.02.2006 for unauthorized absence . The workman submitted his treatment papers etc. before the Enquiry Officer. Though workman participated in the enquiry proceeding , but he was not given proper opportunity to defend his case . The enquiry officer was highly prejudiced and biased against the concerned workman . The points which were not raised by the management representative were incorporated . Thus the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on record . The management did not follow the principal of natural justice and passed the Dismissal Order without giving any reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence . The dismissal of Sri Khudiram Bouri from the company is illegal and unjustified . The workman belongs to downtrodden community . He is sitting idle without any job his family is at the stage of starvation . It has been prayed by the workman that the management of Jhanjra 1 & 2 Incline , Jhanjra Area , ECL to reinstate the workman 7178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii))
with payment of full back wages for the period from the dateofdismissal with all consequential benefits .
the management delinquent workman was absent from 13.01.2006 without any prior permission or sanctioned leave . Therefore he was charge sheeted for act of misconduct, which is described in the Standing Order. Sri S. K. Pandey argued that the delinquent workman Sri Khudiram Bouri was sick . Due to his sickness he did not intimate the management . There was none on behalf of the workman to intimate the management about his illness. But in spite of that he participated in the enquiry proceeding, but the enquiry proceeding is unfair and biased against the workman Sri Khudiram Bouri . On the other hand Sri P. K. Das , Ld. Adv. on behalf of the management has argued that the delinquent workman was absent from 13.01.2006 without any leave . His absence was unauthorized , therefore departmental enquiry was held. In enquiry report he was found guilty, therefore he was dismissed.
In departmental enquiry the charge sheet is the charter of enquiry proceeding . Service of charge sheet upon delinquent workman and after service of charge sheet the reply of concerned workman is fundamental procedure of domestic enquiry. But in record there is absence of charge sheet . The charge sheet has not been filed by ar parties to the reference . Though in written statement both the parties stated about the charge sheet .
Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report has observed three points:
(i) Sri Khudiram Bouri was absenting from duty since 13.01.2006 .
(ii) He did not send any information .
Written statement has been filed by the management . Management has stated in the written statement that dispute raised by the union is entirely misconceived. The concerned workman Sri Khudiram Bouri was an employee ofJhanjra 1 & 2 Incline , Jhanjra Area, ECL, he was working as CleaningMazdoor . Ex - workman remained absent from his dutyunauthorizedly since 13.01.2006 without any prior permission or station leave and as such the ex - workman was charge sheeted vide charge sheet No. AGT/JNR/P / CS/06/31 dated 25.02.2006 for his act of misconduct as per the provisions of Standing Order applicable to the establishment under clause 26.29 and 26.23 . The domestic enquiry was held into the said charge sheet by the Enquiry Officer. Ex-workman failed to submit any satisfactory reply. Ex-workman duly participated in the enquiry proceeding and all reasonable opportunities were afforded to the workman to defend his case in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Enquiry Officer found ex- workman to be guilty for the charges as labeled against him .After careful consideration of the charge sheet, enquiry proceedings , enquiry report and other connected papers the ex-workman was terminated from his service by the disciplinary authority for his misconduct. The punishment warded to the workman was quite proportionate and befitting . The management has denied in his written statement that workman was sick and he was treated by private practitioner. It is also denied by the management the Enquiry Officer was highly prejudiced and biased against the concerned workman . It is also denied by the management the principle of natural justice was not complied. Termination Order is legal and justified there is no illegality in the Termination Order.
( iii) Sri Khudiram Bouri is habitual absentee.
Workman has filed photo state copy of enquiry proceeding, enquiry report , copy of treatment and copy of dismissal order. Workman Sri Khudiram Bouri has examined himself under oath .
No documentary or oral evidence has been adduced by the management .
So far as point ( i) is concerned, delinquent workman Sri Khudiram Bouri has filed his treatment paper. He treated in Bankola Area hospital of ECL from 19.01.2006 1 25.01.2006 and then referred to Kalla Hospital of ECL senior Medical Officer. From 26.01.2006 to 28.01.200 delinquent workman was under treatment of Dr. Badan Chandra De . Delinquent workman Sri Khudiram Bouri , since he was sick he was absent from duty.
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 .
It is admitted fact that delinquent workman Sri Khudiram Bouri was working as Cleaning Mazdoor in Jhanjra 1 & 2 Incline , Jhanjra Area of ECL before his dismissal . The basis of Dismissal Order is unauthorized absence of the delinquent workman from 13.01.2006
Though Sri Khudiram Bouri , ought to have sen information to the management about his sickness . But enquiry proceeding he didn't send any information to management . So far as point ( iii ) is concerned delinque workman is habitual absentee , no document has been fil in enquiry report . If there is no allegation in the cha sheet, regarding his previous absence . Then, enqu cannot be conducted regarding his previous abseng There is a clear violation of natural justice in enqu proceeding. It has been observed several times clearly different Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Co The Standing Order Eastern Coalfields Limited describes the acts of misconduct. According to the Standing Order if any workman is absent from duty beyond 10 days without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or over staying beyond sanction leave without valid reasons he is guilty of misconduct. As per allegation of 7179
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
that before imposing a punishment of dismissal it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to consider socio- economic background , length of service , past record and other surrounding and compelling circumstances to commit the misconduct . These are the relevant factor which must to be kept in mind by the authority at the time of mposing punishment , which has not been done by the authority in this case . The memorandum of Standing Order laid down under 27( 1 ) where various minor punishment are prescribed to be awarded according to the gravity of the misconduct . Keeping in view the gravity of alleged misconduct, the maximum punishment of dismissal awarded to the delinquent workman is not justified . Unauthorized absence of few months without any mala fide intension , the punishment of dismissal to delinquent workman is not just and proper, rather which is too harsh punishment , which is totally disproportionate to alleged misconduct . Before imposing a punishment , the workman Daght to have been given a show cause notice but absence of such document is apparent in the record .
Considering the whole facts and circumstances of he case , discussed above , I come to conclusion that the ction of the management of M/ s . ECL in dismissing Sri Chudiram Bouri w.e.f. 17.08.2006 is illegal and unjustified. set- a - side the order of dismissal of Sri Khudiram Bouri . Management is directed to re - instate Sri Khudiram Bouri with the continuity of service . I think it appropriate that he delinquent workman be imposed a punishment of toppage of two increments without any cumulative effect . is further directed that the concerned workman will be entitled to get only 50% of the back wages .
ORDER
Let an " Award" be and the same is passed as per bove discussion . Send the copies of the order to the Dovt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for formation and needful . The reference is accordingly sposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 5 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2892.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. एफ. एफ. 1.ओ. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के च . अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक धिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या /2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05/11/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था।
[.सं. एल-42012/53/2004-आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
337 Gl /14-4
New Delhi , the 5th November, 2014
S.O. 2892.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 38/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat ) now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofthe IFFCO , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 05/11/2014.
[No. L-42012/53/2004- IR(CM - II) ] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present : Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer CGIT-cum -Labour Court, Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2014
Reference (C.GI.T.A) No. 38/2005
The General Manager
IFFCO,
...FirstParty Kandla(Kutch)
And
...Second Party Their Workman Shri M.V. Sisodia Plot No. B -53 , 4 -A , IFFCO Society, Adipur , Kutch
Forthe First party : Shri P.S. Gogia, Advocate
For the second party : Workman himself
AWARD
Asper letter No. L -42012/53 /2004 ( IR ( CM -II) ) New Delhi dated 15.04.2005 , the Government of India, Ministry of labour referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of IFFCO, Kandla in terminating the services of Sh . M.V. Sisodia. Junior Security Officer (PGS) Shift Incharge, w.e.f. 12.07.2002 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
2. The parties to the case appear and filed respective pleadings / S.c ( Ext.6 ) by the 2nd party workman and W.s 7180
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 152/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार 05/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/226/2002- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi, the 5th November , 2014
S.O. 2893.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 152/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/ s . Western Coalfields Limited, and their workmen , received bythe Central Government on 05/11/2014 .
(Ext.9) by the 1st party. The 2ndparty (workman) has pleaded that the action of the management of IFFCO in terminating him from the service with effect from 12.07.2007 is quite illegal and unjustified challenged the propriety and validity of the domestic inquiry against him and praying for reinstatement with full back wages . On the other hand the contention of the 1st party interlia is that the reference is not maintainable , the delinquent workman has no cause of action departmental enquiry was conduct in proper manner observing the principles of natural justice and the charges leaved against the delinquent workman was of gross- misconduct which was proved in the domestic enquiry and the punishment of termination awarded to the workman is legal andjustified . The parties have filed their documents in this case . The 1 * party ( IFFCO) has filed the zerox copy ofentire enquiry file . The matter was fixed for evidence of the 2nd party. The 2nd party failed to lead evidence and so his right to lead evidence was closed and the case is running for leading evidence by the 1st party.
[No. L-22012/226/2002 - IR(CM -H)] Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/ NGP/ 152/2003
Date: 09.10.2014 .
PartyNo.1 : The Chairman & Managing Director, s . Western Coalfields Limited , Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur, Nagpur. 440001 .
Versus
Party No.2
3. The parties have amicably settled the dispute in this case by filing memorandum settlement (Ext . 14) and have prayed for disposal of the case and to pass the award in terms of settlement dated 15.05.2014 . From perusal of the memorandum of settlement Ext. 14 it appears that the settlement signed by R.S. Sisodia for and on behalf of the IFFCO (Kandla) identified by the 1st party Lawyer Shri P.S. Gogia, Advocate on one hand and Shri M.V. Sisodia (the 2nd party workman ) whose signature has been identified by Shri R.A. Ambwani , Ex- DGM ( P & A) , IFFCO , Kandla . The memorandum of settlement filed today is in order containing the signature of the parties to the dispute . In the memorandum settlement as per terms of settlement of Shri M.V. Sisodia (2nd party workman ) will withdraw this reference case seeking for relief of reinstatement with back wages and the management will pay on lumpsum amount 0 f
: The Joint General Secretary, Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) , Plot No. 604 , Giripeth, Nagpur, Nagpur: 440010. AWARD (Dated: 9th October, 2014)
Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs . One Lakh Only) to workman Shri M.V. Sisodia in full and final settlement of his all claim and that he will not raise dispute in future and that management of IFFCO shall have no objection ifthe workman gets pension from concerned authority as per rules of the Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 .
4. In such view of the matter this reference case is dismissed as withdrawn by the 2nd party workman in terms of the settlement and the terms of the statement is made part of the award.
In exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their workman , Shri Sandemani Komarayya , for adjudication , as per letter No.L - 22012 /226 / 2002 - IR (CM - II ) dated 11.07.2003 , with the following schedule: -
BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर , 2014
"Whether the demand of the RKKMS from management of M/ s . Western Coalfields Limited Nagpur (Maharashtra) for giving employment under clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wome Agreement- VI to the dependent of Shri Sandema Komarayya S/o Yellaya , Ex - Carpenter , New Majri का.आ. 2893. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 7181 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
the application of the workman for his medical unfitness CollieryNo. 3 after declaring the workman medically unfit for continued employment is legal and justified? If so , to what relief is the said dependent of the workman entitled ? "
2. Onreceipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly , the union , RKKMS ( " the union " in short) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman , Shri Sandemani Komarayya , ( ' the workman " in short ) and the management of Western Coalfields Limited (" Party No. 1 " in short) filed their written statement .
under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA - VI , the workman was directed by the Manager , New Majri Colliery to appear before the Medical Board of the Party No. 1 on 30.12.2000 and accordingly , the workman appeared before the Medical Board at WCL ( HQ) on 30.12.2000 and the workman was communicated by letter dated 01 /16.01.2001 , by the Deputy Personnel Manager , New Majri Sub Area that the 9.4.0 . MedicalBoard examined him on 30.12.2000 and found him fitand being aggrieved by the decision of the 9.4.0 Medical Board , the workman made an appeal to the Chairman - cum- Managing Director , WCL , Nagpur on 10.01.2001 , requesting to refer his case to the Appellate Medical Board . WCL , Nagpur and the workman was directed to appear before the Appellate medical Board on 20.09.2001 and he appeared before the Appellate Medical Board on 20.09.2001 and after his examination by the Appellate Medical Board , the workman got himself medically examined on 25.09.2001 as per the advice of Dr. Jayant Pande , the consulting Neurologist , by undergoing C.T. Scan at Advance Scanning Research Institute Private Limited , Nagpur and on the basis of the C.T. Scan examination , the impression ofthe concerned doctor was that there were small pontine infracts and infracts in both ganliocapsalar and para- ventricular regions , more on left and based on the C.T. Scan report , Dr. Jayant Pande issued a certificate stating that the workman is incapable to perform any useful activity with his right hand due to paralysis and he is unfit to do any responsible job like a carpenter in future and the workman by his representation dated 26.09.2001 requested the Chairman- Cum- Managing Director , the Executive Director (Medical Services ) , CGM ( P ) , the Director (T) , the Director (Technical & Projects ) and Director ( F ) of the party no. 1 to declare him medically unfit due to his suffering from paralysis in right side , enclosing the C.T. Scan report and report of Dr. Pande and the union also , by forwarding the representation dated 26.09.2001 to the authorities requested to declare the workman medically unfit under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA - VI and by communication dated 06.12.2001 , the Deputy Chief Medical Officer , WCL ( HQ ) , Nagpur addressed to Chief General Manager, WCLL , Majri Area conveyed that the Appellate Medical Board had found the workman fit and the finding of the Appellate Medical Board was totally illogical or he greand that the workman's date of retirement was indicated by the said board in its report and the Board intentionally and deliberately declared the workman medically fit , as he was due to retire on 04.12.2001 and the same was with malafide intention to deny employment to the dependent of the workman and such action was illegal and unfair .
The case of the applicants as present by the union in the statement of claim that is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act , 1926 and the workman , Sandemani Komarayya was a permanent workman of New Majri Colliery Mine No. 3 , having been appointed on 31.12.1972 and Party No. 1 is a Government Coal Company fully owned and controlled by the Central Government and is a " State " under article 12 of the Constitution of India and the workman , who was working as a carpenter suffered a paralytic attack in his right side of the body i.e. in right hand and right leg on 06.07.2000 , for which , he was referred to C.T. Scan centre , Chandrapur on 07.07.2000 by Dr. Tikas of Majri Area Hospital of Party No. 1 and in the C.T. Scan Report , Dr. Anil U. Madhurwar , consulting Radiologist and Sonologist , Chandrapur recorded the impression that , "Acute Hemorrhagic infract present in the right middle cerebral artery territory. Another acute moderate size infract present in left middle central artery territory " and on the basis of the said medical report , the workman was granted half pay special leave from 06.07.2000 to 28.12.2000 and the workman received regular treatment from Majri Area Hospital , but he could not recover from the disease of paralysis and he was not fit to work as a carpenter , which job requires the use of both hands and hard labour, but the workman was declared medically fit for duty w.e.f. 28.12.2000 , by the Chief Medical Officer I /C ofMajri Area Hospital , by letter dated 25 / 26.12.2000 and before such declaration , fresh C.T. Scan of the workman was not done by Party No. 1 and the declaration regarding the fitness of the workman for duty from 28.12.2000 by the Chief Medical Officer was without application of mind and not based on any fresh C.T. Scan report and the workman applied for his medical unfitness , under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA - VI , since he was suffering from paralysis and not fit to perform duties of a carpenter and as the workman was illegally declared fit for duty from 28.12.2000 , he was simply marking the attendance and was not performing any kind of work and as the workman was not able to walk even , his son used to bring him every day to the Mine to get his attendance marked in the Time office
and then to take him back to the house and on the basis of
Prayer has been made to declare the decision of the Medical Board dated 30.12.2000 and the Appellate Medical Board dated 20.06.2001 as unjustified and 7182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIΚΑ 24, 1936
[PART II-SEC. 3 (1 ) )
unreasonable and to quash the same and to declare that the workman was medically unfit under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA- VI and to direct the party no . 1 to give employment tothe dependent of the workman with payment of back wages.
3. The party no.1 in the written statement, denying all the adverse allegations made in the statement ofclaim, has pleaded inter-alia that the workman got his normal retirement from service after reaching the age of superannuation on 04.12.2001 and the question of providing employment to a dependent does not arise in case ofnormal retirement of an employee and in the reference the validity of retirement of the workman has not been questioned, therefore, the question of providing employment to his dependant does not arise and the very term of reference being far from the real issue involved is not legally tenable and the workman while in service was a member of the union , "Koyla Shramik Sabha" , which is evident from the check off system and when the cause ofaction is alleged to have arisen, the workman wasnotamember ofthe union and the union is not legally competent to espouse the cause of the workman and this issue was raised in the conciliation and also before the Ministryand since this is a legal issue and the conciliation officer and the Ministry were not competent to decide the issue, the validity of the reference has to be decided by the Tribunal and the dispute relates to Majri colliery falling underthejurisdiction of the ALC (C) , Chandrapur, yet , the ALC, Nagpur intervened under the pressure from Jt.Gen.Secretary of the union and the action of the union to raise an industrial dispute on behalf of a non -member is not only against the provision of law, but also against the ethics of the code of conduct and the validity of the reference on these grounds is questionable .
It isfurther pleaded by the party no.1 that when the industrial dispute was raised by the union on 20.12.2003 , after a gap of nearly two years of the normal retirement of the workman and at the time of raising of thedispute, there was no employer-employee relationship between him and the management and for want of employer-employee relationship , the reference is void and bad in law and hence , not maintainable .
made a representation that he should be medically examined by the Medical Board for the purpose o assessment as to whether he was fit to work, so as provide employment to his dependent in his place and following the provisions of NCWA , the workman wa referred to the Medical Board constituted for the said purpose and he was advised to appear before the Medical Board on 30.12.2000 and while applying for medical examination, the workman had mentioned that due to some accident in the past, his mind was not functioni properly and he was having pain in his waist, eye and stomach and become weak, for which , he was difficulty and he did not mention a word about the alleg paralysis and the Medical Board comprising of doctors examined the workman in accordance with norms and found him medically fit to work and the ofthe Medical Board as received through the CMS conveyed tothe workman vide letter dated 15/ 16.01.2 of the Deputy Personnel Manager, New Majri UG Area and aggrieved by the decision ofthe Medical Bor the workman applied for his examination by the Appell Medical Board, the highest authority provided NCWA and the workman was advised to appear be the Appellate Medical Board on 20.09.2001 and thes Board examined five cases including the case of workman and the assessment of the Appellate Medie Board was also that the workman was fit and member of the Board signed the report and the deck was communicated to the workman vide letter 06.12.2001 and in the meanwhile, the workman wit waiting for the result of the examination of the Appell Medical Board, at the instance of the Shri GVR S the Jt . General Secretary of the union obtained a mod certificate from a private doctor of Chandrapur certifying that the workman was unfit for doin responsible job like a carpenter and the said cent was obliviously manipulated with motivated purpos the said certificate is not admissible in its scheme particularly for the purpose of medical unfitness the provisions of 9.4.0 of NCWA and when the provisions were applied to the case of the workm wasobserved from records that he was not suffering any disease of a permanent nature and when he for receiving the benefit of the provisions of the NC VI , he made complaint of his ill health due to other as mentioned above and not for suffering from and to get the benefit of 9.4.0 of NCWA, there sh loss of employment , but the workman never employment for illness and he worked till the superannuation and received wages till the last dat employment and there was no certification of his by any authority of WCL and therefore, the workm not entitled for the benefit of clause 9.4.0 of NC and the workman approached the management medical unfitness hardly one and half year prior to Thefurther case of party no.1 is that on 06.07.2000, the workman was reported to be suffering from partial paralysis and therefore , he was referred to C.T. Scan centre for assessment of the extent and nature of disease and the doctor did not indicate total disability and the workman to have partially affected by the disease and in order to facilitate his treatment and recovery, he was granted six months special leave at 50% pay in accordance with the relevant provisions of NCWA then applicable and after the completion of the treatment, the company's Physician , examined the workman and found him fit for dutyand he was accordingly advised by the CMO to report for duty, which was complied by him and the workman 7183
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
retirement to make out a case for providing compassionate to his son and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that during the pendency of the reference , workman , Sandemani Komarayya died and the four sons of the deceased workman , namely , Sandemani Ramesh , Sandemani Ravinder , Sandemani Sriniwas and Sandemani Satish filed an application for their substitution in place of their deceased father being his legal representative and the said application was allowed on 29.11.2013 and they were substituted as the legal heirs of the deceased workman .
5. Besidesplacing reliance on documentary evidence , both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective stands . Two witnesses , namely, Lingaswami Ambineni and Polam Rajam have been examined on behalf the petitioner . One Shailendra Shende , a Senior Manager (Personnel ) has been examined as the only witness on behalf of the party no.1 . The respective examination - in- chief of all the witnesses is on affidavit .
6 . The two witnesses examined on behalf at the petitioner have stated that in the first week of July, 2000 , the workman suffered from paralysis as a result ofwhich , he was not able to attend his duty and he was granted half pay leave for some days and Ravinder , the son of the workman was bringing him daily to the Time office on cycle to have his attendance marked and after marking of the attendance , Ravinder was taking the workman back to his house and the management paid full salary to the workman till December , 2001 after marking his attendance only.
The first witness for the petitioner in his cross- examination has stated that the workman retired on 31.12.2001 on superannuation after reaching the age of 60 years and the workman was declared fit for resume duty on 28.12.2000 and on the application of the workman , he was sent for his medical examination by the management to the medical board on 30.12.2000 and the workman appeared before the medical board and was declared fit for duty by the Medical Board and after the workman was declared medically fit , he was coming to the colliery and his attendance was being marked and he was paid regular wages till the date of his retirement and the workman was also examined by the Appellate Medical Board on 20.09.2001 and the Appellate Medical Board also declared him fit .
The second witness for the petitioner has also stated that the workman retired from service on 31.12.2001 on superannuation after attaining the age of 60 years and he was paid regular wages by the management till the date of hisretirement .
7 . The evidence of the witness for the party No.1 is in the line of the stands taken by the party No. 1 in its written statement . This witness has also proved the documents relating to the medical examinations and retirement ofthe workman as Exts . M - II to M - IX .
In his cross - examination , this witness has stated that he cannot say who were the members of the Appellate Medical Board , who had examined the workman on 20.09.2001 and he cannot say if at the time of the examination of the workman by the Appellate Medical Board , all the members of the said Board were present or not and the result of the examination of the Appellate Medical Board was communicated to the workman on 06.12.2001 .
8. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the Union representative that in view of the schedule of reference , the issues required to be considered are as to whether the action of the party No.1 in declaring the workman fit for duty, even though he was suffering from the disease of Paralysis and denying employment to the dependent of the workman , in view of the provisions of clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA - VI is fair and justified and it is not disputed by the party No.1 that the workman suffered from Paralysis during the period of his service and he was granted special half pay leave for the same , under clause 6.4.2 of the NCWA - VI and suffering of the workman from paralysis was diagnosed by the physician ofWCL hospital and the workman was also sent for C.T. Scanby the said physician and special leave was granted to the workman on the recommendation of the said physician , but subsequently , the workman was declared fitby the same physician , without referring the workman for C.T. Scan test and such declaration was unjustified and unfair and even though , the workman was illegally declared fit , he did not perform the work of a carpenter from the date of declaring him fit till the date of his retirement on 31.12.2001 and the workman was also examined by the Medical Board on 30.12.2000 , as he submitted an application to declare him unfit and to give employment to his dependent and in the medical examination report submitted by the Medical Board , it has been mentioned that the workman is in the process of recovery and advised to carry out the physiotherapy, which clearly indicates that the workman was still suffering from paralysis and he was not fully recovered from the same and the workman was not freshly subjected to C.T. Scan test on 30.12.2000 by the Medical Board to arrive at a reasonable decision and as such , the report submitted by the Medical Board declaring the workman fit was totally unfair and unjustified and the workman filled an appeal on 10.01.2001 before the Appellate Medical board and demanded for his examination by such Appellate Medical Board and he was directed to appear before theAppellate Medical Board on 20.09.2001 and the Appellate Medical Board also declared the workman fit after examining him on 20.09.2001 , but there was abnormal delay in communicating the decision of the Appellate MedicalBoard and the same communicated to the workman 7184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIΚΑ 24, 1936
only on 06.12.2001 and the abnormal delay of about 3 months to convey the decision of the Appellate Medical Board to the workman has not been explained by the management before this Tribunal and on 20.09.2001 , except theExecutive Director (Medical Services ) who examined the workman, none of the other members of the Appellate Medical Board were present and the workman was not subjected to C.T. scan test and no report assigning reasons for declaring the workman fit was prepared by the AppellateMedical Board and some of the members ofthe said Board were on leave on 20.09.2001 and the other members have signed the report later on without putting anydate and such report smacks of ill motive on the part ofthe other members of the Appellate Medical Board to grantjustice to the workman and as the Appellate Medical Board did not subject the workman for C.T. scan, the workman voluntarily got himself examined by a neuro- physician of Nagpur , Dr. Jayant Pande and the workman was sent for radiological test and he was granted a certificatedeclaring of his still suffering from paralysis in left hand and left leg and that he cannot recover from the disease of paralysis and the said certificate together with the radiology report was submitted to the members of the AppellateMedical Board by the workman subsequent to 20.09.2001 , but still then , the workman was not re- examined by the Appellate Medical Board and the decision of the Appellate Medical Board was illegal and unjustified and the action of party no.1 in not declaring the workman medicallyunfit is illegal and unjustified and the dependent ofthe workman is entitled for employment as per the provisions of clause 9.4.0 of NCWA - VI , by declaring the workman unfit with effect from 20.09.2001 or from 06.12.2001.
9. Per contra . it was submitted by the representative for the management that the workman got his normal retirement from service after reaching the age of superannuation on 31.12.2001 as per the Rules of the company and as the workman served the company till last day of his retirement , the question of giving employment to his dependant under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA does not arise and the very term of reference being far from the real issue involved is not legally tenable and under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA , employment to one dependent of the employee , who became permanently disabled arising from injury or disease resulting into loss of employment and certified by the Coal Company concerned can be given, but in this case, the workman was not declared medically unfit and served the company till the last date of his superannuation and for that his dependent of workman the reference is liable to be answered in the negative and against the workman .
10. For better appreciation , I think it necessary to mention the necessary sub - clauses of clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA - VI , before delving into the merit of the case . Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA - VI reads as follows: -
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
(i ) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into oss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned.
(ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by the Coal Company, the employee concerned will be eligible for the benefit under this clause if he/she is up to the age of 58 years . The term 'general physical debility ' would mean deficiency ofa workman due to any disease or other health reason leading to his/ her duties regularly or efficiently.
(iii) (iv)
It is clear from the provision of clause 9.4.0 NCWA - VI that to get the benefit of employment by dependent of a worker , it is necessary to show that the worker became disabled from injury or disease of permanent nature resulting into loss of employment to be certified by the Coal Company concerned. It is also clear from the provisions of clause 9.4.0 ( ii ) that in case of disablement arising out of general physical debility an certified by the Coal Company, the employee concerne will be eligible for the benefit under this clause if he/she is up to the age of 58 years and the term " general physical debility" would mean deficiency of a workman due any disease or other health reason leading to his/her dutie regularly and/ or efficiently.
11. Keeping in mind the provisions of clause 9.4.0 NCWA - VI , now , the present case in hand is to considered.
It is the own case of the workman that he suffer a paralysis attack in his right side body on 06.07.2 and due to such attack , his right hand and right leg paralysed and he became disabled. It is also the adal case that the workman retired from service on atta the age of 60 years on superannuation on 31.12.2 So, the workman was more than 58 years of a 06.07.2000, when he suffered from general physi disability as per his own claim . So , as per clause ( ii ) of NCWA - VI the workman was not entitled for benefit of the provision of clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA 12. It is also the admitted case that the workman declared fit by the medical officer, Medical Board also, theAppellate Medical Board of the party no.1 . workman was never declared unfit to work by the no.1 . The workman was never declared to be perm disabled by the coal company concerned and there also no loss of employment of the workman , as it admitted case that the workman retired from servic 31.12.2001 on superannuation and he was paid his fullyby party no.1 till the date of his retirement .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7185
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
provisions of clause 9.4.0 (i ) of NCWA - VI are also not applicable to the case of the workman.
In view of the findings as given above , submission made by the union that the reports submitted by the Medical officer, Medical Board and Appellate Medical Board declaring the workman " fit " even though he was laterally unfit of work were illegal and unjustified does not deserved consideration . Hence , it is ordered: -
ORDER
The demand of the RKKMS from the management ofM/ s . Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur ( Maharashtra ) for giving employment under clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement - VI to the dependent of Shri Sandemani Komarayya S/ o Yellaya , Ex - Carpenter , New Majri Colliery No. 3 after declaring the workman medically unfitfor continued employment is illegal and unjustified . The workman or his legal heirs are not entitled to any
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 5 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2894. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 जो 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल . प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 02/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05/11/2014 को प्राप्त आ था ।
[सं. एल-22013 /01/2014- आईआर (सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 5th November , 2014
S.O. 2894.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central overnment hereby publishes the Award ( 1.D. No. 02/2012 ) the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour ourt . Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the ndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to ne management of the WCL and their workmen , which as receivedby the Central Government on 05/11/2014
[No. L - 22013 / 1/ 2014 - IR( C - II ) ]
B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT -CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
CGIT /NGP/ Application No. 02/2012
Date : 25.09.2014 .
Applicant : Subhash S / o Ramchandraji Dhanfule , A workman of Kolar Pimpri Opencast Mine , Western Coalfields Limited , P.O. Bhallar , Tahsil Wani , Distt . Yavatmal , Maharashtra ( Represented through the Joint Secretary, RKKMS ( INTUC ) Union ,
Nagpur. Versus
Respondents : ( 1 ) The Employer in relation to the
Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. , Kolar Pimpri Sub Area at Pimpri , P.O. Bhallar , Tahsil Wani Distt . Yavatmal , Through its Sub Area Manager .
(2) The Employer in relation to the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. , Kolar Pimpri Opencast Mine at Pimpri , P.O. Bhallar , Tahsil Wani Distt . Yavatmal , Through its Superintendent of Mines /Colliery Manager .
AWARD
(Dated: 25th September , 2014 )
1 . This is an application filed by the applicant , Shri Subhash Ramchandraji Dhanfule ( " the applicant " in short ) through the union , " Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( " the union " in short ) , under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( "the Act " in short) read with rule 59 of the Industrial Disputes ( central) Rules , 1957 ( " the Rules " in short ) against , Western Coalfields Limited , represented by the Sub Area Manager , Kolar Pimpri Sub Area and Superintendent of Mines / Colliery Manager, Kolar Pimpri Opencast Mine , Pimpri , the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively, to quash the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the respondents .
2. The case of the applicant as presented in the application is that he has been in employment of the Western Coalfieids Limited (" WCL" in short ) , since 1981 and has been rendering his services ably and efficiently from the date of his appointment and he has been working under respondent No.2 , since 06.05.1994 and he was promoted as Shovel Operator in Excavation Category "A" , with the scale of pay and allowances prescribed under the National Coal Wages Agreement ( " the NCWA " in short ) , for the said post and he was given service linked up-gradation to Excavation Category Special Grade , w.e.f 01.01.2003 , on completion of eight years of service in category " A " and as he was not promoted to the higher post within the said eight years and he was granted one service linked increment w.c.f. 01.01.2011 and such 7186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIKA 24 , 1936
increment under the NCWA is being granted to the employees who are being placed in highest category and could not get promotion further for want of any further career growth scheme and in Excavation Category, "Special grade" is the highest grade and inspite of such up-gradation and increment , his designation remained as shovel operator without any change and on 28.05.1996 , he was authorized to work as Pit Supervisor in Kolar Pimpri opencast mine and he has been performing the job of Pit Supervisor under the respondent No.2 from 28.05.1996 and the management of WCL , Nagpur had signed a settlement under section 18 (2) of the Act with the union on 02.11.1992 and in the said settlement , it was agreed by WCL to regularize the services of employees , in case of engagement of the employees for 240 days in a calendar year in a post , irrespective of the availability of the sanctioned post .
The further case of the applicant is that he is a regular member of the union and as he had put in more than 240 days of attendance as Pit Supervisor, the union raised a demand on his behalf to regularize him as Pit Supervisor w.e.f. 01.01.1997 , but management of WCL did not agree for the same and as such , the union raised anindustrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer-cum- Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Chandrapur and on failure of the conciliation , the conciliation officer submitted the failure report to the Central Governinent and the Central Government referred the industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication and on the basis ofthe reference, Reference case No. CGIT/NGP/ 8/ 2009 wasregistered by this Tribunal and the statement ofclaim and documents were filed in the said case on his behalf on 05.12.2011 , as per the direction of the Tribunal and inspite of notice , the management did not appear in the said reference in time and the representative of the management appeared in the said case only on 26.06.2012 and collected the copies of the statement of claim and documents and then , the respondent No.1 directed the respondent No.2 to issue office order directing him (applicant) to work as Hydraulic Excavation Operator (shovel operator) in relay/shift " A " , w.e.f. 04.07.2012 and the order was issued on 30.06.2012 and the order dated 30.06.2012 was the outcome of the ill motives of the respondents and the said order revealed that he was not being engaged by respondent No.2 as shovel operator and with a malafide intention, he was directed by respondent No.2 to work as a shovel operator and such order was only to show in the case , CGIT/NGP/ 8 / 2009 that he has not been working as a Pit Supervisor, but working as a shovel/Excavator Operator and the order dated 30.06.2012 was in contravention of section 33 of the Act, in view of the pendency of the case , CGIT/NGP/ 8 / 2009 and on receipt of the order dated 30.06.2012 , he raised objection before the respondent No.2 on 01.07.2012 , pointing out that his service conditions cannot be changed
[PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
duringthe pendency ofthe complaint for his regularization as Pit Supervisor before the CGIT and the said objection was received by the respondent on 03.07.2012 and the action of the respondents in directing him to work as a shovel operator, instead of as a Pit Supervisor, without obtaining specific permission from the court of CGIT amounted to contravention of section 33 of the Act and as such , it is necessary to set aside the order and to allow him to work as Pit Supervisor.
The applicant has further pleaded that the respondent No.2 has been issuing letters to him from 06.07.2012 stating therein that he had been marked on the basis of " no work no pay" on the ground that in spite of the direction of the authorities , he did not work as excavator/ shovel operator , even though he reported for duty on 05.07.2012 , 06.07.2012, 07.07.2012, 08.07.2012 and10.07.2012 and such orders of respondent No.2 are illegal and denial of payment of wages for those days to him is illegal and unlawful .
Prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order dated 30.06.2012 and other necessary orders .
3. Boththe respondents have filed a joint reply to the application , denying all the adverse allegations and pleading inter alia that there was never any violation of section 33 of the Act by them and reference No. CGIT/ NGP/8 /2009 was made by the Government, vide order dated 18.02.2009 and at the relevant time , the applicant was designated as shovel operator and was paid wages of shovel operator and it was obvious that he was working as a shovel operator and was drawing wages of shovel operator and they had not brought about any change his status/service conditions immediately preceding the date of reference and vide order dated 30.06.2012, th applicant was instructed to work in relay " A" with change in his working status and the applicant in application dated 15.07.2012 submitted to the Manager had mentioned his designation as shovel operator an there is no service condition that a workman will wor always in a particular shift and the deployment of employees in different shifts depending on the need the prerogative of the management and in order to hay proper utilization of man power and in the interest production, there has to be flexibility in accordance para 8 of the certified standing order and at the relev time, there was shortage of shovel operator, a hig skilled job , in relay " A" and as such , it was necessary direct the applicant to work in relay "A" and changin ofhis shift did not amount to change of service condit and reference case CGIT / NGP / 8 /2009 was regularisation of the applicant as Pit Supervisor and about his placement in a particular shift and therefore, office order dated 30.06.2012 in no way amounted change of service condition and the claim regularisation in the relevant reference was w.e.
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7187
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24, 1936
01.01.1997 and therefore, the situation prevailing prior to 01.01.1997 has to be taken into account for deciding the claim and the office order dated 30.06.2012 would not affect the merit of the claim of the applicant adversely and application of settlement dated 02.11.1992 to the claim of the applicant is subject to interpretation and the question of payment to an employee , who did not work though remained present is subject matter of industrial dispute and does not fall under section 33 of the Act and hence not entertainable under the instant application and the applicant was not a pit supervisor nor there was such post and as such , the question of preventing him from working as pit supervisor does not arise and the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
4. Insupport of their respective claims, both the parties have placed reliance on documentary evidence . Besides the documentary evidence , three witnesses including the applicant have been examined by the union . No oral evidence has been adduced by the respondents .
The examination-in- chief of the three witnesses , namely, Shri Gajanan N. Pidurkar, Shri Prakash R. Musle and the applicant , Shri Subhash R. Dhanfule is on affidavit.
Intheir evidence , witnesses , Shri Pidurkar and Shri Musle have stated that the applicant was working as a pitsupervisor for the last ten years at Kolar Pimpri Opencast Colliery and they were informed by the applicant that he was duly authorized in writing to work as the pit supervisor by the Superintendent of Mines of Kolar Pimpri and as he protested against the order of the Superintendent of Mines to work as shovel operator , a charge sheet dated 14.07.2012 was submitted against him and he was suspended from service .
In their cross - examination " the said witnesses have stated that they cannot say the initial date of appointment of the applicant and to which post he was appointed and they cannot say in what post the workman was working before he was appointed as shovel operator and they have not seen any office order or appointment order directing the applicant to work as pit supervisor . They have also admitted that the management had ordered directing the applicant to operate PC machine/ shovel , but the applicant did not obey the directions of the management and denied to operate the PC machine/ shovel and works in colliery are being done in three shifts and one mining engineer/ under manager.remains in charge of each shift to direct and supervise the engagement of shovels , dumpers and other machineries and the engagement of the applicant was in the general shift and the workman was working as per the direction of the shift in charge. The witness No.1 has further stated that there was a pit supervisor duly appointed by the management for the general shift , but he does not remember his name . The witness No.2 has stated that he cannot say if there was a pit supervisor duly appointed by the management in the general shift .
4337 Gl /14-5
5. In his evidence on affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the facts mentioned in the application . However, in his cross -examination , the applicant has categorically admitted that he was never appointed as a pit supervisor. He has stated that he was authorized by Shri Laghore , the mine Manager of Kolar Pimpri Colliery to act as pit supervisor and he was working in general shift and Ravindra Pal Singh was the pit supervisor of the general shift in which he was working . The applicant has further admitted that verbally he was directed to operate the shovel/P.C . machine . He has admitted the suggestions that he did not obey the direction of the management and denied to operate the shovel/ P.C. machine and for disobedience of orders , management suspended him and Ext. W- IV is a document filed by him having the heading, "Bio-data of shovel operator excavation , Category "A" to shovel operator Excavation , category " special " , Wani North Area, 2008-09 " and at the time of the DPC held in 2008-09 , his designation was shovel operator, category "А" .
The applicant has further admitted that Mr. Laghore was transferred on 05.05.1997 and after the transfer of Mr. Laghore, six managers had been posted one after the other at Kolar Pimpri Opencast Mine and the managers posted subsequent to Mr. Laghore did not give any authorization in writing in his favour to act as pit supervisor and in the attendance register, pay slips and all other registers of the company, his designation has been mentioned as shovel operator and he has no idea if the post of pit supervisor had been abolished since long and he was given service linked up-gradation to special category w.e.f. 01.01.2012 vide order dated 22.12.2012 and he did not object for such up-gradation and he did not receive the order dated 30.06.2012 .
6. In his argument, the union representative has reiterated the facts mentioned in the application .
It is to be mentioned here that on the date fixed for argument, the respondents did not appear and as such , no argument was advanced on behalf of the respondents .
7. As this is an application under section 33 -A of the Act, for contravention of the provisions of section 33 ( 1 ) oftheAct, for better appreciation of the matter, I think it proper to mention the provision of section 33 ( 1 ) of the Act.
33. Conditions of service , etc. , to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.
(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before (an arbitrator or) a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employee shall- 7188
[PART II-SBC.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15, 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice ofthe workman concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediatelybefore the commencement of such proceeding ; or
applicant . The applicant himselfhas admitted that Rav Pal Singh was the Pit Supervisor of the general which shift he was working. The witness No.1 has stated that there was a Pit Supervisor in the generall duly appointed by the management . Witness No. 2 applicant has stated that he cannot say as to there was a Pit Supervisor in the general shift or not. the oral evidence is of no avail to the applicant to thathe was working as a Pit Supervisor.
(b) for any misconduct connect with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute,
Save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.
The evidence on record shows that the was working as a shovel/P.C . operator and not Supervisor.
8. In this case, it is the admitted case of the parties that during the pendency of reference case No. CGIT/ NGP/8 / 2009 before this Tribunal , regarding the regularisation of the applicant as pit supervisor, order dated30.06.2012 was passedby the respondents directing the applicant to work in relay " A " of Kolar Pimpri Opencast Mine as shovel/PC operator .
More ever, on perusal of the impugned order 30.06.2012, it is found that by the said order, the won was directed to work in relay " A" instead of the shift . In the said order also, the designation of the wo was mentioned as shovel /P.C . operator. Nothing he mentioned in the said order that the applicant was asPit Supervisor and he was directed to work as P.C. operator instead of Pit Supervisor. Order 30.06.2012, directing the applicant to work in relay instead of the general shift cannot be said to be ch any service condition of the applicant in violation o provisions of Section 33 of the Act and as such, application under Section 33 A of the Act is maintainable. Hence , it is ordered:-
ORDER
The application filed by the Union on behalf of applicant , Subhash R. Dhanfule is rejected being ofmerit. The applicant is not entitled to any relief
J. P. CHAND, Presiding According to the applicant , he was working as pit supervisor under the respondent No. 2, Superintendent ofMines/Colliery Manager of Kolar Pimpri Opencast Mine, being authorized by him and after receipt of the copy ofthe statement of claim and copies of documents filed by him in case No. CGIT/ NGP/ 8 / 2009 , the respondents in contravention of Section 33 of the Act, changed his service condition by passing the order dated 30.06.2012 and directing him to work as shovel/PC operator, instead of pit supervisor. The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant of his working as pit supervisor. According to the respondents , the applicant was working as shovel/PC operator and he was simply asked to work in relay "A" instead of the general shift, by order dated 30.06.2012 and the same cannot be said tobe change of any service condition.
नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2014
9. Perused the record including the evidence , both oral and documentary produced by the parties . Considered the submissions made by the Union representative.
का.आ. 2895.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार की. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मका अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( 76/1992 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/239/1991 - आईआर एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग
New Delhi , the 7th November, 2014 So far the documentary evidence is concerned; admittedly all the documents including Ext . W- IV ( filed by the applicant himself) show that the workman was designated as shovel operator and he was being paid wages as shovel operator and he accepted the same without any objection . In his application at paragraph 4 also, the applicant has categorically mentioned about his up-gradation as special grade in the Excavation Category w.e.f. 01.01.2003 and grant of service linked increment w.e.f. 01.01.2011 and he accepted the same . No document has been filed in this case to show that the applicant was authorized to work as a Pit Supervisor. The documentary evidence on record do not support the claim of the workman thathewas working as a Pit Supervisor w.e.f. 28.05.1996.
10. So far the oral evidence is concerned , as already mentioned above, the same demolishes the claim of the
S.O. 2895.-In pursuance of Section 17 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 7 ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Court No. - 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annex Industrial Dispute between the management 7189
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
M / s. BCCL , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L - 20012/239 / 1991 - IR( C - I ) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , DHANBAD
Reference : No. 76/1992
In the matter of reference U / S 10 ( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of I.D. Act , 1947
Employer in relation to the management of Basdeopur Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL , AND Their workmen .
Present : Sri R. K. SARAN , Presiding Officer .
Appearances:
: None
or the Employers
: None
or the workman .
State: Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 9/10/2014
AWARD
By order No. L - 20012 /239 / 1991 - IR ( C - 1 ) ) dated 6/08/1992 , the Central Government in the Ministry of abour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause 1 ) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following spute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the deinand of National Coal Workers Congress for treating S / Shri Kusundar Kumar Gupta , Libindar Kumar Gupta , Raj Kumar Gupta , Gulab Chand Yadav and Anil Kumar Ram as departmental worker of Basdeorpur Colliery and placing them in proper grade as laid down in NCWA is justified ? If so , to what relief these workmen are entitled ? "
After receipt of the reference , both parties are ticed . But appearing for certain dates none appears bsequently. Case remain pending . It is felt that the sputes between the parties have been resolved in the cantime . Hence No Dispute Award is passed . mmunicate .
R. K. SARAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का. आ. 2896. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. सी . एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 214/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/331/2001- आईआर ( सी- I ) ] एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2896. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 214/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. - 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/ s . CCL , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L -20012/331 /2001 - IR( C - I ) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO.1 ) , DHANBAD .
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U /S 10 ( 1 ) ( D) . (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947 .
Ref. No. 214 of 2001
Employers in relation to the management of Kathara Colliery M/ s . CCL
AND. Their workmen .
Present : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN , Presiding officer
Appearances:
:
For the Employers .
Sri Advocate D.K.Verma ,
For the workman .
: Sri D. Mukherjee , Advocate
Industry : Coal State : Jharkhand Dated 25/09/2014
AWARD
By Order No.L - 20012 /331 / 2001 - IR ( C - I ) , dated 21 / 09/2001 , the Central Government in the Ministry of labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :
7190
[PART II-SBC . 3(i)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15, 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
Court No. - 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the M/s . BCCL and their workmen which was received by the Central Government 7/11/2014.
"Whether the refusal by the management of BCCL, Kathara Colliery to give advance increment to Shri IftekharAhmad and Shri Suraj Lal Turi for attaining proficiency in Hindi is justified? If not to what reliefthe workmen entitled and from what date ?"
[No. L-20012/237/ 1991 -IR( CI)
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
2 The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 01.11.2001 ..The workman files their written statement on 15.09.2005 . The management files written statement on 28.4.2010 . Thereafter rejoinder and document filed by the parties . The workman's document marked as W- I to W-4 . one witness examined on behalf of the workman as WW- 1 .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , DHANBAD
Reference: No. 67/1992
Inthe matter of reference U/ S 10 (1 ) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act , 1947
3. The short point involved in the case is as to whether the workmen who have passed sahitya Alankar which is equivalent B.A is entitled to one advance increment or not .
Employer in relation to the management of Kenduadih Colliery of M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
4. This Preliminary point that raised the workman who are working admittedly in CCL have been shown as workman of BCCL in the schedule of reference . Though the management raised preliminary objection , theworkman did not bring corrigendum of the schedules ofreference,
Present : Sri R. K. SARAN , Presid ...g Officer .
Appearances:
5. The law is very much clear that Tribunal will not go beyond the reference , in any case .
: None
Forthe Employers
For the workman .
: None
: Coal
State: Jharkhand . Industry
6. That being the situation , This Tribunal can not go beyond the reference . Moreover Sahitya Alankar degree is equivalent to B.A degree , there is no Government or university notification.
Dated: 13/10/2014
AWARD
7. Therefore this Tribunal is not in a position to give any relief to the workman .
Thisismy award
R. K. SARAN , Presiding officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2014
By order No. L-20012/237 / 1991 / IR (C - 1 ) ) dated 29 07/1992, the central Government in the Ministry of Lab has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( 4) sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of section. 10 of th Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispe for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh protection ofpay of Shri Akbar Ansari and 20 o who were appointed as Miner/ Loader but subsequently converted to time rate job is justified If so , to what relief they are entitled?" का.आ. 2897. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/1992) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।
Annexure
[सं. एल-20012/237/1991- आईआर ( सी -1 ) ]
Listofworkmen
135382 H/Operator
1 . Baswan Harijan
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी
2. Dhaneswar Yadab 135385 pumpOperator New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
135386 do
3. Ibhmail Mian
4. Rawbewak Saw
135388 do
5. Naro Barhi
135298 Propmazdoor S.O. 2897. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 67/1992) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7191
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
135136
6. Faudi Singh
PropMazdoor
Dewiashi Gorain 135292 do
7.
Kamal Saw
135296 do
8.
135299 do
9. Tejan Saw
135286 do
10. Sohan Saw
11 . Ramdeo
135515 do
135522
12. Rambali Rajbhar
PumpOperator
135582 do
Lalji Ahir
13.
135262
14. Babulal Saw
H/ Operator
135550 Drillmin 15 . Satish Mahato
135374
16 . Ramdhari Beldar
Stowing Mazdoor
135376 do
17. Akbar Ansari
do
135375
18. Lochan Harijan
135518 do
19. Birju Mahato
20. Lachho Saw
135231 Dresser
135255 Dresser 21. Niranjan Saw
2.. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed . But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently. Case remain pending . It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime . Hence No Dispute Award is passed . Communicate .
R. K. SARAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2898.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/66/2009- आईआर ( सीएम -1 ) ] एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November, 2014
S.O. 2898.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 54/2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. - 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in
[No. L -20012/66/2009 - IR( CM - I ) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1) , DHANBAD.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE u/s 10( 1 )( D )( 2A) of I.D. Act, 1947 Ref. No. 54 of2009
Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN , Presiding officer
Appearances :
: Sri U. N. Lall , Advocate For the Employers ,
For the workman .
: Sri R. R. Ram, Rep ,
State : Jharkhand . Industry : Coal
Dated 26/09/2014
AWARD
By Order No. L 20012 /66/ 2009 - IR-( CM - 1 ) , dated 12/ 10/2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :
" ( i ) Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Colliery of M / S BCCL in not regularizing the service of Smt Dehlia Kamin as Security Guard is justified and legal ? ( ii ) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? "
2 The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 21,10.2009 . The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 19.11.2009 . Thereafter the management files theirwritten statement - cum - rejoinder on 15.11.2011 .
3. The short point to be decided In the case is whether the workman is to be regularized in the post of security Guard or not .
4. Theworkman demanded as she has been designated assecurity guard , she be regularized in the said post . On the other hand it is submitted by the management counsel , to be onfirmed as security guard as per scheme , one must be literate but the workman is illiterate and putting her LTI on her deposition.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that , since the workman did not have requisite 7192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014 /KARTIKA 24 , 1936
qualification, she cannot be regularized as security Guard . Hence her claim is refused.
This ismy award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2899.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/ 77/2013- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2899. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 78/2013 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , received bythe Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L- 22012/ 77/2013 - IR( CM - II) ] Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑΙK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT ATHYDERABAD
Present: Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day of August , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 78/2013
Between:
The President ,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) ,
Telengana Trade Union Council ,
H. No. 5-295, Indranagar ,
Opp.Bus Stand,
Mancherial - 504208 .
Adilabad District .
...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager ,
Company Ltd. ,
M/s . Singareni Collieries BellampalliArea, Goleti Township- 504292.
Adilabad District.
...Respondent
[PART I-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 / 77 / 2013 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 8/7/2013 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampalli Are , Goleti Township (PO) , Adilabad Distt. , in terminating the services of Sri Katla Laxminarayana , Ex-Coal Filler , Goleti - I Inc. , SCCo Ltd. , Bellampalli Area, with effect from 19.7.1999 is justified or not? Ifnot, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.78 / 2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement. documents .
3. At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not makin any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Office
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined fort Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2900.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 19)
का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगि 7193
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 80/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/60/2013- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2900.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 80/ 2013 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M / s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workman, received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L -22012/60/2013 - IR(CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 14th day ofAugust , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 80/2013
Between:
The President ,
( Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) ,
Telengana Trade Union Council ,
H.No. 5-295 , Indranagar , Opp . Bus Stand , Mancherial 504208 . Adilabad District .
...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager ,
M/ s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampally Area , Goleti Township - 504292 . Adilabad District .
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L - 22012 / 60/ 2013 - IR( CM - II) dated 8/7/2013 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township( PO) , Adilabad Distt . , in terminating the services of Sri Kannepalli Venkaty , Ex- Badli Filler , Goleti - 2 Inc. , SCCo Ltd. , Bellampalli Area, with effect from 20.4.1998 is justified or not? If not , to what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.80 /2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned .
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement and documents .
3. At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking interest in appearing before the Tribunal and is not making any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly . Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2901.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 77/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/78/2013- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी 7194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
NewDelhi , the 7th November, 2014
S.O. 2901.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 77/2013 ) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/s. Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , received bythe CentralGovernment on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L-22012/78/2013 - IR(CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day ofAugust , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 77/2013
Between:
The President,
(SriBandari Satyanarayana) ,
Telengana Trade Union Council ,
H. No. 5-295, Indranagar,
Opp.Bus Stand, Mancherial- 504208 .
Adilabad District .
... Petitioner
AND
TheGeneral Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampally Area , Goleti Township-504292.
Adilabad District.
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labourby its Order No. L - 22012 / 78 /2013 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 8/7/2013 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 )(d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampalli Area,
[PART II-SEC. 3(1 ) ]
Goleti Township (PO), Adilabad Distt . , in terminating the services ofSri Parvathi Gattaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, Goleti- I Inc. , SCCo . Ltd. , Bellampalli Area, with effect from 21.5.2007 is justified or not ? If not, to what reliefthe applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.77 / 2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.
3. At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving fairopportunity again and again Petitioner is not making any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix ofevidence
Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2902.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947) का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों क अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औ अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ 76/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -22012/79/2013- आईआर ( सीएम -१।
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क आ
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2902.-In pursuance of Section 17 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Ca Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 76/20 ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-L Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure Industrial Dispute between the management M/s. Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen, was received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014
[No. L- 22012/79 /2013 -IR( C) Β. Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Desk O [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7195
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 14th day of August , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 76/2013
Between :
ThePresident ,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana ) ,
Telengana Trade Union Council ,
H. No. 5-295 , Indranagar ,
Opp. Bus Stand ,
Mancherial - 504208 .
Adilabad District .
...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager ,
M/ s . Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd. ,
Bellampally Area , Goleti Township - 504292. Adilabad District .
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 / 79 / 2013 - IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 8/7/2013 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampalli Area , Goleti Township ( PO) , Adilabad Distt . , in terminating the services of Sri Kalaboina Mondaiah , Ex- Coal Filler , Goleti - I Inc. , SCCo Ltd. , Bellampalli Area , with effect from 24.7.2000 isjustified or not ? If not , to what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.76 /2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned .
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement and documents.
4337 G1 /14-6
3. At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceedings . He is not appearing before the Tribunal and is not making any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly . Transmit . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2903.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/80/ 2013- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2903. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 75/2013 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M / s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014.
[No. L - 22012/ 80/2013 - IR ( CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer Dated the 6th day of August , 2014 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 75/2013 7196
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIΚΑ 24, 1936
Between:
The President ,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) ,
Telengana Trade Union Council,
H. No. 5-295 , Indranagar ,
Opp . Bus Stand, Mancherial 504208 .
...Petitioner Adilabad District .
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd. ,
Bellampally Area , Goleti Township - 504292 . Adilabad District .
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/ 80 /2013 - IR (CM- II ) dated 8/7/2013 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township ( PO) , Adilabad Distt . , in terminating the services of Sri Peddaboina Ramakistu , Ex- Coal Filler , Goleti - I Inc. , SCCo Ltd. , Bellampalli Area , with effect from 14.3.2002 is justified or not ? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.75 / 2013 and notices are issued to the parties concerned.
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement by Petitioner union .
3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2904. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं 67/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/46/2013- आईआर ( सीएम -11 ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2904. In pursuance of Section 17 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2013 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labe Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workma received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L-22012/46/2013 - IR( CM -41 B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Offi Dated the 21st day ofAugust, 2014 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 67/2013
Between:
The President,
( Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) , Telengana Trade Union Council ,
H. No. 5-295 , Indranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial - 504208 . Adilabad District .
... Petitioner भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7197
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2014 /कार्तिक 24 , 1936
AND
ne General Manager ,
Vi/ s . Singareni Collieries
ompany Ltd. ,
Kamagundam - I Area ,
jodavarikhani - 505209 .
Karimnagar District .
...Respondent
Appearances :
or the Petitioner : Party in person
or the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by order No. L - 22012 / 46/ 2013 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 0/5/2013 referred the following dispute under Section ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this ribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni oilieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The ference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Ramagundam- I Area , Godavarikhani , Karimnagar Distt . , in terminating the services of Sri Kurimilla Narasaiah , Ex - BF, GDK - 5 Inc. , SCCo Ltd. , Ramagundam - I Area , Godavarikhani with effect from 14.4.2002 isjustified or not? If not , to what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. 57/2013 and notices were issued to the parties ncerned .
Case is posted for filing of claim statement and cuments .
At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim tement not filed . No representation . Inspite of giving opportunity again and again Petitioner is not making claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly . Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
messes examined for the Witnesses examined for the
tioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2905.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस . सी. सी. एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 64/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/49/ 2013- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2905.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 64/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/ s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L - 22012/ 49/2013 - IR ( CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer Dated the 21st day of August , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 64/2013
Between :
The President ,
... Petitioner (Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) , Telengana Trade Union Council , H. No. 5-295 , Indranagar , Opp. Bus Stand , Mancherial 504208 . Adilabad District .
AND
The General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Ramagundam - I Area , Godavarikhani - 505209 . Karimnagar District .
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent
M/ s . P. A. V. V. S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates 7198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15, 2014/KARTIKA 24 , 1936
AWARD
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/ 49/2013 - IR (CM -II ) dated 30/5/2013 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Ramagundam - I Area , Godavarikhani , Karimnagar Distt . , in terminating the services of Sri Uppala Srinivas , Ex- CF, GDK- 1 Inc. , SCCo Ltd. , Ramagundam - I Area, Godavarikhani with effect from 27.2.2000 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.64 /2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned .
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement and documents .
3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not making any claim. In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नईदिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2906.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/47/2013- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
[PART II-SBC. 3( ii)]
New Delhi , the 7th November, 2014
S.O. 2906. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 63/2013 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014.
[No. L-22012/47 /2013 - IR(CM- II)]
Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day ofAugust, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 63/2013
Between:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) , Telengana Trade Union Council , H.No. 5-295 , Indranagar , Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial -504208 . Adilabad District .
...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Ramagundam - I Area, Godavarikhani - 505209. Karimangar District .
...Respondent
Appearances :
Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . S. Bhagavanth Roa and S. V. Rama Devi , Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 /47/ 2013 - IR( CM - II ) dated30/5/ 2013 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is, भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7199
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Ramagundam - I Area , Godavarikhani , Karimnagar Distt . , in terminating the services of Sri Mamidala Rajamallu , Ex - CF , GDK - 6B Inc. , SCCo Ltd. , Ramagundam - I Area , Godavarikhani with effect from 22.12.1998 is justified or not ? If not , to what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. 0.63 / 2013 and notices were issued to the parties oncerned .
Case is posted for filing of claim statement and Ocuments .
At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim atement not filed . No representation . Inspite of giving tur opportunity again and again Petitioner is not making my claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner ot no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly . Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Sitnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the etitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2907.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 * 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी . सी. न. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच नुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक धिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या (2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ सं. एल-22012/ 82/ 2013 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम . पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2907.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the dustrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central vernment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 81/2013 ) theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour urt . Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/ s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen, which wasreceived by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L - 22012 / 82/2013 - IR( C - II) ]
Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day of August , 2014 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 81/2013
Between :
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) ,
Telengana Trade Union Council ,
H.No. 5-295 , Indranagar ,
Opp . Bus Stand ,
Mancherial - 504208 .
Adilabad District .
... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager ,
M/ s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd. , Bellampally Area , Goleti Township - 504292. Adilabad District .
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner ; Party in person
For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 / 82 / 2013 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 8/7/2013 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampalli Area , Goleti Township ( PO ) , Adilabad Distt . , in terminating the services of Sri Sallagula Koteshwar , Ex- Coal Filler , Goleti - I Inc. , SCCo Ltd. , Bellampalli 7200
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIΚΑ 24, 1936
Area, with effect from 10.7.2002 is justified or not ? Ifnot, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.81 /2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2 Case is posted for filing of claim statement and documents .
3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . In spite ofgiving fairopportunity again and again Petitioner is not making any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of eviden
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2908.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी . एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 92/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ सं. एल -22012/108/2013 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November, 2014
S.O. 2908.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 92/ 2013 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , was received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L- 22012/ 108/2013 - IR (CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present: Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 13th day of August , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 92/2013
Between :
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) Telangana Trade Union Council, H. No. - 5-295 , Indra Nagar, Opp . Bus Stand , Mancherial, Adilabad Dist . - 504208 .
...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Mandamarri Area , Mandamarri - 504231 .
...Respondent
Appearances :
None
For the Petitioner
: None
For the Respondent
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 / 108 / 2013 - IR( CM - II) dated 3.9.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman under section 10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal . The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of General Manager of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri Area , Mandamarri , Adilabad Distt. , in terminating the services of Sri Ramagiri Rajalingaiah , Ex - Coal Filler, MK- 4 Inc. , SCCo Ltd., Mandamarri Area , with effect from 21.9.2007 isjustified or not? If not , to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 92/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents .
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. In spite of notice being served twice , Petitioner is not present and is not taking interest in the proceedings . In 7201
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014 /कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' award is passed .
Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2909.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 79/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/61/2013 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2909.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 79/2013 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the management of M / s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L - 22012/ 61 /2013 - IR( CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day of August , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 79/2013 Between:
The President ,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) , Telengana Trade Union Council ,
H. No. 5-295 , Indranagar ,
Opp. Bus Stand , Mancherial - 504208 .
Adilabad District .
...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager ,
M/ s . Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd. , Bellampally Area , GoletiTownship - 504292 . Adilabad District .
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 / 61 / 2013 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 8/7/2013 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager , M /s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township ( PO) , Adilabad Distt. , in terminating the services of Sri Pathipaka Bapu , Ex - Badli Filler, Goleti -2 Inc. , SCCo Ltd. , Bellampalli Area , with effect from 22.1.1998 is justified or not ? If not , to what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.79 / 2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned .
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement and documents .
3. At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . In spite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not making any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer 7202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIΚΑ 24 , 1936
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2910. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस . सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 76/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/ 121/2012- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November, 2014
S.O. 2910. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 76/2012) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L- 22012/ 121 /2012- IR(CM- II) ]
Β . Μ. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated, the 13th day ofAugust , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 76/2012
Between:
The General Secretary,
(Bhandari Satyanarayana)
Singareni Telugu Nadu Trade Union
Council (STNTUC)
H.No.5-295 , Indiranagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial , Adilabad - 504208 .
...Petitioner
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
AND
The General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries
CompanyLtd. , Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township ,
Adilabad District- 504292 .
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by orderNo. L-22012 / 121 / 2012- IR ( CM - II ) dated 26.10.20 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 )( d) the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal betwee the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampa Area , Goleti Township , Adilabad Dist. , disempanelling Shri K. Venkataswamy, Ex-Badli Fi Goleti -2 Inc. , Bellampalli Area with effect f 29.11.1997 is justified or not ? To what relief applicant is entitled for ?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as ID No. 76/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Case isposted for filing of claim statement.
3. At this stage , Petitioner called absent . C statement not filed . No representation. Inspite of opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceedings and is not making any c In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no chan be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Of
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7203
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2911.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 77/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/129/ 2012- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2911. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 77/2012) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/ s . Singareni Colieries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L - 22012 / 129 / 2012 - IR ( CM - II) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated , the 13th day of August , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 77/2012
Between :
The General Secretary ,
(Bhandari Satyanarayana) Singareni Telugu Nadu Trade Union Council ( STNTUC ) H.No.5-295 , Indiranagar, Opp . Bus Stand , Mancherial , Adilabad - 504208 .
... Petitioner
AND
Mes . Singareni Collieries
The General Manager , Company Ltd. ,
Bellampalli Area , Goleti Township , Adilabad District - 504292 .
...Respondent
Appearances :
Hor the Petitioner
: Party in person
For the Respondent : M/ s . P. A. V. V. S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
4337 Gl /14-7
AWARD
TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour by its orderNo. L - 22012 / 129 / 2012 - IR( CM - II ) dated 25.10.2012 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager , M/ s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampally Area , Goleti Township , Adilabad Dist . , in disempanelling Shri Erugurala Lachaiah , Ex - Coal Filler, Goleti - 2 Inc. , SCCL, Bellampalli Area with effect from 20.2.1998 is justified or not ? To what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 77/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned .
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement .
3. Atthis stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . Inspite of giving opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking any interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly . Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2912.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-22012 /157/2012- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी 7204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24 , 1936
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2912.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 78/2012) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/ s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014
[No. L- 22012/ 157 /2012 - IR (CM- II) ]
Β . Μ . PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated, the 13th day of August , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 78/2012
Between :
TheGeneral Secretary,
(Bhandari Satyanarayana) Singareni Telugu Nadu Trade Union Council ( STNTUC) H. No. 5-295 , Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial ,
Adilabad - 504208 .
...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampalli Area , Goleti Township , Adilabad District - 504292 .
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
Area , Goleti Township , Adilabad Dist . , in disempanelling Shri Rangu Mallaiah , Ex -Coal Filler, MKV No.5 Inc. , SCCL, Bellampalli Area with effect from 20.9.2000 is justified or not? To what reliefthe applicant is entitled for ?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 78/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Caseisposted for filing of claim statement .
3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation. Inspite of giving opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking any interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
Respondent
Appearances :
Forthe Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/s. P. A. V. V. S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012/ 157 /2012 - IR( CM - II ) dated 16.11.2012 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workmen . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampally का.आ. 2913.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947) का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीय, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिका अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 81/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -22012/34/2012 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November, 2014
S.O. 2913.-In pursuance of Section 17 of t Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 81/2012 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of the M Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , receive bythe Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L -22012/34/2012 - IR (CM- II )
Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑIK , Desk Officer :भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7205
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014 /कार्तिक 24 , 1936
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated , the 31st day of July , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 81/2012
Berween :
The Vice President
(Sri Bandari Lingaiah) , Singareni Miners & Engg .
Workers Union ( HMS)
Otr. No. 39 - T, Somagudem Corner , Somagudem ( Via Bellampally ) , Adilabad Dist . -- 504251 .
... Petitioner/Union
AND
Chief General Manager ,
Ms. Singareni Collieries
ompany Ltd ..
Handamarri Area , Mandamarri , Adilabad District 504231 .
...Respondent
Appearances :
: NIL
or the Petitioner
or the Respondent : M/ s . P.A. V. V. S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its rder No. L - 22012 / 34 / 2012 - IR ( C - II ) dated 26.10.2012 ferred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of D. Act . 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company d. and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri Area in terminating the services of Sri Disetti Mallesh , Ex - Coal Filler , KK - 5 Incline , Mandamarri Area with effect from 21.1.1999 is justified or not ? To what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. 81/2012 and notices were issued to theparties
oncerned.
Case stands posted for filing of Claim Statement
...i documents by Petitioner .
At this stage , Petitioner called absent . No representation . Claim statement not filed. Inspite of sgiving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking any interest in the proceedings and he has not made any claim . In the circumstances , taking that there is no claim to be made for the Petitioner , ' Nil ' Award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly . Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2914. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी . एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/ 51/ 2013 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2914. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 66/2013 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/ s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L - 22012 / 51 / 2013 - IR ( CM - II ) ]
B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi , Presiding Officer Dated , the 21st day of July , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 66/2013
Between :
The General Secretary (Sri Riaz Ahmed) , 7206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIKA 24, 1936
M/s. Singareni Mines & Engg .
Workers Union ( HMS) ,
...Petitioner Qr. No. C -34 , Sector - J , Godavarikhani - 505 209 , Karimnagar District.
AND
The General Manager.
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Ramagundam - 1 Area , Godavarikhani - 505 209 . Karimnagar Distt.
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
: M/ s . A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent : Party in Person
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 / 51 /2013 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 30.5.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M /s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman under section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal . The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager , M/ s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Ramagundam - I Area, Godavarikhani , Karimnagar Distt. In terminating the services of Smt . Chintala Swaroopa Rani , Ex - Staff Nurse , Area Hospital SCCo . Ltd. , Ramagundam - I Area , Godavarikhani Area w.e.f. 18.1.2000 is justified or not ? If not , to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 66/2013 and notices were issued to the parties .
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents .
3. Atthis stage, Petitioner called absent . Claim state nent not filed and there is no representation . Inspite of giving sufficient and fair opportunity, Petitioner is not taking interest in making any claim and is not taking any interest in the proceedings . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' award ispassed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2915.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947) का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस . सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/ 122/2012- आईआर (सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November, 2014
S.O. 2915. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2012) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/ s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L- 22012/ 122/2012- IR( CM - I
B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer Dated the 13th day ofAugust, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 55/2012
Between:
TheGeneral Secretary, (Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) , Singareni Telugu Nadu Trade Union Council ( STNTUC ) , H. No. 5-295 , Indranagar, Opp . Bus Stand , Mancherial - 504208 . Adilabad District
...Petitioner [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7207
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014 /कार्तिक 24 , 1936
AND
The General Manager ,
M/ s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd. ,
Bellampally Area , Goleti Township - 504292. Adilabad District .
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012/ 122 / 2012 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 26/9/2012 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
" Whether the action of the Chief General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampally Area , Goleti Township ( PO ) , Adilabad Distt . , in terminating the services of Sri Kampelli Chilakaiah , Ex- Badli Filler , Goleti No.I Inc. , of Bellampalli Area , with effect from 20.10.2001 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 55/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned .
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement .
3. At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking any interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim. In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2916.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस . सी. सी . एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/197/2011- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November, 2014
S.O. 2916. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 6/2012) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/ s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , RG I Area , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L - 22012/ 197/ 2011 - IR( CM - II ) ]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 25th day of August , 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 6/2012
Between:
Sri Raiz Ahmed , General Secretary, Singareni Miners & Engg . Workers Union ( HMS ) , Qtr No.C -34 , Sector - I ,
...Petitioner Godavarikhani , Karimnagar- 505209.
AND
The General Manager , M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , RG - I Area , Godavarikhani - 505209.
Karimangar District .
...Respondent 7208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKΑ 24 , 1936
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : M/ s . A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s. P.A. V. V. S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 / 197 / 2011 - IR( CM - II ) dated 13/12/2011 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , RG - I Area , Godavarikhani , in not regularizing the services of Sri Madikonda Narsaiah and Sri Vanga Laxmaiah , Gen. Mazdoor as bunker chairman is fair and justified? To what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 6/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement .
3. Atthis stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed . No representation . In spite ofgranting fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceedings . He has not made any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2917.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी.
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]
एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/124/2012- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November, 2014
S.O. 2917.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2012) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the M /s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on7/11/2014 .
[No. L-22012/124/2012 - IR(CM- II)] Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer Dated the 13th day of August, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 56/2012
Between:
Opp. Bus Stand ,
The General Secretary, (Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) , Singareni Telugu Nadu Trade Union Council ( STNTUC) , H. No. 5-295, Indranagar, Mancherial- 504208
Adilabad District
...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager ,
M/s. Singareni Collieries
CompanyLtd. , Bellampally Area , Goleti Township - 504292 Adilabad District
...Respondent
Appearances:
Forthe Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/ s . P. A. V. V. S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates 7209
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its der No. L - 22012 / 124/ 2012 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 26/9/2012 ferred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of he I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company 1.td. , and their workman . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampally Area , Goleti Township ( PO ) , Adilabad Distt. , in disempanelling Sri K. Ravinder , Ex- Badli Filler , Goleti - 2 Inc. , of Bellampalli Area , with effect from 29.11.1997 is justified or not ? To what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 56/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned .
Case is posted for filing of claim statement .
At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim Statement not filed . No representation . In spite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking any interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly . Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2918.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 नया 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस . सी. सी. . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच संध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक करण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/2012 ) प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 को प्राप्त
[सं. एल-22012/127/2012 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
S.O. 2918.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2012 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the M / s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L - 22012 / 127/ 2012 - IR ( CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 13th day of August , 2014 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 57/2012
Between :
The General Secretary , (Sri Bandari Satyanarayana ) , Singareni Telugu Nadu Trade Union Council ( STNTUC ) , H. No. 5-295 , Indranagar , Opp . Bus Stand , Mancherial- 504208
Adilabad District
...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampally Area , Goleti Township - 504292 Adilabad District
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 / 127/ 2012 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 26/9/2012 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is , 7210
[ PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014 / KARTIKA 24 , 1936
SCHEDULE
M/s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7/11/2014 .
[No. L- 22012/ 116/ 2012 - IR ( CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampally Area , Goleti Township ( PO ) , Adilabad Distt. , in disempanelling Sri Ippa Rajam , Ex- Badli Filler , Goleti No.I Inc. , of Bellampalli Area , with effect from 29.01.1997 is justified or not ? To what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 57/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned .
Dated the 13th day of August , 2014
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement .
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 61/2012
Between :
The General Secretary
3. At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . In spite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking any interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly . Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
... Petitioner
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) Singareni Telugu Nadu Trade Union Council ( STNTUC) H. No. 5-295 , Indranagar , Opp . Bus Stand , Mancherial - 504208 Adilabad District
Appendix of evidence
AND
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
The General Manager M/ s . Singareni Collieries CompanyLtd. , BellampallyArea , Goleti Township - 504292 Adilabad District
...Respondent Documents marked for the Respondent
Appearances :
NIL
For the Petitioner : Party in person
नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2014
For the Respondent : Sri S.M. Subhani , Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 / 116 /2012 - IR( CM - II ) dated 3/10/2012 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 )( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M / s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is ,
का.आ. 2919. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एन. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6: 2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07/11/2014 का प्राप्त हुआ था।
SCHEDULE
[ सं. एल-22012/ 116/2012 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th November , 2014
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampally Area , Goleti Township , Adilabad Distt . , in terminating the services of Sri Gajjeli Posham , Ex- CoalFiller , MVK - 5 Inc. , Bellampalli Area, with effect from 22.10.1999 is justified or not ? To what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 57/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned .
S.O. 2919. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 61/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court . Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the 7211
भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 15, 2014/कार्तिक 24, 1936
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Case is posted for filing of claim statement .
3 At this stage . Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed . No representation . Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking any interest in the proceedings and is not making any chim. In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , Nil Award is passed .
Award is passed accordingly. Transınit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2920. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/10/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012 / 288/2004- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November , 2014
S.O. 2920.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( 1.D. No. 1/2006) . ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the State Bank of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 27/10/2014 .
[No. L - 12012 /288 / 2004 - IR ( B - I ) ] SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. Vijaya Lakshmi , Presiding Officer
Dated the 16th day of September . 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 1/2006
4337 Gl /14-8
Between :
Sri B. Murali Krishna .
C/o Sh . V.Ramanjaneyulu, D.No.4/374 , TB Road , Guntakal
...Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
... Respondent State Bank of India . Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi
Appearances:
: Sri Willian Burra . Advocate For the Petitioner
For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates
AWARD
Vide the proceeding No.L - 12012 / 288/ 2004 - IR (B - 1 ) dated 24.8.2005 , the Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employment , made a reference to this Tribunal requiring this Tribunal to give its award on the question.
"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi , Z.O. , in terminating the services of Sri B. Murali Krishna , Ex . Sweeper , with effect from 31.3.1997 , is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
Both the workman and the Management have been notified of the reference . Both of them appeared before this Tribunal and engaged their respective counsels to assist them with the consent of each other and with the leave of the Tribunal .
2. Sri B. Murali Krishna , the workman has filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows : -
Petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Sec . 2(s) and the Respondent is an industry within the meaning of Sec.2 (j ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The workman was appointed as temporary messenger in the month of October , 1987. He worked for more than 10 years in the Respondent's organization . He was being appointed on casual basis on daily payment and some times on regular scale basis with continuity in service . He worked for more than 240 days in every completed year of service . He belongs to SC community. He was directly engaged by holding interview . He possesses basic education qualification having passing 10th class . Having not been absorbed in the suitable post by the bank in spite of his service rendered for a long time with unsecured tenure , the workman and other similarly placed persons took up the matter with the bank through All India State Bank of India Staff Federation to absorb them 7212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014 / KARTIKΚΑ 24 , 1936
[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
or regularise them in such posts . The Management of the bank also decided to provide them an opportunity to consider them for permanent appointment if they are suitable for the same . That resulted in a settlement between the federation and the bank dated 17.11.1987 under Sec.2 (p ) and 18 ( 1 ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 with rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules . Under the settlement the employees are classified into three categories , Le . , 1) those who have completed 240 days temporary service in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975 2 ) those who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975 and 3 ) Those who have completed a minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1.7.1975 or a minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of36 calendar months after 1.7.1975 . Certain conditions were prescribed to fix the suitability for permanent appointment in the said settlement . The employees are to be interviewed by a selection committee to determine the suitability . Clause 7 of the agreement provide for preparing the panel of the selected candidates to be waitlisted in the order of respective categorisation and the panels so prepared were to be valid upto December , 1991. The various criteria for consideration and procedure to be followed in absorbing such wait listed candidates in the panels are also spelt out . In pursuance of the said settlement applications were called for from such temporary eligible employees by way of a notification issued by the bank in local news papers . The workman herein applied in response to the said notification . He was called for written test and he faced viva voce conducted by the selection committee in May , 1989. He was selected along with similar candidates and waitlisted in the panel prepared by the bank. That panel is to be initially in force upto December , 1991. The bank authorities afforded one more opportunity to such employees who had not applied in pursuance of the first notification and they were also empanelled in such list by adopting some procedure . Some of the empanelled candidates were absorbed by the bank whereas the workman herein was not absorbed and was continued as such till 31.3.1997. The life of such panels was extended from time to time till 31.3.1997 as per the settlements between the Management and the federation . The workman herein with other similarly situated persons was given the impression that the panels were kept alive till all the empanelled candidates were absorbed in pursuance of the settlements and that no fresh recruitment will be taken up by the bank till they were all absorbed . The workman herein along with the others was expecting that they would be regularised in the bank on permanent basis . The said expectation was strengthened further by the circular of the Government of India dated 16.8.1990 issued to all the Chief Executives of the public sector
problem of the existing temporary employees is resolved no bank will be permitted to take temporary appointments . In spite of it the Respondent choose to absorb or regularise only some of the persons in the panels but did not regularise the workman herein and some others . Thus, the State Bank of India temporary employees union filed WP 4194 of 1997 before Hon'ble High Court of A.P. seeking for declaration that the action of the Respondents in not implementing the settlements as illegal arbitrary etc. and to direct the Respondents to absorb them all by 31.3.1997 . The writ petition was disposed off on 5.3.1997 directing the Respondents to implement the settlement before the expiry of 31.3.1997 . But the officers of the bank issued directions by the higher authorities on 25.3.1997 , 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 seeking to terminate the services of the workman and others in the panel further directions to engage them after 31.3.1997 . 10 pursuance of the said instructions the workman herein and others were orally terminated in violation of terms ofthe settlement legitimate expectation of the said persons and in violation of directions of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No.4194 of 1997. Further , the persons not empanelled are appointed unsuitable candidates were empanelled and appointed , candidates in the second panel have been appointed in preference and without exhausting the first panel , though the candidates therein had put comparatively more service than the persons who have been appointed . There has been clear discrimination in choosing the candidates for appointment and absorption. Therefore the action on the part of the Respondents is illegal , arbitrary , discriminatory and in violation of articles , 14 , 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . It is a clear case of unfair labour practice also . Only to avoid legal consequences , Respondents have resorted unethical and illegal method terminating the services of the workman before the expiry of 240 days of service in spite of empanelling him for absorption after selection . All the exercise by the Respondents in preparing the panels including the workman herein and others is only for absorption and not for termination . The workman herein along with others filed WP No.28328 of 1996 seeking for a direction to the Respondents to regularise their services from the date of empanelment . The said petition was allowed . Respondents filed writ appeal against the orders in the said petition and the said appeal was allowed observing that the matter has to be dealt with under provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and not by resorting to the writ jurisdiction of the court . The workman rendered more than 10 years of service without any blemish or bad remark . Ever since the date of hi oral termination he remained unemployed as he coul not secure any other employment inspite of his best efforts He is fully eligible and entitled to be reinstated and regularised in the post with all consequential benefits But the Respondents are indulging in such acts only to deny the workman's legitimate right of regularization .
banks including the Respondent bank that until the
भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014 / कार्तिक 24 , 1936 7213
Hence, the action of the Respondents in terminating the and directions . In pursuance of the IV settlement arrived
services of the Petitioner/ workman by oral termination at on 9.1.1991 the cut of the year 1992 was substituted
order dated 31.3.1997 as illegal and unjustified and direct with 1994. Separate panels were prepared for temporary
the Respondents to grant relief of reinstatement with employees and casual / daily wagers for filling up the
continuity of service with full back wages and all other vacancies arising between 1988 and 1994 , in respect of
attendant benefits . temporary employees and in respect of casual and daily
The Respondent bank filed their counter with the wagers who can be considered for the vacancies arising
averments in brief as follows : between 1995 and 1996 only . After following the procedure
The reference itself is not tenable . To tide over the laid down the Management prepared the panels of qualified
Severe subordinate staff constraints which arose out of candidates of temporary employees and casual/daily
wagers , zone - wise separately for messengers and non-
kave vacancies , exigencies etc. , and also owing to the
messengers in the descending order of temporary service
restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve
put in by the candidates during this stipulated period i.e. ,
Bank of India on intake of staff i.e. , messenger , sweepers
um water boys etc. , the bank used to engage temporary 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 . In pursuance of the further
agreement between the Management and the federation
Laff depending upon the availability of work and on a
merely temporary basis for smooth and uninterrupted both the panels were kept alive upto March , 1997 for
nctioning of the branches . The All India State Bank of filling up the vacancies existing / arrived at as on
31.12.1994 . A memorandum of understanding dated
adia Staff Federation espoused the cause of temporary
27.2.1997 was also arrived at . The workman has not put
mployees who have put in less than 240 days of
aporary service in 12 calendar months the bank who in more number of days than those who are since now
been absorbed. He never worked continuously for years .
Le ineligible for any kind of protection under the
dustrial Disputes Act , 1947 and requested the bank for He has not put in aggregate temporary service of 240
ince to being considered for absorption and permanent days in a continuous 12 months period during 1.7.1975
ppointment to such of the temporary employees . to 31.7.1988 . Thus , he had no right to seek a direction
scussions were held and a settlement could be reached . to consider his candidature for absorption . His case has
been considered under the various settlements . The bank
agreement was signed on 17.11.1987 between the
Meration and the bank Management . The employees has not violated any of the provisions on terms of the
categorised as A, B , and C and it was agreed that said settlements . The panels lapsed and ceased to exist
mporary employees as categorised would be given for at the end of designated period i.e. , 31.3.1997 . The
hance for being considered for permanent appointment remaining candidates on the panels including the
e bank's service against the vacancies which are likely workman herein has no right or claim against the bank as
rise within the period 1987 to 1991. A further agreement expressly stated in settlements . There is no agreement to
arrived at on 16.7.1988 to substitute the period for keep alive the panels till all the empanelled candidates are
sideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992. On 27.10.1988 absorbed . If the workman did not intend to accept the
Further agreement was arrived at agreeing to incorporate settlement he should have raised the objection before
ause to the effect that all persons to have been engaged appearing for interview and consequent empanelment .
Causal basis to work in leave/ casual vacancies of Having claimed the benefits accrued under the
ssengers , Farrashes , Cash Coolies , Water Boys , settlements and the consequent empanelment etc. , he is
weepers etc. , for any of the periods mentioned in category debarred and estopped from questioning the validity of
1.3 and C will be given a chance for being considered for the settlements . It has been specifically agreed between
manent appointment in bank's service against the the parties in the settlement dated 9.1.1991 that the
cancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992. Vide letter vacancies arising upto December , 1994 will be filled from
ared 16.8.1990 Government of India , issued directions to. 1989 panel on the basis of seniority . Therefore , the said
the public sector banks regarding recruitment and panels should lapse and the remaining candidates have
porption of temporary employees . The said guide lines no claim to be considered for permanent absorption of
ade clear that all the public sector banks may follow the the bank. The number of days worked subsequent to
evisions laid down in the Approach Paper which is 31.7.1988 will not be counted as per the agreements . The
pecified that the cases of temporary employees who had bank never promised that all the empanelled candidates
Main not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 will be absorbed . Mere empanelment will not give any
onsecutive months and who are entitled to the benefits right for absorption in favour of the workman herein .
Inder Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 may be The application is admittedly based on settlements and
fecided by entering into a settlement with the not any independent right to seek regularization much
epresentative union . The Respondent bank has followed less any provision of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The
he Government of India guidelines and also covered the panels under the settlements were expressly by time
ases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 bound . The last extension expired on 31.3.1997 . This
vs. Thus , there is no violation of any of the guidelines is an integral term of settlement and can not be modified
7214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIKΑ 24 , 1936
under any proceeding under law. Those temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want vacancies have not further right to be considered either under the settlements or otherwise . In WP No. 12964 of 1994 filed by some of the temporary employees who are also empanelled is held that the only recourse to which those persons are entitled to is to claim for enforcement of settlements if there is any right flowing from it has been violated. The settlement do not suggest that the temporary employees could be continued indefinitely . If the relief sought for herein is permitted would result in making the practice of temporary employment permanent through back door entry which would not only contrary to settlement but also to the articles 14 and 16 of constitution and deprive the chances of rightful claimant who would if necessary come through proper recruitment procedure . The settlements were made as one time measure to bring out an end to the practice of temporary engagement . There is no question of any legitimate expectation or estoppel . As the rights of the workman herein were crystallised by the operation of settlements . The observations made in the judgement in WP No.9206 of 1997 were of no consequence and it can not be relied upon . Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not relevant since the workman herein has not worked for 240 days in any preceding 12 calendar months period. The allegation that he was terminated from service is not correct . The vacancies were filled up on regular vacancies in the order of seniority, non- engagement of the workman herein does not amount to termination . Very engagement of the workman was subject to availability of work . The bank never indulged in any unfair labour practice . The issue is covered by various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Courts . There are no merits and the claim is to be rejected.
4. To substantiate the contentions of the workman he examined himself as WWI and got marked Ex . W1 to W4 . On behalf of the Management MWI was examined and Ex.MI to M13 are marked .
5. Heard the arguments of either party. Written arguments and additional written arguments are also filed by either party and the same are received and considered.
6. The points that arise for determination are:
1. Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India , Tirupathi Z.O. , in terminating the services of the workman herein witheffect from. 31.3.1997 is legal andjustified?
II . To what relief the workman is entitled ?
7. Point No. 1 :
As can be gathered from the record , it is an undisputed fact that the workman had been in service of
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
the Respondent bank from the year 1987 and until the date ofthe alleged termination ofhis service i.e. , 31.3.1997 . Petitioner is claiming that he has been in continuous service during this period whereas , it is the contention of the Respondent bank that it was not a continuous service and that as and when the work was available , Management used to entrust the same to the workman .
8. But the fact remains that in pursuance of the settlements arrived between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Respondent bank panels were prepared for absorption of the workmen like the present Petitioner workman who rendered casual/temporary service for the Respondent bank continuously for substantial period. It is also an admitted fact that the name of the workman herein found place in a panel so prepared for absorption of the workmen into regular service ofthe bank and thus , he has been an empanelled workman.
9. For empanelling , procedure is admittedly prescribed in the settlements arrived at between the staff federation and theManagement of the bank . Ex.M1 is the Photostat copy ofthe settlement dated 17.11.1987 , whereunder, how the employees are to be categorised into category -Á ' , ' B ' and Ç ' , is prescribed. The procedure for appointing the workers in permanent service is also prescribed in this settlement . As per clause 7 of Ex.MI settlement , a selection committee has to determine suitability / unsuitability of temporary employees for permanent appointment in the bank. After completion of interviews interview committee will finalise panels for full time and part time appointment for suitable candidates for messengerial and non- messengerial positions . Names of suitable candidates will be listed in order of their respective categories viz . , A , B , C and length of aggregate temporary service put in the bank between 1.7.1975 to 31.12.1987 or any other date so fixed by the bank and these panels were to be valid upto December, 1991. As per the settlement , the guidelines regarding reservation of vacancies for SC / ST / Ex.Servicemen etc .. , will be applicable.
10. Evidently, the workman herein was qualified for empanelment . The material on record clearly discloses thatwhen a notification was issued calling for applications from eligible candidates the workman herein has applied for and he was called for written test and also viva voce both of which he attended. He was empanelled in 1989 panel . It is the contention of the Respondent bank that the entire selection process has been conducted by the Respondent bank adhering to the instructions in Ex.MI settlernent , letter and spirit . Therefore , it can safely be taken that the selection committee found the workman herein as suitable for permanent appointment in the bank and thus, empanelled him .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014 /कार्तिक 24 , 1936 7215
The absorption of temporary employees into the and considering their suitability the selection committee
regular service of the bank took place in pursuance of will have the benefit of scrutinising the entire record
the above mentioned settlement , has been a one time pertaining to the candidates including the workman herein .
measure to solve the discrepancies in the bank's service After such scrutiny the selection committee found the
and to see that there will be no temporary employees any workman to be having more service than that of the two
further by absorbing the suitable temporary employees other candidates and therefore put him in the first place
already working for the banks into regular service and whereas the other two persons were put in 6th and 11th
thereafter stopping appointing / engaging any more further places in the panel .
temporary employees .
15. In usual course of conduct , once empanelment is
12. It is an admitted fact that the temporary workmen there , the empanelled candidate shall be absorbed in the
found to be suitable for absorption into regular service permanent service in their seriatum but not on any pick
were empanelled and wait list was prepared with such and choose methods . It can be said so since the suitability
candidates . Annexure - B , Clause VII of Ex.M1 of all the said persons and their respective length of
settlement provides for the preparation of waiting list . services and other relevant aspects have been considered
As per the same , candidates found suitable for duly by the selection committee and they were empanelled
appointment as messengers with combined designation , in the given seriatum . The only deviation permissible
candidates found suitable for non- messengerial positions , is while giving effect to the reservation policy.
candidates found suitable for positions of bank guards
16. In the present case , there is no dispute as to the
and the candidates found suitable as sweepers , by the
fact that the workman herein is a scheduled caste person.
selection committee will be mentioned in these waiting
Srio E. Gopal who is ' 6 ' in seriatum and Smt . Devamma
lists . Thus , in preparation of these waiting lists finding
of suitability of the candidates by the selection committee who is ' 11 ' in seriatum in 1989 panel have already been
is the criteria . That means , if any employee's name is absorbed in permanent service of the bank whereas the
workman herein have been denied of the same . Said E.
entered into these waiting lists , what one can reasonably
understand is that he is found to be suitable for permanent Gopal is also a Scheduled caste person whereas Smt .
employment by the selection committee . In such case , Devamma is a Scheduled Tribe person as can be seen
once the lists are prepared , each and every candidate from the contentions of the Respondent bank . When the
whose name is mentioned in the said list is to be extended workman herein as well as Mr. E. Gopal are SC persons
with the benefit of permanent employment unless there and the workman herein has been in the first place in
a strong reason for not doing so , that too in seriatum. seriatum , how Mr. E. Gopal can be given preference
over the workman while absorbing in permanent service
Annexure' B ' , Clause - VII of Ex.M1 settlement , further
of the bank is a question which is not properly answered.
lays down that while preparing the panels names of suitable
candidates will be waitlisted in order of their respective 17. It is the claim of the Respondent bank that Sri E.
categorises viz .. A , B and C .. Further , in each of these Gopal has put in more service than that of the workman
Categories names of candidates will be given in the herein. The workman is seriously disputing with the
descending order according to length of temporary service correctness of this contention . The fact that the selection
put in by them . In other words a candidate who has put in committee who functioned adhering to the guidelines
maximum aggregate temporary service during the period issued in Ex.M1 settlement while preparing the panel
7.1975 to 31.12.1987 will be placed at the top in his has empanelled the workman in the first place while
Category ( A.B or C as the case may be ) , the candidate who empanelling the Sri E. Gopal in 6th place indicates that
is next to him in length of service will be placed next to him the contention of the Respondent bank that said E. Gopal
and so on . " putin more service than that of the workman herein is
not at all correct . It can be said so since as already
In the present case evidently, the workman herein
discussed above , annexure - B , clause VII of Ex.M1
has been in the first place and one Mr. E. Gopal , is in
Si .No.6 , and one Mrs. M. Devamma is at Sl.No.11 in settlement lays down that the names of the candidates in
1989 panel . If the Management bank adhered to the the panel are to be given in the descending order
guidelines given in Ex.MI settlement in letter and spirit according to the length of service put in by them .
while preparing the said panel , as they are claiming what 18. Inspite of the position being such , the Respondent
one has to understand is that as the workman herein has bank who arbitrarily denied the benefit of absorption of
put in more service than that of the other two persons the workman herein in permanent service has discontinued
mentioned above , his name found place in Sl.No.1 . The his service with effect from 31.3.1997 that too , ignoring
contra contentions raised now for the purpose of this case the directions of the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. to consider
are therefore ought to be taken as far from truth . This his case in the light of the settlements governing both the
can be said so since , while interviewing the candidates bank and the employees .
7216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIΚΑ 24 , 1936
19. The question to be adjudicated now is justification or otherwise of termination of the services of the workman herein by the State Bank of India , Tirupathi Zonal Office , with effect from 31.3.1997 . For the reasons discussed above , it can clearly be seen that the Management of the bank is not at all justified in terminating the services of the workman who put in 10 years of long service with them and further , who was empanelled for absorption into permanent service by the selection committee after finding him suitable for such absorption . Further more , the workman who put in long years of service with the Respondent bank has been just terminated from service without extending any benefits to which the workman will be entitled to under law , he has not even been issued with any notice mentioning the reason why his services have been terminated and thereby giving an opportunity to him to explain his cause .
20. It is the contention of the Respondent bank that the workman was never terminated from service and that as there was no work to be allocated to him he was not If no work is available and engaged any further . workman is not entrusted with any further work it amounts to retrenchment only . Thus , it amounts to termination from services only. For the various reasons discussed above , such termination of service is not legal and justified.
This point is answered accordingly .
21. Point No. II :
In view of the finding given in Point No.1 , Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into temporary / casual service of the Respondent bank with effect from 31.3.1997.
Result : In the result the reference is answered as follows:
The action of the Management of State Bank of India , Tirupathi Z.O. , in terminating the services of Sri B. Murali Krishna , Ex . Sweeper w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is neither legal nor justified . Réspondent bank is directed to reinstate the Petitioner workman into temporary/ casual service of the Respondent bank with effect from 31.3.1997 .
Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for
the Petitioner
the Respondent
WW1 : Sri B. Murali M.W.1 : Sri R. Venkateswara
Krishna .
Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex . W. 1 : Photostat copy of Certificate issued by State Bank of India showing that the Petitioner served in the bank as Messenger for 1048 days along with pay drawn statement dt . 19-02-1998
[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
Ex . W. 2 : Photostat copy of Service Certificate- cum- Introduction Letter of the Petitioner dt.21-2-1998 .
Ex. W. 3 : Photostat copy of Certificate issued by State Bank of India showing that the Petitioner served in the bank as Messenger for 719 days dt . 19-8-1996
Ex. W. 4 : Photostat copy of Service Certificate- cum- Introduction Letter of the petitioner dt . 21-8-1989 .
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex . M. 1 : Photostat Copy of settlement signed between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and S.B.I. dt . 17-11-1987
Ex . Μ . 2 : Photostat Copy of settlement signed between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and S.B.I. dt . 16-07-1988
Ex . Μ . 3 : Photostat Copy of settlement signed between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and S.B.I. dt.27-10-1988
Ex . Μ . 4 : Photostat Copy of settlement signed between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and S.B.I.dt.09-01-1991
Ex . Μ . 5 : Photostat Copy of Minutes of the conciliation proceedings held before the RLC , Hyderabad dt . 09-06-1995
Ex . M. 6 : Photostat Copy of settlement signed between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and S.B.I. dt . 30-07-1996
Ex . Μ . 7 : Photostat Copy of memorandum of Understanding . 27-02-1997
Ex . Μ . 8 : PhotostatCopy of statement given the Particulars of 1989 Messengerial Panel .
Ex . M. 9 : Photostat Copy of statement of 1989 Non Messengerial Panel .
Ex . M. 10 : Photostat Copy of statement of 1992 Panel .
Ex . Μ . 11 : Photostat Copy of Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in WA No.86 / 98 . dt . 01-05-1998
Ex . Μ . 12 : Photostat Copy of Judgment in SLP No. 11886-11888 of 1998. dt.10-08-1998
Εχ.Μ.13 : Original Register containing 1989 panel
नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2921. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक [ भाग il- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7217
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या ( 31/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/10/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/17/2012 - आईआर ( बी- I ) ]
सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November , 2014
S.O. 2921. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 31/2012 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the State Bank of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 27/10/2014 .
[No. L - 12012 / 17/ 2012 - IR ( B - I ) ] SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt . M. Vijaya Lakshmi , Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of July, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 31/2012
Between :
Sri V. V. Sharma ,
... Petitioner H. No. 43-77-14/ A , Block No.77 , A. S. Nagar , Vijayawada.
AND
The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Admn . Unit , Suryaraopet , Vijayawada .
The Branch Manager , State Bank of India , BRP Branch , Governorpet, Vijayawada - 002 .
...Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : Party in person
: Sri B.S. Prasad , Advocate For the Respondent
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by is order No. L - 12012 / 17 / 2012 - IR ( B - I ) dated 19.7.2012 referred the following dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal . The reference is ,
SCHEDULE
" Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Vijayawada in terminating the services of Shri V.V. Sharma w.e.f. 4/10/2008 is legal and justified ? To what relief the workman entitled ?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 31/2012 and notices were issued to the parties .
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement .
3. At this stage , Claim statement is not filed . Petitioner called absent and there is no representation . Inspite of giving fair opportunity Petitioner is not making any claim and is not taking interest in the proceedings . In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , a ' Nil ' Award is passed .
Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2922.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एकसिस बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 101/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/10/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/99/2013- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]
सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November , 2014
S.O. 2922. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 101 / 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- 7218
[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIKA 24 , 1936
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Axis Bank Limited, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 27/10/2014 .
[No. L- 12012/99/2013 - IR(B- I) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Dated the 31st day of July, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 101/2013
Between:
Smt. D. Devakilatha,
D. No. 9-4-366,
Jogavanipalem,
High School Road ,
...Petitioner OldGajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-530 026.
AND
1. The Managing Director, M/s. Premier Security & Maintenance Services , 201, Ganga Complex, Kharkhana, Secunderabad - 500015 .
2. The Vice President ,
AxisBank Limited,
Dwarakanagar Branch ,
Dwarakanagar,
Visakhapatnam
contractor ofAxis Bank Branches in Visakhapatnam area) in terminating the services of Smt . D. Devakilatha, Ex -House Keeping worker inAxis Bank, Dwarkanagar Branch is legal and/or justified? Ifnot, to what relief she is entitled for ?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.101 /2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement by Petitioner .
3. At this stage , Petitioner called absent . Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim. In the circumstances , taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made , ' Nil ' Award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit .
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2014
...Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : Party in person for R1 and R2 AWARD
TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour by its order No. L- 12012/99/2013 - IR(B -I) dated 19.11.2013 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/ s . Premier Security & Maintenance Services , Secunderabad and their workman . The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Premier Security & Maintenance Services , Secunderabad (engaged in Security services-a का.आ. 2923. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार महारा ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मका बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोपिय अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ 32/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30/10/201 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/98/2011 - आईआर ( बी-1 ) )
सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिण
New Delhi , the 10th November, 2014
S.O. 2923. In pursuance of Section 17 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Centra Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/201 ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labo Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrie Dispute between the management of the Maharash 7219
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Gramin Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/10/2014.
[No. L - 12012/98/ 2011 - IR(B -I ) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/32/2011
Date: 10.10.2014.
PartyNo.1
: The Chairman, Maharashtra Gramin Bank , HO, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded(MS) .
Versus
PartyNo.2
: Shri Bajaranglal R. Pariyal , R/ o Naik nagar , Nanded Road , Dist. Hingoli ( MS) .
AWARD
(Dated: 10th October , 2014)
Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) (" the Act" in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Maharashtra Gramin Bank and their workman , Shri Bajranglal R. Pariyal , for adjudication , as perletter No.L- 12012/ 98/2011 - IR ( B - I) dated 09.12.2011 , with the following schedule:
" Whether the action of the management of Maharashtra Gramin Bank , Nanded in awarding punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 19.03.2010 to Shri Bajranglal R. Pariyal is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled ? "
Onreceipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which , the workman , Shri Bajranglal R. Pariyal , (" the workman " in short ) filed the statement of claim and the management of Maharashtra Gramin Bank (" party no.1 " in short) filed the written statement .
The case of the workman as presented in the statement ofclaim is that the party No.1 is an industry and he provisions of the Act are applicable to it and he was in service of party No.1 as a clerk w.e.f. 23 : 02.1981 and he was promoted to the post ofofficer in the month ofAugust , $984, but he came to be reverted to the post of clerk by party No.1 and conditions of service of the employees of
1337 Gl /14-9
partyNo. 1 are governed by the Maharashtra Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2009 ("the Regulation " in short) and while he was working at Jawala Bazar Branch , he was suspended from service , vide order dated 20.05.2008 and he was served with the charge sheet dated 27.11.2008 , containing as many as 10 charges , purported to have been covered under the provisions of Regulation 38 of Maharashtra Gramin Bank (Officer and Employees) Service Regulations , 2001 and a departmental enquiry was constituted by appointing Shri S.G.Kulkarni and the Enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in his own style and submitted his findings dated 18.06.2009 , declaring all the charges to have been proved against him and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 18.03.2010 , awarded the punishment of dismissal for charges 1 to 9 and punishment of reduction by one stage in the time scale for charge no.10 and he came to be dismissed from services on 19.03.2010 and the appeal preferred by him against the order of punishment was rejected unheard by the Appellate Authority.
It is further pleaded by the workman that the party no.1 decided to file a police complaint against him and accordingly, a police complaint came to be registered with Hatta Police Station on 26.05.2008 and he was arrested by the police and was released on bail and trial before the competent court is yet to be completed and the departmental enquiry conducted against him was not fair and therefore , invalid and illegal and during the process ofthe departmental enquiry , there was undue amendment ofthe original charge sheet and on 19.02.2009 , the Enquiry Officer allowed the management to examine the witnesses in his absence and leading questions were allowed to be asked to the witnesses and permission was not given to him to engage advocate for his defence on untenable ground by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer acted as the prosecutor and asked series of questions to every witness, with a view to fill up the gaps in the evidence led by the presenting officer and the decision of the Enquiry Officer to conduct exparte enquiry was not reasonable and due to such decision , he was deprived of the opportunity of cross - examining the witnesses produced on behalf of the management of the Bank and Regulation 19 of the service condition was misconstrued and misplaced and the charge sheet was vague and not specific and he was not given personal hearing by the Appellate Authority before disposal of the appeal and there was violation of the principles of natural justice and he was not provided with certain important documents required for his defence , inspite of his submission of an application for the same and thereby , reasonable opportunity for his defence was denied by the Enquiry Officer and even though , he was kept under suspension , he was not paid full subsistence allowance by the management and party no.1 without waiting for the result 7220
[PART II-SEC. 3( i)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIΚΑ 24, 1936
ofthe criminal complaint made against him , proceeded with the departmental enquiry unnecessarily and he was not given adequate opportunity to produce witnesses in his defence and the Enquiry Officer was biased against him and as such , the enquiry conducted against him was merely a farce of enquiry and principles of natural justice , reasonable opportunity of defence and rules regarding conduction of enquiry were not followed and the enquiry was unfair and invalid.
It isalso pleaded by the workman that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and non - application of mind is writ large on the face of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reasoning given by the Enquiry Officer are casual and mechanical and not based on evidence on record and during his absence , unauthorized persons were allowed to touch the records of the branch and to his knowledge , one Shri Talankar, who was not an employee of the Bank was asked to enter and deal withthe records of the Bank at the instance of the Branch Manager, Shri Inamdar and the said facts were not touched and considered by the Enquiry Officer before coming to the conclusion and after his dismissal from service, he is not gainfully employed . The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages and all consequential benefits .
GraminBankOfficer and Employees Service Regulation, 2001 , at the time of issuance of the charge sheet agains the workman and there was amalgamation of the sald Bank on 20.07.2009 and new service Regulation gazetted as "Maharashtra Gramin Officers & Employees Service Regulation , 2009 came into operation and a full fledged departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman and he was given full opportunity to defend himself and the Enquiry Officer, Shri S.G. Kulkarni conducted the enquiry by following the principles of natural justice a according to the laid down procedure and after recording the evidence of both the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties a documents filed by them in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer reached tothe decision that the charges leveliod against the workman were proved and accordingly, submitted his findings on 18.06.2009 and the workman was given the second show cause notice on 18.02.2010 and he was directed to appear before the Disciplinary Authority for hearing on 26.02.2010 , in respect of proposed punishment of dismissal and the workman appeared before the Disciplinary Authority and made submission before him and considering the gravity of the misconduct and the past record of the workman , Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment dismissal from service for charge Nos . 1 to 9 punishment of reduction by one stage in time scale charge no.10 and the punishment imposed against the workman by the disciplinary authority dated 18.03.2010 legal , just and proper and being aggrieved by the punishment imposed upon him , the workman preferred an appeal to the Chairman of the Bank on 30.04.2010 but after perusal of all papers of the departmental engu and taking into consideration of the gravity of misconduct and the past record of the workman, Appellate Authority rejected the appeal and the servic record of the workman was totally blemished with prove charges of dishonesty, deceit and misappropriation as the workman misappropriated an amount of 27,22,100/- and he unauthorizedly took away the brand records related to the misappropriated amount and not return the Bank's records, inspite of repes directions , so, the management was justified to lodge police complaint at Hatta Police Station against him police registered a case against the workman u sections 409 and 420 and 201 of the I.P.C. , on 26.05.2 and the trial of the case is in progress in the compe court against the workman and the criminal proce has nothing todo with the dismissal of the work from service after holding of the departmental enqu 3. The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded inter- alia that the workman was in its employment as a clerk w.e.f. 23.02.1981 and he was promoted to the post of an officer in the month of October, 1984 and not in the month of August , 1984 , as claimed by him and while working as an officer , the workman committed grave misconduct and irregularities , so after conducting an enquiry, he was reverted back to the post of clerk on 20.01.2001 and again he committed misconduct, which was detrimental to its interest , so the workman was served with the charge sheet dated 31.10.2007 and after enquiry, charges were proved and punishment was imposed on him and he was brought to the initial stage of the pay scale of the clerk and while working at Jawala Bazar branch , the workman was suspended from service , vide order dated 25.05.2008 , followed by the charge sheet dated 27.11.2008 , containing as many as ten charges and thereafter, corrigendum dated 23.01.2009 was issued making minor correction in the charge sheet and the words, " was located " were replaced by the words , "has occurred" , for the reason ofhis involvement in fraudulent transactions and other irregularities and for misappropriation of the funds of the Bank to the tune of Rs . 27,22,100/ - , during the period from 01.11.2007 to 31.12.2007 , when the Branch Manager , Shri D.D. Inamdar was on leave from 25.11.2007 to 01.01.2008 and during that period , the workman alone was handling the work of the said branch .
It isfurther pleaded by party no.1 that the service conditions of its employees were governed by Marathwada
It is also pleaded by party no.1 that the or charge sheet can be legally changed by corrigendum the corrigendum was received by the workman ber the date of the enquiry and the enquiry was comme on 05.01.2009 and the workman remained abso 05.01.2009, so the date of enquiry was adjourned 7221 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
was not under regulation 19 of the service condition and amendments were made in the said charge sheet illegally and the Bank had filed police complaint with Hatta police Station on 26.05.2008 and the incident in the departmental inquiry and the criminal trail were the same and identical and the trial before the competent Court is yet to be completed and therefore , the departmental enquiry conducted by the party No.1 was unfair , invalid and illegal .
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and non application of mind is writ large on the face of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reasonings given by the Enquiry Officer were casual and mechanical and not based on evidence on record and principles of probability were not considered in favour of the workman and the Enquiry Officer lost sight of the fact that the workman was a clerk and it was the duty of the management to make arrangement of Officer to supervise the branch , especially when it was known to the Bank that the permanent Branch Manager was on long leave and during the absence of the workman , unauthorized person and who was not an employee of the Bank was allowed to deal with the records of the branch at the instance of the branch Manager , Shri Inamdar and as such , the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and the punishment imposed against the workman is shockingly disproportionate and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
07.02.2009 and on 07.02.2009 , the workman attended the enquiry and raised number of objections , which were dealt with by the Enquiry Officer by following the principles of natural justice and the workman requested to fix the enquiry at Aundha Nagnath on 19.02.2009 and as per the request of the workman , the Enquiry Officer fixed the enquiry on 19.02.2009 at Aundha - Nagnath , but the workman did not attend the enquiry on 19.02.2009 and therefore , the Enquiry Officer rightly proceeded with the enquiry exparte on 19.02.2009 and it is a false statement that the Enquiry Officer allowed leading questions to be asked to the witnesses and as per Marathwada Gramin Bank ( Officer & Employees ) Service Regulation 2001 , the charge sheeted employee can be defended by another employee of the bank and in the charge sheet dated 27.11.2008 , it was specifically mentioned that the workman was permitted to be defended by a representative who should essentially be an employee of the Bank and in the enquiry held exparte on 19.02.2009 , the Enquiry Officer asked few questions to the witnesses to know the facts and truth of the case and the same cannot be termed as unfair and invalid and the enquiry was fixed to 16.03.2009 with the consent of the workman , but he did not attend the enquiry on that date and the enquiry was fixed to 19.03.2009 , which was attended by the workman and on that date , he demanded ten additional documents to defend his case and the Enquiry Officer dealt in detail regarding the relevancy of each and every document sought by the workman and supplied 6 relevant documents to him and four irrelevant and ambiguous documents were not given to him and the workman was given ample opportunities to defend the case , but he did not avail the same and the charge sheet submitted against the workman was specific and as per procedure of the Bank and the workman had not asked the Appellate Authority for personal hearing and as such , the appeal was disposed of by the appellate Authority after going through his application and all documents of the departmental enquiry and it is false to say that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the workman or that unauthorized person was allowed to deal with the records ofthe branch and the enquiry was conducted by observing the principles of natural justice and the same is fair and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from service after holding of a departmental enquiry against him, the fairness or other wise of the departmental enquiry was taken as a preliminary issue for consideration and by order dated 28.07.2014 , the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal , proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
6. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party No.1 that as per order dated 28.07.2014 , the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has already been declared as valid and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and all most all the submissions made by the learned advocate for the workman relate to the fairness of the departmental enquiry and such submissions have already been considered by the Tribunal at the time of deciding the preliminary issue of the fairness of the departmental enquiry , so there is no scope for reconsideration of the same . It was further submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence adduced in the enquiry and not on any extraneous material and the Enquiry Officer after analyzing the evidence adduced in the enquiry in a proper manner has rightly arrived at the conclusions and the findings are not perverse and commission of serious misconduct has been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and party no.1 has lost confidence in the workman and as such , the punishment of dismissal of the workman from services cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate , so as to call for the interference of the Tribunal and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
5. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the charge sheet submitted against the workman was vague and the same 7222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIKA 24 , 1936
7. So far the submission made by the learned advocate for the workman that the charge sheet submitted against theworkman was vague and due to the amendment made to the charges , the workman was prejudiced is concerned, it is to be mentioned that as many as ten charges were levelled against the workman in the charge sheet and the charges were very specific and not vague . Details of the charges were mentioned in the charge sheet . So far the amendment of the charges is concerned , on perusal of the documents it is found that only the word, " located " wassubstituted for the word, " occurred " in respect ofthe charges No. 2, 4 , and 5 to 9, which was very formal and no way caused any prejudice to the workman . Hence, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the workman in that regard .
& The next contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman was regarding initiation of the departmental inquiry and criminal prosecution simultaneously against the workman for the same incident . However, it is to be mentioned here that the said contention was raised on behalf of the workman at the time of deciding the preliminary issue and the same wasconsidered and answered against the workman , So , there is no scope for reconsideration of the same .
9. On perusal of the materials on record, it is found that there is nothing on record to show that during the absence of the workman any unauthorized person was allowed to deal with the records of the branch , at the instance of the Branch Manager. As such , the contention raised in that respect by the learned advocate for the workman has no force .
10. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties .
In view of the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties, I think it apropos to mention the principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number ofdecisions in regard to the power of the Tribunal to interfere with punishment awarded by the competent authority in departmental proceedings .
In a number of decisions , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that: -
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction . The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse . The power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution . If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii ) ]
jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute owndiscretion for that of the authority. The adequacy penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter the Tribunal to concern itself with . The Tribunal al cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of t Inquiry officer or the competent authority is based evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant extraneous to the matter.
The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the enquiry officer or the competer authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter. "
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:-
"A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority and on appes the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities he exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view t maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view magnitude or gravity of the misconduct . The High Court Tribunal , while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penal and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appella authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/ Tribunal , it would appropriately mould the relief, eith directing the disciplinary/ appellate authority to reconsid the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropri punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. "
11. Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered
Onperusal ofthe record, it is found that the finding ofthe enquiry officer are based on the evidence on reco of the departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer h analyzed the evidence on the record of the departmental enquiry in a rational manner and has assigned rea in support of his findings . It is also found that the findin of the enquiry officer are not as such , which cannot arrived at by a reasonable man on the materials on recon of the departmental enquiry . It is not a case of tom absence of evidence on record of the enquiry or that th findings of the enquiry officer on totally against evidence on record. Hence , the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse .
12. So far the question of proportionality of punishment is concerned , it is found that gray misconduct of acts of not serving the Bank honestly faithfully and knowingly acting detrimental to the inte of the Bank have been proved against the workman in properly conducted departmental enquiry. Hence, [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7223
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
punishment of dismissal of the workman from services cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate . From the facts and circumstances of the case , it is found that there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman . Hence , it is ordered: -
ORDER
The action of the management of Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Nanded in awarding punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 19.03.2010 to Shri Bajranglal R. Pariyal is legal and justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2924.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30/10/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -12011 /51/2010 - आईआर ( बी- I ) ] सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November , 2014
S.O. 2924.- In pursuance of Section 17. of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 12/2011 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the State Bank of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 30/10/2014 .
[No. L - 12011 / 51 /2010 - IR(B - I) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT /NGP/ 12 /2011
Date: 17.10.2014 .
PartyNo.1
: The Asstt . General Manager ,
(Administration)
State Bank of India ,
Administrative Office , S.V. Patel Road , PB No. 37 , Nagpur-440001 .
Versus
PartyNo.2 : The Zonal Secretary, State Bank Workers Organization . 542, Dr. Munje Marg, Congress Nagar, Nagpur- 12
AWARD
(Dated: 17 October, 2014)
Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( "the Act" in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , Shri M.R. Deshmukh , for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 12011 / 51 /2010- IR (B - I) dated 24.05.2011 , with the following schedule: -
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Nagpur in imposing the punishment ofbringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages on Shri M.R. Deshmukh vide their order dated 19.01.2009 , is legal and justified ? To whatrelief is the workman is entitled ? "
2. Onreceipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which , the workman , Shri M.R. Deshmukh , ( "the workman " in short ) through his union , " State Bank Workers Organisation " , ( " the union" in short ) filed the statement of claim and the management of State Bank of India, ( " party no.1 " in short) filed the written statement .
The case of the workman as presented by the union in the statement of claim is that the workman while working as a senior Assistant at Itwari branch of the party no . 1 , the Disciplinary Authority issued a charge sheet against him on 12.01.2007, for certain lapses during the period from 01.04.2002 to August , 2004 and the workman submitted his explanation to the charge sheet and again a second charge sheet was issued against the workman on 24.05.2007 and the workman submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet also and the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary enquiry and the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry on various dates and a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was forwarded to the workman by the Disciplinary Authority for his comments and the workman submitted his reply to the same and without giving any second show cause notice , the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order of punishment on 19.01.2009 and the workman preferred an appeal against the order of punishment , but the same was rejected by the appellate authority. It is 7224
[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
(Accounts) for the lapses committed by them were also not made available to the workman and the matter of heavy penalty was the main cause of submission of the charge sheet, but from the record, it can be found that payment ofpenalty was the routine practice in the branch for years together , before and after the period, mentioned in the charge sheet , but the relevant records were not placed on the record of the enquiry and the workman had no control over the irregularities, as he was not managing the affair of Itwari branch and it was the responsibilities of the higher authority and from the evidence adduced in the enquiry by the management, it canbe held that the charges levelled against the workman were not at all proved and there are reasons to believe that the workman was not given the responsibility of the PPF desk during the period as mentioned in the charge sheet and the enquiry was conducted unfairly by the Enquiry Officer and even though , there was no valid evidence in support of the charges , the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings that the charge was partially proved and the Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer in its totality and on the basis of such perverse findings , the punishment we imposed on the workman, without giving him the second show cause notice and it is necessary to quash the punishment imposed against the workman .
3. In the written statement, the party no.1 denying all the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim has pleaded inter- alią that an " individual " dispute h been given the colour of " Industrial " dispute and the alleged dispute is an individual dispute , as there is general commonality of interest and the alleged iseme affects only one workman and the alleged dispute doss not fall within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Act a as such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and to adjudicate the same , unless the union conclusively proves that the dispute has been collectively espoused by the union after passing of the resolution the General Body meeting of the union and appreciati number of the workmen are treating the cause of individual workman as their own cause and in any ca the workman has already taken voluntary retirement fra services w.e.f. 15.10.2011 and therefore , this reference does not survive and the same is liable to be disposed of without any order on merits .
further pleaded by the union on behalf of the workman that the Disciplinary Authority in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed the punishment ofbringing down to lower stage in the scale ofpay by two stages, for the partly proved charge against the workman and the Enquiry Officer in his report did not clarify as to which part of the charge levelled against the workman was proved and the plain reading of the charges levelled against the workman reveals that a single charge has been divided into three allegations and party no.1 failed to prove the charges and the Disciplinary Authority also did not throw light on the aspect of the proved part ofthe allegations under item nos. ( i) & ( ii ) of the charge and on the basis of such ambiguous conclusion , the Disciplinary Authority imposed the heavy punishment andthe EnquiryOfficer did not conduct the enquiry fairly or properly and violated the principles of natural justice and denied reasonable opportunity to the workman and simply placing the documents on record and using them against the workman is not sufficient and the documents should be authenticated by following the due procedure and then only, the documents could be referred against the workman for establishing the charge against him and in this case , the management representative produced the documents , but the documents were not proved and established properly in the departmental enquiry and no witness was produced to prove those documents or to show the relevance of the contents of those documents and as such , those documents could not be called as legal documents and the Enquiry Officer relied on such illegal documents and weighed his findings on such unproved documents and the findings on the basis of such invalid documents are perverse and bad in law and the punishment imposed on the basis of such illegal documents is not tenable in law and is liable to be declared void. It is further pleaded that the major defect in the enquiry was that the Enquiry Officer disallowed the production of the relevant documents which were in the possession of the bank, through the said documents were demanded by the defence during the course of the enquiry and the refusal of the Enquiry Officer to direct the bank for production of the documents caused serious prejudice to the workman in proving his innocence and it was the entire responsibility of the Chief Manager and the Manager (Accounts) to control and monitor the PPF transactions/statement, the same being an important Government business , which was liable for penal interest diminishing the profit of the branch , but the concerned officers gave secondary importance to PPF work and the services of the clerk attending the PPF business was utilized on the desks related to the customers , to avoid public nuisance , as a result of which , the day to day work ofPPF transactions was hampered and the record of such work was available in the computer system , but that record was denied and documents regarding submission of charge sheets against the Chief Manager and Manager
It isfurther pleaded by party no.1 that the workman was working at Itwari Branch as a senior Assistant the workman while working on PPF desk was allotted work of reporting PPF transactions sent by branches Government Accounts Department (GAD) , CBD , Belapur, as Itwari Branch was a focal point branch consolidation and reporting to GAD, for the period 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2004 and April 2004 to August, 2004 and penalty of Rs . 19,77,688/- and Rs . 3,25,18,853.66 were levied for delay in reporting the transactions and 7225 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
4. In the rejoinder , the union on behalf of the workman has denied the pleadings made in the written statement by party no.1 and has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim .
5. As in this case , the punishment has been inflicted upon the workman after holding of a departmental enquiry, the validity or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue and by order dated 22.05.2014 , the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal , proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice .
6. It is necessary to mention here that both the parties did not make any oral argument and submitted their respective written notes of argument .
7. In the written notes of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the plain reading of the charges levelled against the workman revels that a single charge has been divided into three charges , but except some minor differences , the nature and wordings of each charge are the same and the Enquiry Officer held the charge No.3 not to have been proved and charge Nos . 1 and 2 to have been partially proved and it is crystal clear from the findings of the Enquiry Officer that management have no record or evidence so as to prove the allegations of keeping the PPF statements pending and not reporting the delay to the higher authorities and when the contents of the three charges levelled against the workman were exactly the same and itwas found by the Enquiry Officer that charge No.3 was not proved, then it is not known as to how contrary to his own findings in respect of charge No.3 , the Enquiry Officer held the charge Nos . 1 and 2 to be partially proved and it is obvious that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge Nos . 1 and 2 are perverse and the punishment imposed against the workman is harsh and disproportionate.
Apart from the contentions as mentioned above , the learned advocate for the workman has mentioned the facts and circumstances of the case in details to show that the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was illegal , unfair and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
It is to be mentioned here that as already mentioned above , by order dated 22.05.2014 , the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has already been held to be legal , proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice , so , there is no question of considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the workman in regard to the same again .
workman did not report the pendency of the work to the Chief Manager and higher authorities and kept the statements pending unattended and because of the acts and omissions of the workman , the bank was then to incur a loss of Rs . 19,77,688 / - for the period from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2004 and Rs . 3.25 crore , for the period from April 2004 to August 2004 , for the delay and charge sheets dated 12.01.2007 and 24.05.2007 were issued against the workman and the same were received by him and since the explanation submitted by the workman was found to be not satisfactory, it was decided to hold the departmental enquiry against him and the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry from 06.02.2008 to 01.09.2008 in 8 sittings , giving ample opportunity to the workman to defend his case and the workman attended the enquiry with his defence representative , Shri J.N. Kaware and the workman was also permitted to change his defence representative and to engage Shri S.L. Bhisikar by the Enquiry Officer and the workman was provided with all the documents relied upon by the bank and he was also provided with copies of the relevant documents asked by him during the enquiry and he was permitted to verify the copies of the documents filed on the record of the enquiry proceedings from the original ones and he was given every opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and he was given the copy of the enquiry proceedings on each and every date of the enquiry and the workman refused to examine any witness in support of his defence and he was given the opportunity to give his defence brief, after giving him the prosecution brief and he was also provided with the Enquiry Officer's report and he was advised to give submissions in that regard and the workman gave his reply on 10.01.2009 and the Disciplinary Authority , after considering the materials produced during the enquiry , the report of the Enquiry Officer and the reply given by the workman , passed the final order on 19.01.2000 , imposing a penalty of mere bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages and the workman preferred an appeal dated 01.03.2009 , against the order of punishment and the Appellate Authority gave personal hearing to the workman on 30.03.2009 and thereafter only, the appellate authority passed an order rejecting his appeal and it had complied with all the principles of natural justice , while conducting the enquiry against the workman and the Enquiry Officer has given justifiable reasons for holding the charges to have been partially proved against the workman and having regard to the gross misconduct of the workman , the final order imposing the mere Dunishment of bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages was passed and the punishment mposed is the lesser one , as compared to the gross misconduct committed by him and in any case , the same is not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman and the punishment does not varrant any interference .
8. Per contra , in the written notes of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the Enquiry Officer has very carefully analyzed the 7226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles ofnatural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that ofthe authority. The adequacy ofpenalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter of the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion ofthe Inquiry officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter . "
In the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC- 1462 (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that: - evidence on record and has dealt with the charges chronologically and after assigning valid reasons has held the charge Nos . 1 and 2 to have been partially proved and charge No.3 not to have been proved against the workman and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are legal, proper and based on the materials placed on the record of the enquiry and there is no perversity in it and having regard to the gross misconduct of the workman , the Bank has rightly passed the final order imposing the mere punishment of bringing down to lower stage in the scale ofpay by two stages and the punishment awarded to the workman is not even commensurate , but lesser one as compared to the gross misconduct committed by him and in any case, the same is not shockingly disproportionate andas such, there is no scope for the Tribunal to interfere with the same and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
Insupport ofthe submissions , the learned advocate for the party No.1 placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 2003 SC - 1571 (Chairman cum Managing Director, United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C.Kakkar ) , 2006 AIR SCW- 5457 (State Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde ) and AIR 2003 SC - 1462 ( Regional Manager UPRTC , Etawah Vs. Hotilal )
" If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning , it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands . Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, higher degree of integrity and trust- worthiness is must and unexceptionable."
10. Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.
9. Before delving into the merit of the case in hand, I think it proper to mention the principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the party No.1
In the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC- 1571 (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that: -
Onperusal ofthe record, it is found that the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record ofthe departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has analyzed the evidence on the record of the departmental enquiry in a rational manner and has assigned reasons in support ofhis findings . It is also found that the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer are not as such , which cannot be arrived at by a reasonable man on the materials on record of the departmental enquiry . It is not a case of total absence of evidence on record of the enquiry or that findings of the Enquiry Officer on totally against evidence on record. Hence, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse.
"The court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court , in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The court would into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision ."
In the decision reported in 2006 AIR SCW- 5457 (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that: -
11. So far the question of proportionality of the punishment is concerned , it is found that grave misconduct of willful insubordination or disobedience o lawful and reasonable order of the management and doin acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and negligence involving the Bank in serious loss have been prove against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry . Hence , the punishment of bringin down to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages of the workman cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate . From the facts and circumstances the case , it is found that there is no scope to interfe with the punishment imposed against the workman. Hence , it is ordered: -
"We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction . The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse . The power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Art . 309 of the Constitution . If there has been an enquiry [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7227
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
ORDER
Theaction ofthe management of State Bank of india . Nagpur in imposing the punishment of bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages on Shri S.R. Deshmukh vide their order dated 19.01.2009 , is legal and justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2925.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आई एन जी वैश्य बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30/10/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/ 77/2009- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November , 2014
S.O. 2925. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( 1.D. No. 17/2010) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the ING Vysya Bank Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 30/10/2014 .
[No. L - 12012/ 77/ 2009 - IR ( B - I ) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/ NGP / 17 /2010
Date : 20.10.2014 .
Party No. 1
ING Vysya Bank Ltd. ,
: (a) The Vice President , Head Employee Relations & Disciplinary Authority, 22, M.G. Road , Bangalore - 1
(b) The Branch Manager ,
ING Vysya Bank Ltd. ,
Opp. Big Bazar, Wardha Road ,
Nagpur.
4337 Gl /14-10
Versus
:
PartyNo. 2
Shri Rolla Venkata Poonaiah , Plot No. 16 , Flat No.7 , Krushnanand Apartment , 2nd Floor , Jainagar , Aurangabad -431005.
AWARD
(Dated: 20th October , 2014 )
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and their workman , Shri Rolla Venkata Poonaiah , for adjudication , as per letter. No.L- 12012 / 77 / 2009 - IR ( B - I ) dated 17.02.2011 , with the following schedule : -
"Whether the action of the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. , in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement vide their order dated 07/04/2007 on Shri Rolla Venkata Poonaih Ex - Clerk islegal and justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. Onreceipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which , the workman , Shri Rolla Venkata Poonaih , (" the workman " in short ) filed the statement of claim and the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. , ( " party no.1 " in short) filed the written statement .
The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he came to be appointed by party no.1 on 10.12.1982 , as a clerk and was posted to Aurangabad Branch and at the time of his appointment , the name of the Bank was Vysya Bank , but later on it became ING Vysya Bank Limited and he worked at Aurangabad branch from 1982 to 1987 , with unblemished service record and in December, 1996 , his work was appreciated for productivity standard and he was given promotion by party no.1 and was transferred to Nanded Branch and he also performed his work at Nanded Branch satisfactorily and in the year 2000 , he was transferred from Nanded Branch to Nagpur branch and he performed his duties at Nagpur Branch to the utmost satisfaction of party no.1 . The further case of the workman is that the party no.1 is registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act and the party no.1 is an " industry " , as defined under section 2 (j ) of the Act and as he was in the employment of party no.1 as a clerk, he was not having any authority to make an appointment , to sanction leave and he was working as per the directions of the Branch Manager and he was therefore , a " workman " as defined under section 2 ( s ) of the Act and the service conditions 72.28
[PART II-SEC. 3 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24 , 1936
concrete proof and documentary evidence, ofthe employees of the party no.1 are governed by the Act, The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act , 1946, ING Vysya banking ( Discipline and Appeal ) Regulation 2003 and various bipartite settlements arrived at by the union and the party no.1 .
It is further pleaded by the workman that one Mr. S.S. Sarda, an insurance advisor of ING Vysya Life Insurance approached him for buying insurance from him , but he did not give any positive assurance and he took the policy from another marketing agent and being aggrieved, Mr. Sarda made numerous attempts to create problem for him and on 20.10.2005 , Mr. Charudatta Deshpande came to deposit Rs . 550/- in the Account of Mr. S.S. Sarda and to credit this amount , Mr. Charudatta presented two currency notes of Rs . 500/- each and on that day, he was performing the duties of the cashier and he checked the notes and was suspicious about the authenticity of one of the currency notes of Rs . 500 /-, so he discussed about the same with his colleague Mr. Devikar and Mr. Devikar also gave his opinion that the note appeared to be not authentic and after discussion withMr. Devikar , he asked Mr. Charudatta to give a note ofRs. 50, - instead of currency note of Rs . 500/- and when Mr. Charudatta denied his request , he in very graceful manner denied to accept the deposit made by Mr. Charudatta and at about 3.00 PM , he went for a short break, and on his return , the Assistant Manager , Mr. Virendra asked him to accept the currency note tendered by Mr. Charudatta and he did the same as directed by the Asstt . Manager and requested the Asstt. Manager, Mr. Virendra to sign on the deposit challan of Mr. Charudatta and during the discussion between him and the Asstt . Manager , Mr. S.S. Sarda was inside the counter and Mr. Sarda started using dirty language at the pitch ofhis voice and tried to assault him and threaten his colleagues for intervention into the matter and also threatened of dire consequences and losing of their jobs in case of any intervention and Mr. Sarda threatened him saying, " Tu bahar chal , mai tuje gad dalunga" and he was also assaulted by Mr. Sarda and Mr. Devikar intervened and he saved himself by locking himself in the cash cabin and Mr. Virendra instead of controlling the situation, encouraged Mr. Sarda to lodge complaint by providing complaint book and email id and Mr. Virendra became aggrieved against him , as he asked Mr. Virendra to sign the challan and Mr. Sarda on 20.10.2005 sent email in the form of complaint to [email protected] with a request to enquire into the matter , on 22.10.2005 , the preliminary team came from the Regional Office , headed by Mr. G. Gosavi and preliminary investigation about the alleged incidence was made and the investigating team inquiredfrom Mr. S.S. Sarda , Mr. Charudatta Deshpande , Mr. B. Virendra , Mr. Samir Damle , Mr. Bhagwatkar , Mr. Ashwin Galghate and Mr. Vidyanathan about the incident and without any
investigating team came to the conclusion that misbehaved with the senior officer and on 07.12.2005, was served with the charge sheet, under clauses 5c, and 5j of the settlement , with the allegations of misbehaving with the customer and abusing the seniore and on 03.01.2006, he submitted his reply to the chu sheet , denying the charges levelled against him explained the actual and factual situations and the pres no.1 directed to make enquiry by appointing Mr. Mahesh, as the enquiry officer and Mr. S.G. Gosavi, had conducted the preliminary investigation as management representative and the appointment of Mr. Gosavi as management representative was not pr and the enquiry officer started the enquiry on 28.06.2 and he pleaded not guilty to the charges and the o sheet was issued against him on the complaint mail Mr. Sarda and to his knowledge , Mr. Sarda had asked party no.1 to settle the issue amicably with peace a harmony, but the enquiry officer continued the end and on 18.08.2006 , the enquiry officer recorded statement of the witnesses and on that single day. enquiry was concluded and the manageme representative, Mr. Satish G. Gosavi was examined witness no.1 and the examination of the manage representative as a witness is not permitted under law the enquiry officer adopted a faulty procedure evidence on record shows that he has been made goat in the entire episode and on 18.08.2006 itself, w giving him any opportunity of examining det witnesses, he was directed to give his defence state and he gave his defence statement and the prese officer did not cross examine him and the enquiry submitted his findings on 06.12.2006 and he was a givehis written submission on the findings ofthe officer and the enquiry officer did not take consideration the statement made by Mr. Sarda and witnesses and the findings of the enquiry officer supported by the evidence on record and the findings perverse and the enquiry conducted against him violation and utter disregard to the principles of justice . It is also pleaded by the workman th 19.01.2007 , he was served with the show cause against the proposed punishment of compul retirement and on 01.02.2007 , Mr. Sarda volunt withdrew his complaint and he filed his reply to the cause notice on 04.02.2007 and he approached disciplinary authority at Bangalore and requeste consider the matter sympathically and not to impose harsh and disproportionate punishment and on 24.02.2 Mr. Sarda gave another letter tendering apology complaint and also for withdrawal of his complaine party no.1 ought to have considered the apology lett Mr. Sarda, while imposing the punishment of compe retirement upon him and his past service rep considered by the authority while imposing the punished
भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014 /कार्तिक 24 , 1936 7229
without giving him any opportunity to explain about the and only after hearing everybody including the workman
ame and on 07.04.2007 , he was served with the punishment and on the basis of the statement obtained , the
order of compulsory retirement and the punishment is too investigating officer submitted his report , confirming the
arsh and disproportionate and the same is nothing but incident and accordingly, charge sheet under para 5c , 5e
olorable exercise of employer's right and his victimization and 5j was submitted by the disciplinary authority against
ad in view of the withdrawal of the complaint by Mr. the workman , for commission of gross misconduct and
arda , the entire exercise of departmental enquiry became since the reply dated 03.01.2006 submitted by the workman
dundant and he ought to have been exonerated or to was found not to be satisfactory, the disciplinary authority
ave been given any other lesser punishment . ordered for the enquiry against him and the appointment
ofMr. Satish Gosavi as management representative and
The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in his examination as a witness in the enquiry were as per
#rvice with continuity , full back wages and all law and before awarding the punishment , the disciplinary
nsequential benefits . authority provided the workman , the opportunity of
personal hearing so as to enable him to explain in person
The party no.1 , denying all the adverse allegations
against the proposed punishment of compulsory
ade in the statement of claim , in the written statement
retirement and the workman appeared on 13.02.2007
15 pleaded inter- alia that the workman on earlier six
before the disciplinary authority for the personal hearing
casions had been punished for different misconducts
and the disciplinary authority considered all the relevant
se disobedience to his superiors , misbehavior , false LTC factors including the past record of the workman before
aims , unauthorized absence etc. and it is a public limited awarding the purishment and the workman had also filed
mpany and the service conditions of its employees are an appeal before the appellate authority against the order
verned by Bipartite settlements and the workman was of punishment and the appellate authority on merits
mpulsorily retired from the services of the Bank , because rejected the same and the complainant , Mr. S.S. Sarda
hismisbehavior with Mr. Sarda , after conducting of a was examined as MW - 3 in the departmental enquiry and
ailed departmental enquiry and on 20.10.2005 , Mr. he had confirmed the incident both in his examination
arudatta Deshpande came to the branch along with Mr. in chief and cross examination by the workman himself
S. Sarda to deposit a sum of and as such , the alleged withdrawal of the complaint by
550/ - in the savings account of Mr. Sarda and when the complainant is irrelevant and the order of punishment
sh was tendered to the workman , he refused to accept passed by the disciplinary authority dated 07.04.2007 was
Rs . 500 currency notes abruptly and when Mr. Virendra , acknowledged by the workman on 16.04.2007 and the
ficer of the bank requested the workman to accept the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was
i currency note , as the same was a genuine one , the fair and proper and the same was conducted in accordance
rkman used unparliamentary words against the said with the provisions of the bipartite settlement and the
cer and he also started arguing with Mr. Sarda, the principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer
tomer and during the course of his argument the analyzed the evidence on the record of the enquiry and
found the workman guilty of the charges and the enquiry
rkman used filthy language such as " teri ma ki " against
officer also fully considered the defence statement and
customer and such act of the workman spoiled the
age of the bank in the eyes of the public and Mr. Sarda the workman was full opportunity to defend himself in
the enquiry and the punishment imposed is commensurate
ged a complaint against the workman and basing on
with the charge proved against him in the domestic
complaint , an investigation was conducted against
enquiry and the workman is not entitled to any relief .
workman and the investigation confirmed the incidence
the averments made by the workman that the customer 4. As this is a case of compulsory retirement of the
sed him or assaulted him are not true and the workman from service after holding of a domestic enquiry ,
stigation report did not reveal happening of any such the fairness or otherwise of the domestic enquiry was
dent and Mr. Virendra , the officer - in charge after taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration and by
rying the genuineness of the currency note , requested order dated 11.07.2014 , the departmental enquiry
workman to accept the same and as the workman asked conducted against the workman was held to be legal ,
is authentication in writing , the said officer signed on proper and in accordance with the principles of natural
hallan and being aggrieved by the act of the workman , justice.
ustomer demanded for the complaint book and as it 5. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the
mandatory to give the complaint book on demand by learned advocate for the workman that on 20.10.2005 ,
ustomer , the officer gave the customer the complaint the workman was threatened and assaulted by one Mr.
and 22.10.2005 , the investigation was conducted into Sarda , while he was on duty at the branch and the
ncident and the investigating officer took statements authority at the branch present at that time , instead of
e staff , who were present on the date of the incident controlling the incident , encouraged Mr. Sarda to lodge
7230
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24 , 1936
properly and based his findings on the evidence on record of the enquiry and as such , the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse and Mr. Sarda made the complaint against the workman and basing on his complaint, the departmental enquiry was initiated against the workman and Mr. Sarda also appeared as a witness in the departmental inquiry on behalf of the management and against the workman and also gave evidence in support of the complaint made against the workman and the charges levelled against the workman were proved in the departmental inquiry and as such there was no question of consideration of the alleged withdrawal letter of Mr. Sarda , the same having no effect on the question of imposing the punishment and the workman was supplied with the copy of the enquiry report and served with the second show - cause notice and he was given personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority , before imposition of the punishment and the Disciplinary Authority after taking in to consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case , the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the reply of the workman to the second show- cause notice , the submissions made by the workman during his personal hearing, the past service record of the workman and the gravity and seriousness of the misconducts proved against the workman, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service against him and the punishment is neither harsh nor shockingly disproportionate and the same commensurate with the charges proved against the workman and for that , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties , I think it apropos to mention the principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of decisions in regard to the power of the Tribunal to interfere with punishment awarded by the competent authority in departmental proceedings .
In a number of decisions , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that: -
complaint against the workman and the workman acted in the interest of the Bank and suspecting the genuineness of the 500 rupees note tendered by the customer, asked the customer to give another note and it is clear from the evidence on record of the departmental inquiry that there is no concrete proof to show that the workman uttered filthy language and there was a preliminary investigation into the alleged incident and the statements of the witnesses recorded in the preliminary investigation were not produced in the enquiry and only selected statements were produced and it is clear from the evidence of Mr. Virendra , the Assistant Manager recorded in the inquiry that the workman did not utter any vulgar or unparliamentary words and it was Mr. Sarda , who threatened and provogated the workman and the workman was made the scapegoat and there are material inconsistencies in the evidence of the Mr. Sarda and the other witnesses examined by the management in the enquiry and the evidence of the witnesses is quite contradictory to each other and from the evidence on record of the enquiry , it cannot be said that the charges levelled against the workman were conclusively proved , but the Enquiry Officer without considering the evidence in its proper perspective and without any documentary proof, held the charges to have been proved against the workman and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are contrary to the evidence on record and therefore are perverse . It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that Mr. Sarda on 01.02.2007 voluntarily withdrew his complaint and the workman requested the Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter sympathetically and not to impose a harsh and disproportionate punishment of compulsory retirement and again on 24.02.2007 , Mr. Sarda gave a letter tendering apology for his lodging the complaint and also for withdrawing his complaint and the party No.1 should have taken into consideration such facts , before imposing the harsh and disproportionate punishment and the past service record of the workman was considered by the Disciplinary Authority at the time of imposing the punishment , without offering any opportunity to the workman to explain the same and the punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed against the workman is too harsh and disproportionate and he was victimized on a false and baseless complaint and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages and all other consequential benefits .
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction . The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse . The power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of Legislature or rules made under the proviso te Article 309 of the Constitution . Ifthere has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends ofjustice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction o the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct , Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for 6. Percontra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party No.1 that this Tribunal by order dated 11.07.2014 has already held the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman to be legal . Proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in this case , the Enquiry Officer has analyzed the evidence on record of the enquiry including the defence evidence 7231
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
that of the authority . The adequacy of penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter of the Tribunal to concern itself with . The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter .
The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter . " "
It isalso settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that : -
" A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority and on appeal , the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline . They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct . The High Court/Tribunal , while exercising the power ofjudicial review , cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/ Tribunal , it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary / appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed , or to shorten the litigation , it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases , impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. "
It is also settled beyond doubt that departmental
enquiry is not bound by strict rules of Evidence Act , but by fair play and natural justice . Only total absence , but not sufficiency of evidence before Tribunal is ground for interference . If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the court and in a departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a Finding recorded on the basis of " preponderance of probability" .
3. Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned above , now, the present case in hand is to be considered .
Onperusal of the record , it is found that the findings
of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record of the departmental enquiry . The Enquiry Officer has analyzed the evidence on the record of the departmental enquiry in a rational manner and has assigned reasons in support of his findings . It is also found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not as such , which cannot be Arrived at by a reasonable man on the materials on record of the departmental enquiry . It is not a case of total absence of evidence on record of the enquiry or that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on totally against the evidence on record . Hence , the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse .
9. So far the question of proportionality of the punishment is concerned , it is found that grave misconduct ofrefusal to obey the lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors and doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank have been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. Contention that Mr. Sarda , the complainant had withdrawn his grievances would not condone the misconduct . Hence , the punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed against the workman cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate . From the facts and circumstances of the case , it is found that there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman . Hence , it is ordered: -
ORDER
The action of the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. , in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement vide their order dated 07/04/2007 on Shri Rolla Venkata Poonaih Ex-Clerk is legal and justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2926.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ त्रावनकोर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , अरूनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30/10/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/46/2009- आईआर ( बी- I ) ]
सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November , 2014
S.O. 2926.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2011 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the State Bank of Travancore , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30/10/2014 .
[No. L - 12012/46/2009 - IR(B - I ) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer 7232
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014 / KARTIKΚΑ 24 , 1936
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
Present : Shri.D.Sreevallabhan , B.Sc. , LL.B , Presiding Officer
(Tuesday the 30thday of September , 2014 /8th Asvina ,
1936)
ID 1/2011
Workman : Shri P. Narayanan
Janatha Deposit Collector State Bank of Travancore Manjeri , Nova Pulpatta
PO Malappuram District Kerala
By M/ s . H. B. Shenoy Associates
Management : The Manager
State Bank of Travancore Manjeri Malappuram District Kerala
By Adv Shri P. Ramakrishnan
This case coming up for final hearing on 23.09.2014 and this Tribunal- cum- Labour Court on 30.09.2014 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 - 12012 /46/2009 - IR ( B - I ) dated 01.12.2010 referred the industrial dispute scheduled thereunder to this tribunal for adjudication .
2. The dispute is:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Travancore , Manjeri Branch , in not allowing Shri P. Narayanan to continue to work as Jantha Deposit Collector , is justified or not ? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "
3. Workman filed claim statement by making the allegations that he was working as Janatha Deposit Collector at the Manjeri branch of the management bank after his appointment in their services w.e.f. 01.11.1976. While so in January, 2000 he had sought for leave on account of sickness from 04.01.2000 onwards by submitting leave application . After recovery from illness he sought permission to rejoin duty on 31.12.2012 by submitting an application with a medical certificate . But he was not allowed to join duty. In spite of repeated requests made afterwards to the Branch Manger and other higher authorities he was not permitted to join duty. Hence he filed WP (C ) No.21704/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and it was disposed of with a direction to the management to consider his representation within a period of one month . Pursuant to it management declined his request as per letter dated 03.09.2008 on the premise that he had abandoned work and the management stopped opening of Janatha Deposit Accounts . Such action of the management amounts to retrenchment . It is illegal as it was resorted to without complying with the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G and in violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act . The allegation as to abandonment of service was not preceded by any enquiry and it is against the terms of the award of the Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad in ID 14/1980 as modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as to the conditions of service of workman in the management bank . It tantamounts to unfair labour practice . Janatha Deposit Accounts are still being opened and operated and a substantial number of deposit collectors including those junior in service to the workman are in the regular services of the management . But he was without employment or job or income after his termination . Hence he is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages , continuity of service and other attendant benefits .
4. Inthewritten statement management would contend that the workman has no right to raise the industrial dispute and the same is not maintainable . There is inordinate delay in raising the dispute and hence the same is liable to be rejected for that reason . For the collection of amounts from the public under the Janatha Deposit Scheme the management bank had appointed the workman as one of the agents on the basis of the agreement dated 30.10.1976 entered into between him and the bank . As per the terms of the agreement he should visit households / shops established in the area assigned to him at least once in a calendar month for canvassing and collecting deposits under the scheme . Pursuant to the agreement he had worked as deposit collector of the Manjeri branch of the bank . He had stopped the work of taking deposits after 30.12.1999 . He had submitted a letter dated 04.01.2000 seeking leave on the ground of illness for an indefinite period and with a request to close the deposits so as to avoid inconvenience to the depositors . He did not submit any medical certificate or furnished any details about hospitalization or treatment . As per the terms of the said agreement janatha deposit collectors are not entitled for leave but eligible only for payment of commission for the amount of deposits collected by them . He had not nominated a representative to continue the operation of the accounts as per the terms of the agreement . It had resulted in the decline in the janatha deposit accounts from June 1999 onwards . The workman had voluntarily abandoned the work in violation of the terms of the agreement . The action of the management in declining the request of the workman does not amount to retrenchment and bank has not violated any of the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7233
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . Since the janatha deposit scheme was not beneficial to the bank it was allowed to continue only in branches where it was active by issuing circular No.38 / 1998 dated 03.07.1998 . Manjeri branch had closed all janatha deposit schemes in January , 2000 due to the withdrawal of the amounts by the account holders . No account was opened and no deposit collector was employed in the Manjeri branch after the abandonment ofwork by the workman . As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the deposit collectors are to be treated as workman for the limited purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act and they cannot claim service benefits on par with the regular employees of the bank. They are governed by the terms of the agreement by which they are engaged . They are not entitled for any leave . The workman left his work on his volition and thereby the agreement became unenforceable . Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act has no application to this industrial dispute . The management has not resorted to any unfair labour practice . There is no illegal denial of employment of the workman by the management bank . The janatha deposit collectors are entitled to undertake other works as it is only a part- time work . The workman is attending profitable engagements and it may be the reason for not raising the industrial dispute for a long period . It cannot be believed thathe was under treatment for three years . As the workman had abandoned his work in violation of the terms of the contract he is not entitled to be reinstated in service or for any other relief.
5. Workmanfiled replication denying the contentions in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the claim statement .
6. For the purpose of deciding the dispute evidence , both oral and documentary , was adduced from both sides . For the workman he was examined as WW1 and Exts.W1 to W11 were marked . On the side of the management one witness was examined as MW1 and Exts.M1 and M2 were marked.
7. The points for determination are :
( i ) Whether the industrial dispute is maintainable ?
( ii ) Whether the action of the management in not allowing the workman to continue to work as janatha deposit worker amounts to retrenchment which requires compliance of the- provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act ?
(iii ) What relief, if any , the workman is entitled?
8. Point No. (i ) :-Maintainability is challenged on the grounds of inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute and the incompetency of the workman to raise the dispute . At the time of argument there was no attempt on the part of the learned counsel for the management to substantiate any of those grounds challenging the maintainability .
9. Workman was not permitted to rejoin duty on 31.12.2002 after refusing the request made by him by submitting the original of Ext . W2 series . The dispute was raised in the year 2009. There is delay in raising the dispute , but that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the claim has become stale in view of the several representations made to the Branch Manager and to the other higher authorities seeking permission to rejoin duty. It is because of the failure of the management bank to grant or refuse permission that necessitated him to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing WP ( C) No.21704 /2008 (H ) . Itwas disposed of on 11.08.2008 with a direction to the management to pass orders on his request within a period of one month from that date in the light of the relevant rules governing the appointment of daily deposit collection agents . It was on 03.09.2008 management declined the request of the workman to rejoin duty and the same is evidenced by Ext . W11 . The industrial dispute was raised in the year 2009. Hence there is reason for the delay in raising the industrial dispute and it cannot be held that it is not maintainable due to the delay in raising the dispute .
10. It is not specifically contended in the written statement as to why the workman is not entitled to raise the industrial dispute . In the decision reported in Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others AIR 2001 SC 946 it was held that tiny deposit collectors are workmen coming within the purview of the definition under Section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act . As it is a case of denial of request for joining duty it can be said to be termination of his service enabling him to raise the industrial dispute . Hence it cannot be held thatthe industrial dispute is not maintainable for the reason that the workman is not competent to raise such a dispute .
11. Point No. ( ii ) :-Workman was absenting himself from duty continuously after submitting leave application dated 04.01.2000 , copy of which was marked as Ext . W1 . After seeking leave for an indefinite period request is also made in Ext . W1 to close the accounts of the daily depositors . Afterwards he came to rejoin duty only on 31.12.2002 . He was not allowed to rejoin duty and he was continuously making representations to permit him to rejoin duty. His request was declined as per Ext . W11 dated 03.09.2008 . Whether the denial of the management bank to re - engage him amounts to retrenchment is the question which requires consideration in this case . It is the case of the management bank that he had abandoned the service in violation of the terms of the agreement executed by him on 30.10.1976 for his engagement , copy of which was marked as Ext.M1 . It was argued by the learned counsel for the management that as per the terms of the agreement the management has got the right to terminate him at any time without any notice if he acts in violation of the terms 7234
[PART II-SEC. 3(ⅱ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15, 2014/KARTIKA 24, 1936
ofthe agreement and to substantiate it reference was made to clause 4( i) of the agreement which reads thus:
13. No evidence is adduced to prove that there is violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Nothing was also argued by the learned counsel for the workman to satisfy the same .
"4. The Bank may without notice terminate the agency at any time , if the Deposit Collector:
(i) comits breach of any of the terms and/ or conditions ofthis Agreement and ofthe Rules and Regulations referred to above and also ofother such directions as may be issued from time to time by the Bank in this behalf; "
14. Since the workman was terminated from service for the violation of the terms of the agreement by abandonment of work without making any nomination ik cannot be said that it would amount to retrenchment and hence requires compliance of the requirements under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
15. Point No. ( iii) :-In the result an award is passed holding that the action of the management in denying the request of the workman to continue in service as Janath Deposit Collector is justified and hence he is not entitled toany relief.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
It was further argued by him that the workman is not eligible for any leave and he had acted in violation of the terms ofthe agreement which entitles the management to terminate his service without any notice . By making reference to clause 10 of Annexure - A in Ext . M1 it was argued by him that the deposit collector had to nominate a representative while he was absenting from duty on account of illness . Clause 10 of Annexure - A reads as follows: -
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this 30th day of September, 2014 .
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
01.01.2014
WW1
Shri P Narayanan
Witness for the management
MW1
03.07.2014 Shri Ajayan P
Exhibits for the workman
W1
" 10. In case of continued absence of the Deposit Collector on account of illness or for any other reason for which he /she has been permitted by the Bank to be so absent , the Deposit Collector shall nominate a representative acceptable to the Bank who will discharge the duties of the Deposit Collector during the period of the absence of the DepositCollector on the strength of a temporary identity card which will be issued to him by the Bank. The Deposit Collector shall be responsible for all acts of omission, commission etc. , of the temporary agent and also any default or negligence on his part and shall in this respect be answerable to the Bank" .
True copy of letter dated 4.01.2000 addressed to the Manager, State ank Travancore , Manjeri by the workman
W2
True copy of letter dated 31.12.2002 addressed to the Manager, State Bank ofTravancore , Manjeri by the workman
W2(a)
The workman instead of nominating a representative made request to close the accounts . It is detrimental to the interest of the bank . He is not entitled to avail any leave as per the terms of Ext.M1 and make request to close the accounts . Hence the management has got the right to terminate the workman without any notice.
True copy ofMedical Certificate das 31.12.2002 issued by Dr. K. Saravanadasan , A Class Regd. Medical Practitioner to the workman.
W3
Truecopy ofthe letter dated 16.04.200
W4 True copy of letter dated 05.11.20 addressed to the Regional Manager State Bank of Travancore , Kozhikod bytheworkman .
W5 Postal Receipts Nos . RLAD A 8890 RLAD A 8891 dated 05.11.2003
W6
12. In the above referred decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court after finding that the tiny deposit collectors are workmen coming within the purview of the definition under Section 2( s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act it was held that his pay, allowances and other service conditions cannot be that of a regular employee . The service conditions are governed through independent agreement or as per the provisions contained in the Tiny Deposit Scheme. Since the workman had violated the terms of the agreement entered into by him with the management bank the latter has got the right to terminate him without any notice . It does not amount to retrenchment which necessitates the compliance of the requirements under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
True copy of the letter dated 19.04.200 addressed to the Manager, State Bar ofTravancore, Manjeri by the workma [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7235
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
W7
True copy ofthe letter dated 02.04.2007 addressed to the Regional Manager , State Bank of Travancore , Kozhikode by the workman.
W8 Postal acknowledgement Card addressed to the Assistant General Manager - III , State Bank of Travancore , Kozhikode .
W8(a)
Postal acknowledgement Card addressed to the Manager , State Bank ofTravancore , Manjeri .
W9 True copy of Judgment dated 11.08.2008 in WP ( C ) No.21704 / 2008 ( H) of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala , Ernakulam.
W10
True copy of letter dated 29.08.2008 addressed to the Regional Manager , State Bank of Travancore , Kozhikode by the workman .
W11
Letter No.AGM III / KKD / 13 dated 03.09.2008 issued by the Assistant General Manager - III , State Bank of Travancore , Zonal Office , Kozhikode to the workman .
Exhibits for the management
MI True copy of the agreement dated 30.10.1976 entered into between the management bank and the workman.
M2 True copy of Circular No.38 / 98 dated 03.07.1998 issued by the General Manager ( P & D) .
नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2927.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ सं. एल -41011 / 68 /2013- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] सुमति सकलानी , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November , 2014
S.O. 2927.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 42/2013 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour
4337 Gl /14-11
Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of North West Railway, and their workmen , received by the Central Government. on 10/11/2014 .
[No. L -41011 /68 /2013 - IR (B - I ) ] SUMATI SAKLANI , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER I.D.42/ 2013 Reference No.L -41011 / 68 /2013 - IR( B - I ) dated: 31.7.2013
The President North West Railway Karmachari Sangh , 8 / A, D.A.V. College Staff Colony, Bayawar Road , Ajmer . Versus
Dy. Chief Electrical Engineer ( Factory ) North West Railway Ajmer.
Present :-
None .
For the Applicant Union
For the Non - applicant : Sh . Purnendra Sharma , Adv. AWARD 23.9.2014
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d ) of Sub Section 1 & 2 (A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication: -
"Whether the action of the management of Dy. Chief Electrical Engineer ( Factory) , N. W.R. , Ajmer for fresh exam disregarding the claim of four candidates ( 1 ) Sh . M.N.Qureshi , (2) Sh . Balveer Prakash Sharma , (3) Sh . Vikram Singh and (4) Sh. Parveen Kumar Ojha , who had cleared the earlier exam is legal & justified ? To what relief the said workmen are entitled ?"
2 . Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order , registered notices were sent to both the parties on 3.9.2013 fixing 16.1.2014 for filing the claim . On 16.1.2014 notices returned served against both the parties & acknowledgement connected therewith is on record . On 16.1.2014 none appeared from applicant side , authority letter for opposite party was filed by Sh . Purnendra Sharma , Advocate . In the interest of justice case was adjourned 7236
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014 /KARTIKA 24, 1936
के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22011 /28/2011- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी on16.1.2014 by court & opportunity was given to applicant for filing statement of claim on 8.4.2014 . On 8.4.2014 both the parties were absent & presiding officer was on leave hence, again opportunity was given to the applicant for filing statement of claim on 17.6.2014. On 17.6.2014 learned counsel for opposite party was present . Neither anyone appeared from applicant side nor statement of claim was filedhence, order to proceed ex - parte against the applicant was passed & case was fixed for ex - parte evidence of opposite party on 10.7.2014.
New Delhi , the 10th November, 2014
S.O. 2928.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 21/2013 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labo Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industri Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 10/11/2014.
[No. L-22011/28/2011 - IR(CM- IT )
Β. Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 21 of 2013
Between:
3. On 10.7.2014 also applicant was absent & learned counsel for opposite party was present . Learned Advocates were on strike hence , 23.7.2014 was date fixed for ex -parte evidence /hearing against applicant . On 23.7.2014 learned advocates were on strike & both the parties were absent . In the interest of justice case was fixed on 30.7.2014 for ex - parte hearing. On 30.7.2014 none appeared from both the side . On next dates 30.7.2014, 7.8.2014 & 4.9.2014 also there were advocate's strike in continuation of indefinite strike . None appeared from both side on these dates & on 4.9.2014 , case was adjourned by the court in interest ofjustice for 19.9.2014 for ex - parte hearing against applicant . On 19.9.2014 there was no advocate'sstrike but none appeared from both sides hence case was reserved for award . Looking into above fact & circumstances & the result of continuous proceeding since 3.9.2013 till date about absence of statement of claim despite provided opportunity & continuous none appearance of applicant the case was reserved for award.
The General Secretary, Food Corporation of India, Handling Workers Union, 86/51 , Arakashan Road , Paharganj , New Delhi .
And The Executive Director , Food Corporation of India , A -2A , A -2B , Sector 24, Noida , U. P.
AWARD
1. Central Government , MoL, New Delhi , vid Notification No. L - 22,011 / 28 /2011 - I.R . CM - II . date 27.02.2013 , has referred the following dispute adjudication to this tribunal :
4. Itappears from entire proceeding taken up by the tribunal to adjudicate the reference that applicant is not interested in bringing the claim for adjudication before the tribunal though the applicant has been personally served with notice by registered post . It is also pertinent to note that as per order dated 31.7.2013 of the Ministry it was expected from the applicant on his own motion to file the statement of claim within 15 days from date of receipt of reference from Ministry but neither on his own motion nor on the service of notice send by the tribunal applicant has filed the claim . Under these circumstances , no material could be brought on record for adjudication of the reference order under consideration on merits . It appears that applicant is not willing & interested to contest the case further , therefore , " No Claim Award " is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
5. Award as above .
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
2. Whether the worker of the Corporation working the 14 Depots (list attached) under the state of Uta Pradesh can discharge their duties at the rail heads wi the work of loading unloading and transportation of are done ? What relief the workers of these depots entitled to?
नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2014
3. In the instant case after receipt of the reference order neither the Union nor the person representing union have appeared before the tribunal despite servi का.आ. 2928.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई.
भाग II --- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7237
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
of registered notice . Rather one application under the ignature of Joint Secretary of the Union was received nforming the tribunal that they are ' inclined to get mended the reference order. The application is neither proper nor valid as the same has not been signed by the General Secretary of the Union raising the dispute.
Since the Union has failed to file their statement of laim in the instant case despite availing of sufficient >pportunity , therefore , the reference is liable to be Answered against the Union and in support of the nanagement .
Accordingly the reference is decided against the nion for want of pleadings and proof and in favor of the management .
RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2929.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच नुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/ 180 / 2000 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th November , 2014
S.O. 2929.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the dustrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central overnment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. Ν.Τ. 02/ 006) of the Central Government National Industrial Tribunal- am - Labour Court , Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the dustrial Dispute between the management of Food orporation of India , and their workman , received by the entral Government on 10/11/2014 .
[No. L - 22012/ 180/ 2000 - IR( CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALAT KOLKATA
Reference No. NT - 02 of 2006
rties : Employers in relation to the management of Food orporation of India
AND
Their workmen
resent : Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY , Presiding Officer Appearance :
: Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal , Ld . Counsel
On behalf of the Management
: None
Onbehalf of the Workmen
State: West Bengal
Industry: Food & Public Distribution
Dated: 21st October , 2014
AWARD
By Order No.L - 22012 / 180 / 2000 - IR ( C - II ) dated 15.11.2006 and subsequent order of even number dated 10.01.2014 the Government of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 7B read with Section 10( 1A) of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this National Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether FCI is having scientific system of for assessing storage loss which has been caused due to number of factors such as temperature , moisture , micro organisms , insects , rats , birds , insecticides , storage unworthiness of the godown , draige etc. ? If not , what is its effect upon the fixing of , responsibility under its employees while regularizing the storage losses ? "
2. When the case was taken up today , none appears on behalf of the union , though the management is represented by its Ld . Counsel . It appears from the record that the union is absent for the last three consecutive dates . The union even has not taken any step to proceed with this reference inspite of specific order of the Tribunal onthe last date i.e. , on 14.08.2014 .
3. Considering the above facts and circumstances , it appears that the union is not at all interested to proceed with the case further . So , no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending. ,
4. Accordingly , the instant reference case is disposed of by passing a " No Dispute Award" .
Dated , Kolkata , The 21st October , 2014.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2930.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014 /KARTIKA 24 , 1936
21/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/370/1999- आईआर (सीएम- II ) ]
बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November , 2014
S.O. 2930. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the Dankuni Coal Complex, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10/11/2014 .
[No. L- 22012/370/ 1999 - IR( CM - II) ] Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑΙK , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 21 of 2000
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of the ChiefGeneral Manager, Dankuni Coal Complex
AND
Their workmen
Present : Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY , Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
: Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal , Ld . Counsel .
Management
: None .
Onbehalf of the Workmen
State: West Bengal
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
2. When the case is taken up today , none appears on behalf of the union , though the management is represented by its Ld . Counsel . It appears from the record that the union is absent since 26.11.2013 . Nor has any step been taken by it to proceed with this reference inspite of service of notice and inspite of specific order of the Tribunal on the last date i.e. , on 07.08.2014 .
3. Considering the above facts and circumstances , it appears that the union is not at all interested to proceed with the case further. So , no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending .
4. Accordingly , the instant reference case is disposed of by passing a " No Dispute Award" .
Dated, Kolkata, The 21st October , 2014 .
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2931.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भद्रा इन्टरनेशनल इण्डिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2013 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -11012 /15/2013 - आईआर ( सीएम-1 ) ]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November , 2014
Industry : Coal
Dated: 21st October, 2014.
AWARD
By Order No.L - 22012 / 370 / 99 / IR ( CM - II ) dated 20.02.2000 the Government of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Dankuni Coal Complex ( a subsidiary of SECL) in not considering the proper seniority to Sh . Ram Chandra Makal , now Tech . Gr . E superseding by his juniors S/ Sh . A. K. Seal , P. K. Seal and K. R. Sarkar is justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"
S.O. 2931. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/2013 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/ s . Bhadra International India Limited , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10/11/2014.
[No. L- 11012/ 15 /2013 - IR(CM - I) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 14th October , 2014
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 75/2013
(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7239
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of Bhadra International India td. & Another and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri A. Mariya Joseph
: 1st Party/ Petitioner
AND
The Vice President
: 2nd Party/Respondent
M/ s . Bhadra International
ndia Ltd. A - 9 , Airlines Office Gallery, 2nd Floor Anna International Terminal , Chennai Airport Chennai - 600027
Appearance :
For the 1st Party /Petitioner : M / s . K. Raja , N. Suresh , Advocates
For the 2nd Party /Respondent : Sri N. Vijayakumar , Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L - 11012/ 15 / 2013 - IR CM . I ) dated 27.06.2013 referred the following ndustrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
" Whether the action of the management of Bhadra International Ltd. , Chennai in respect of not allowing Sri K. Maria Joseph , Handyman to work spot is legal and justified ? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has umbered it as ID 75/2013 and issued notices to both ides . Both sides entered appearance through their ounsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement espectively.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the betitioner in brief are as below:
The petitioner was appointed as Handyman in Chennai Airport in the year 2003 under the Contractor. rom 2003 he was continuously working as such . When ne Respondent obtained the contract the petitioner was ppointment as Handyman (Import ) w.e.f. 17.02.2011 . ater the petitioner was put in the post of Shed - in - Charge n the scale of Rs . 13,000/ - in Import Cargo . But he was never paid the scale of Shed- in- Charge . As per the terms and conditions of the Appointment Order the petitioner vas under probation for six months . Having successfully ompleted his probation his appointment was confirmed . The appointment was for a period of 5 years subject to enewal by both parties on mutual agreement. Though the petitioner was posted at one place he was not allowed to work there . The petitioner sought for posting in the allotted place viz . the post of Shed- in- Charge and for salary for this post . After this the Respondent started to make problem so as to throw the petitioner out of service . He was stopped from attending duty w.e.f. 24.01.2012 . His pass was forfeited without assigning any reason . Since the appointment is for a period of 5 years , the Respondent could not terminate the petitioner before the expiry of this period . The petitioner was terminated from service arbitrarily without assigning any reasons and against the principles of natural justice . If the Respondent wanted to terminate the petitioner, one month's notice or salary in lieu of the same should have been paid . The petitioner has caused to issue a legal notice seeking reinstatement . This did not yield any result . It is consequently the dispute has been raised. An order may be passed directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits .
4. The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows :
The petitioner was appointed as Handyman by the FirstRespondent by letter dated 28.02.2011 on contract for a period of 5 years . The petitioner was never promoted as Shed - in- Charge . The petitioner was never confirmed in his employment . He was habitually absenting from duty and was absent from duty for more than 45 days from February 2011 to January 2012. In addition to this , he was indulging in unfair labour practices and was involved in misconduct of false propaganda against the Management officials . The petitioner has not successfully completed his probation . His probation was extended by 6 months . The habitual unauthorized absenteeism of the petitioner amounts to gross violation of discipline . The petitioner cannot choose his place of work or demand promotion . By demanding to work in a particular place of establishment the petitioner has violated his appointment order . The petitioner was never stopped from attending duty . He had voluntarily stopped attending work when he was exposed during an enquiry on a complaint against him was investigated . The petitioner continued to be on the rolls of the First Respondent even though he has not reported for duty since 24.01.2012 . The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5. The petitioner has raised the dispute only against M/ s . Bhadra International India Ltd. , Chennai , the First Respondent and this establishment alone is the party to the order of reference apart from the petitioner . Notice was sent only to the petitioner and M / s . Bhadra International India Ltd. on numbering the reference . However , while filing Claim Statement the petitioner has shown the Airports Authority of India as the Second Respondent , showing Bhadra International India Ltd. as the First Respondent . So in the Counter Statement Bhadra 7240
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIKA 24 , 1936
International India Ltd. has referred to itself as the First Respondent . The petitioner has not filed any application to implead anyone other than Bhadra International India Ltd. in the proceedings . Notice was not sent to Airports Authority of India also . Even as seen from the version given by the petitioner during his examination he has made Airport Authority of India only because it is the authority issuing Entry Pass . All along , in the Claim Statement , the petitioner is referring to " Respondent " and not " Respondents " and the relief is also claimed against Bhadra International India Ltd. only . Bhadra International India Ltd. being the only party to the reference other than the petitioner , it is referred to as the Respondent in the discussion below. The Airports Authority of India which is shown as Second Respondent in the Claim Statement is treated as not in the party array .
6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext . W1 to Ext. W22 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M8 (series ) .
7. The points for consideration are :
(i ) Whether the action of the Respondent in not allowing the petitioner to attend work is legal and justified?
( ii) What , if any , is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled ?
The Points
8. The Respondent is an establishment doing work forAirports Authority of India on contract . The petitioner was admittedly appointed by the Respondent as Handyman . As per the terms of appointment the period of employment is 5 years and this can be extended to a further period of 5 years on agreement .
9. According to the petitioner , though he was appointed as Handyman w.e.f. 17.02.2011 , he was put in the post of Shed - in- Charge which is having a scale of Rs . 13,000 subsequently . However , according to him the Respondent never paid the salary of Shed - in - Charge to him . His allegation is that when he demanded that he should be given a posting as Shed- in- Charge and he should be paid salary for this work , the Respondent started devices for sending him out of the job . It is alleged that he was not allowed to attend duty w.e.f. 24.01.2012 . He is claiming reinstatement alleging that there is no justification in terminating him from service without any notice and without assigning any reason .
10. The Respondent admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Handyman . However , according to the Respondent the petitioner was never engaged to do the work of Shed - in- Charge . He continued to do the work of Handyman only . The further case of the Respondent is that the petitioner was not even confirmed in the job , his probation having not been declared . According to the Respondent probation was extended for a period of 6 months . The Respondent has alleged that the petitioner was a continuous absentee and he was also indulging in the misconduct of making false propaganda against the Management officials . It is claimed by the Respondent that the petitioner has voluntarily stopped attending work since 24.01.2012 . According to the respondent the petitioner continued to be in its rolls even after this date.
11. Initially it is to be decided what exactly was the status of the petitioner on 24.01.2012 , whether he was a Handyman in probation , whether he was confirmed in the job of Handyman or whether he was put in the post of Shed- in- Charge . Ext . W10 is the letter of appointment dated 28.02.2011 which states that the appointment of he petitioner as Handyman will be effective from 17.02.2011 and the appointee will be on probation for a period of 6 months . 24.01.2012 is admittedly the date on which the petitioner stopped working . By then almost a year has elapsed after the appointment of the petitioner. The period of probation as per Ext . W10 is only 6 months . Though there is a case for the Respondent that the period was extended by 6 months no documents are produced to prove this . Apart from this , MW1 the Senior Executive of the Respondent has stated that the petitioner has successfully completed the period of probation. There seems to have been no practice for the Respondent to give any written order confirming in employment . The admission by MW1 that the petitioner was confirmed in his job is enough to show that the petitioner has successfully completed his period of probation and he was confirmed in the job as Handyman . Certainly, he was not on probation on 24.01.2012 , the date on which he stopped working.
12. The case of the petitioner is that after working for some period as Handyman , he was put in the job of Shed- in- Charge and he was working as such . However he has not stated from which date he started to work as Shed- in- Charge . He has been relying upon certain documents produced by him to show that he was actually engaged to work as Shed Incharge . In Ext . W13 which is referred to as posting order, the name of the petitioner comes under Shed- in- Charge alongwith others . In Ext . W14 to Ext. W 16 also there is reference to him as Shed - in -Charge . However , there is nothing to show that these are documents of the Respondent . These documents do not show the name of the Respondent . No one has signed these documents on behalf of the Respondent . The petitioner has not sated how he came to be in the custody ofthese documents . So on the basis of these documents it could not be stated that he was put in the post of Shed- in - Charge. When the admission made by the petitioner itself is taken into account it could be seen that he was never posted as Shed- in - Charge . He has admitted during his cross -examination that he was not given any letter appointing him as Shed - in- Charge . There was no increase 7241
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014 /कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
in salary also . So it is clear from the evidence of the petitioner that he was not given promotion to the post of Shed- in- Charge . The documents produced on behalf of the Respondent refer to the petitioner only as Handyman and not as Shed- in- Charge . Ext.M6 , the roster and Ext.M7 , the Attendance Register refer to him as Handyman only. Referring to Ext.M7 , MW1 has stated that the petitioner was put under supervisor because of his experience though he was a handyman . In this document , while the petitioner is shown as Handyman , he is shown under the Column Supervisor . It is to be borne in mind that even as per Ext . W1 to Ext . W7 , the entry passes and Ext.W8 , the salary receipt , the petitioner had been doing the same work under other Contractors as well . As seenfrom Ext . W1 to Ext . W7 , he was earlier working for one Omega Enterprises . As pointed out by the counsel for the Respondent even in the claim statement what is stated by the petitioner is that he was discharging his duties without any room for complaint during his tenure as Handyman . Again , in Ext . W18 the legal notice issued by the petitioner to the Respondent has no claim that he was working as Shed- in- Charge until 24.01.2012 , on which date he was allegedly forced to stop work . So the case of the Respondent that the petitioner was Handyman only is to be accepted . However , he was confirmed in job and was not on probation .
13. The petitioner was not able to work under the Respondent from 24.01.2012 . What the Respondent has stated is that when it started enquiring into the complaint against the petitioner he stopped attending work. The only document produced to show that the petitioner has committed any misconduct and the matter was enquired into is Ext.M5 . This is referred to as Enquiry Committee Report . It states that the petitioner has made allegation on duty allocations and the complaint was found false . There is no case for the Respondent that the petitioner was given any opportunity to present his case before the Enquiry Committee . Again , there is no case for the Respondent thatit was because of the complaint made by the petitioner or on account of any other misconduct he was sent out of work.
14. In fact there is no case at all for the Respondent that the petitioner was terminated from service . According to the Respondent , the petitioner was a continuous absentee and has stopped attending work when he got wind of the enquiry that was being conducted against him . The petitioner of course seems to have been absent for some day prior to 24.02.2012 as admitted by him during his cross- examination . However , after such absence the petitioner has attended work . His previous absence was not found as a disqualification for continuing the work as Handyman . Now the question is whether the petitioner has voluntarily absented from work from 24.01.2012 and has abandoned his job for good . If the case of the respondent is taken into account the petitioner was maintained in its rolls even after 24.2.2011 , but he continued to absent from work . No proceedings seem to have been initiated against the petitioner by the Respondent for absenting from wok . Ext.M8 is a letter said to have been sent to the petitioner on 02.02.2012 asking him to join duty within three days . Ext.M8 ( b ) is another letter dated 06.02.2012 stating that the petitioner is presumed to have abandoned his service because of his prolonged absence beyond 8 days , that he has lost his lien on his appointment on account of his absence . Though it is stated in these two letters that they are sent under Certificate of Posting , no proof is produced to prove that they were sent to the petitioner and he has received these . The petitioner has stated that he has not received any such letters . Of course , he has stated during his cross - examination that he was not residing in the address given to the Respondent . However , in the absence ofproofofsending of these letters to the petitioner , it is to be assumed that such letters were not sent to him at all .
15. In spite of the case in Ext.M8 (d ) that the petitioner is to be considered to have abandoned his service , the stand taken in the Counter Statement of the Respondent is that the petitioner continued to be in the rolls and it was a case of his not coming and working . If the petitioner was treated to have abandoned from service , his name would not have been retained in the rolls . It could be seen from the documents produced by the petitioner that he was making hectic attempts to assert his position as a worker with the Respondent . Ext . W17 is the representation given by the petitioner to the Respondent on 07.02.2012 stating that he is waiting outside ready to enter and do his work . In the absence of entry pass the petitioner would not be able to enter the Airport . Even as admitted by the Respondent each worker has to surrender his entry pass to the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security on completion of the work of shift . This has been stated by the petitioner during his examination also . So only if the Respondent allows the petitioner to do work the Airport Authority will be issuing the pass . There is no case for the Respondent that it did not received Ext . W17 representation. Since there was no result for Ext. W17 , the petitioner had sent Ext.W18 a legal notice also to the Respondent . For this also there was no reply from the Respondent . If the case of the Respondent that the petitioner was not terminated from service is true a reply could have been sent stating that he is welcome to continue in the job . Though before the Conciliation Officer and in the Counter Statement before this Court , the Respondent has stated that the petitioner was not terminated from service , there was not even a whisper that the Respondent is willing to allow the petitioner to continue in the job . It is clear from the conduct ofthe Respondent that because of certain claims made by the petitioner it found the petitioner unacceptable and decided to turn him out . No notice as required under Section- 25 ( F ) under the ID Act has been given to the 7242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIKA 24 , 1936
petitioner. He was not given any pay in lieu of notice also. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.
16. In view of my discussion above , an award is passed asbelow:
The Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a month of the award .
The reference is answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI , Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
: WW1 , Sri A. Mariya Joseph For the 1st Party/ Petitioner
: MW1 , Sri P. Vijayakumar For the 2nd Party/ Management
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date Description
13.04.2005
Ex.W1
Entry Pass
Ex. W2 03.06.2005 Entry Pass
20.08.2005
Ex.W3
Entry Pass
Ex.W4 22.11.2005 Entry Pass
Ex.W5 17.01.2006 Entry Pass
Ex. W6 22.07.2006 Entry Pass
Ex.W7 16.10.2006 Entry Pass
Ex.W8 Feb. 2009 Salary Receipt
12.02.2011
Ex. W9
Letter of Intent
28.02.2011
Ex.W10
Letter of Appointment
Ex. W11 June2011 Salary Receipt
Ex.W12 10.12.2011 Roaster List
30.12.2011
Ex.W13
Posting Order
Roaster List
Ex.W14 30.12.2011
Ex.W15 03.01.2012 Roaster List
09.01.2012 Roaster List
Ex. W16
07.02.2012
Ex.W17
Representation
21.05.2012
Ex. W18
LegalNotice
04.09.2012 Petition u/ s 2A
Ex.W19
Ex.W20
Nil Reply to petition u/ s 2A
Ex.W21 Jan2013 Rejoinder
Ex.W22 20.05.2012 Failure Report
On the Management's side
Ex.No.
Date Description
Ex.M1
Annexure - A: Salary Feb. 2011 to Jan2012 Statements
Ex.M2
Annexure- B : Attendance Feb. 2011 to
Feb. 2012 Record
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii))
Nil
Ex.M3
Annexure-C : Complaint Letter
Ex.M4 28.02.2011 Annexure- D : Copy Appointment Letter
Ex.M5 28.01.2012 Annexure-E: Enquiry Report
Annexure- F : Roster Ex.M6 20.01.2012 to 23.01.2012
Ex.M7
Annexure -G : Attendance Record
Jan , to Feb. 2012
Ex.M8 06.02.2012 Annexure-H : Letters
नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2932.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगि अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10/11/2014 को प्र हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/ 22/2012- आईआर ( सीएम-1 ) ]
एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November, 2014
S.O. 2932.- In pursuance of Section 17 of t Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Centre Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2012) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labo Court No. 2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of the BCCL, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10/11/2014 .
[No. L-20012/22/2012 - IR( CM
M. K. SINGH , Section Of
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 Se 10(1)(d) of the 1.D. Act . , 1947.
REFERENCE NO . 50 OF 2012.
Parties: The Organizing Secretary,
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh Rajendra Path , Dhanbad . Vs.
The General Manager,
Sijua Area of M/s . BCCL,
PO: Sijua , Dhanbad.
Ministry'sOrder No L- 20012/22/2012-IR (CM-I)dt.30.07.12.
भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7243
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/ कार्तिक 24 , 1936
Appearances :
Onbehalf of the workman/Union : None
Mr. D. K.Verma On behalf of the Management :
Ld . Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dhanbad , Dated , the 22nd Sept , 2014 .
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in xercise of the powers conferred on then under ec.10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the llowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide Deir Order No L - 20012 /22 / 2012 - IR ( CM - I ) dt.30.07.12 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in not regularizing Sri Baijnath Jaiswara in the post of Dozer Operator is fair and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? "
No Representative for the Rastriya Colliery azdoor Sangh , Rajendra Path , Dhanbad nor workman aijnath Jaiswara appeared nor any written statement th documents filed so far . Mr. D. K.Verma , the Ld . dvocate for the O.P./Management of Sijua Area of M/ s . CL is present .
Onperusal of the case record , it is quite clear that spite three Regd.letters issued to the Union concerned its address noted in the Reference , neither the Union : the workman responded it . As such the Organization cretary of the Union and the workman by their conducts Dear to be not willing to pursue or contest the case . It ems no longer industrial dispute . Hence the case is sed and accordingly, an order of ' No Dispute ' is passed .
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2933. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इण्डिया मटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक करण/ श्रम न्यायालय -2 , मुंबई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2003 ) प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10/11/2014 को प्राप्त था।
[ सं. एल -11012/42/2002- आईआर ( सी- I ) ]
एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th November, 2014
S.O. 2933. In pursuance of Section 17 of the strial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central
G1/14-12
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 16/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/ s . Air India Limited , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 10/11/2014 .
[No. L - 11012/42/2002 - IR (C - I ) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 , MUMBAI
Present : K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO . CGIT -2 /16 of 2003
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF AIR INDIA LTD .
The Managing Director
Air India Building
Nariman Point
Air India Ltd. Mumbai 400 021 .
AND
THEIR WORKMEN .
Mr. Sadanand K. Shinde 13/22 , Old Air India Colony Kalina
Santacruz (E) Mumbai 400 029 .
Appearances :
Forthe employer : Ms. Geeta Raju , Advocate i/ b M/ s . Kini & Co.
For the Workmen : Ms. Prafulla S. Shetty, Advocate
Mumbai , dated the 8th September , 2014 .
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour& Employment by its Order No.L - 11012 / 42 / 2002 - IR ( C - I ) , dated 10.03.2003 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 Air India Ltd. , in dismissing the services of Mr. Sadanand Krishna Shinde, Junior Operator, w.e.f. 12.01.1998 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? " 7244
[PART II--SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24 , 1936
2. After receipt of the reference , notices were issued to both the parties . Second party workman filed his statement of claim on 26/09/2005 at Ex - 13 . Management resisted the statement of claim by filing their Written Statement on 21/03/2006 at Ex - 14 . Issues were framed at Ex- 16 . Thereafter both parties led their evidences and filed their respective Written Arguments .
3. In this respect I would like to point out that Approval Application was filed by the first party management before National industrial Tribunal , Mumbai bearing Approval Application No.NTB.6 of 1998. The said Approval Application was heard and finally decided on merits by Judgement dated 10.01.2007 . Copy of the same is filed alongwith list Ex - 24 . All the points in this reference were dealt with in the said Approval Application filed by Air India against Shri S. K. Shinde , the concerned workman in this reference . Hon'ble Justice Ghanshyam Das while deciding the Approval Application held that inquiry was fair and proper and findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse . He also came to the conclusion that punishment was not disproportionate . Therefore the Hon'ble Presiding Officer has allowed the Approval Application of the first party for dismissal of the workman from their services . The same issues are in this reference which are already dealt with and decided by National Industrial Tribunal . Now this Tribunal cannot go in to the same issues again .
4. In view of the Judgement dated 10/01/2007 passed by Hon'ble Presiding Officer , National Industrial Tribunal in Approval Application NTB no.6 of 1998 , the reference became redundant and deserves to be dismissed . Hence the order:
ORDER
The Reference stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
Date: 08/09/2014
Κ . Β . ΚΑΤΑΚΕE , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 13 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2934. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार टिस्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय . 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 195/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ सं. एल-20012 / 152 / 2001- आईआर ( सी -1 ) ] एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th November , 2014
S.O. 2934.--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 195/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/ s . TISCO , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 13/11/2014 .
[No. L - 20012/ 152/2001 - 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 . 195 OF 2001
PARTIES : The Organization Secretary, Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh . Rajendra Path , Dhanbad . Vs.
The General Manager , Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. , At/PO: Jamadoba . Dhanbad. Ministry's Order No L--20012/ 152/2001/ IR (C - I ) dt . 10.07.2001
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the workman/ Union
Mr. Samendra Sinha MrA. K. Prasad, Ld . Advocates
: Mr. D.K. Verma Ld . Advocate
Onbehalf of the Management
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated , Dhanbad , the 29th Sept. , 2014
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec10( 1) ( d) ofthe I.D. Ad. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. - L -20012/ 152/2001 / IR ( C - I ) dt . 10.07.2001 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of TISCO in not protecting SPRA and annual increment while fixing pay of Shri Kishori Singh & 32 others to be read 43 others as per corrigendum , dt . 29.10.2001 (as per list ) in time rated job is justified ? If not , to what reliefs are the workmen entitled ? "
Onreceipt of the Order No L -20012 152 2001 / IR ( C- 1 ) dt.1 0.07.2001 of the above mentioned reference from the 7245
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , the Reference Case No. 195 of 2001 was registered on 08.08.2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned , directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed , and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents . In pursuance , of the said order , notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties concerned .
Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents . The Union and the O.P./Management through their own Learned Counsels appeared in , and contested the case .
2 The case of the sponsoring Union for workmen Sri Kishori Singh & 32 others be read as 43 others ( as per corrigendumdt . 29.10.2001 ) ( as per list ) is that they had been working as M/ Loader at Jamadoba Colliery of M/ s . TISCO . The Management converted them into Time Rated Job from Piece Rated job in the years 1993,1994 and 1995 , and re - designated them as M.S.Crew , but without the protection of their wages with their earned SPRA and Annual increment for their previous services in their aforesaid present category of Multi Skilled Crewjob . The Management had placed them in Category - V at the time of their conversion in Time Rated job . Later on they were promoted in Categoy - VI.The Sr. Divisional Manager ( P & W) ofM / s . TISCO as per the letter No.JMB/ PD/ 3955 /95 dt.24/ 25.1.1995 had also instructed to all Heads of department to give protection of SPRA earned by the Piece rated workers as Annual increments for the years of their services as Piece Rated workers .
The Management has accordingly protected the SPRA and annual increment of few such employees at the time of their conversion into T.R. Job { Time Rated Job ) , but the same policy / footing was not adopted by the Management in respect of these workmen's fixation of their pay scale . It resulted monthly financial loss for Rs.3 to 4 hundred rupees to them .As per the guideline of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry , the Implementation Instruction No.18 and other 1.1.need to be followed in case of any anomaly. Further alleged is that the wrong fixation of wages affected and deprived them of their basic wages , attendance bonus , ex - gratia ( Profit sharing Bonus ) etc. as well as their promotion at relevant time . The management should rectify the blunder from the date itwas committed , by the Management . Despite several times discussions and showing few calculation chart of the workmen by the Union , the Union finally raised the Industrial Dispute for it before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( C) , Dhanbad , and it ended in failure ; hence the reference of it for an adjudication . The action of the Management was unjustified ; the workmen are entitled to the protection of SPRA and annual increment .
3. The Union Representative in the rejoinder of the workmen has specifically denied the allegations of the O.P/Management as incorrect , contradictory and vague , further alleging the maintainability of the Reference in facts as well as in laws ; they have not got S.L.U. after completion of 7 ( seven) years .
4. In challenge to it , the contra case of the O.P./ Management with categorical denials is that the present reference is not maintainable ; the workmen except Badri Singh were working as Miners . Badri Singh was working as a Category I in time rated Category from beginning . The workmen were granted the SPRA during the period of their working as Piece Rated workers . Their conversion as Multi Skilled Crew took place in the years 1993 , 1994 and 1995, so the workmen concerned placed as M.S.Crew are eligible for payment of wages from Cat . V of time Rate . At the time of conversion from Miner to M.S.Crew, The workmen concerned were given initial basic category and SPRA earned by them . Proper fitment of the workmen concerned in Cat . V and correctly protection of their SPRA were given according to the Circular issued by the Management . None of the workmen has suffered any loss . The demand of the Union is hypothetical , the workmen are not entitled to any relief. Moreover , the subject -matter ofthe reference is not an Industrial dispute .
The averments made in the written statement of the workmen are hypothetical
FINDING WITH REASONS
5. In the reference , WWI Kishor Singh one of the workmen WW2 Santosh Kumar Mahato , the Secretary for the Union and MWI Dinesh Kr. Sharma , the Head Clerk , H.R. Deptt . for the Management have been examined respectively.
Onperusal of the materials available on the case record , it appears to be no dispute that Piece rated workers are paid their Group wages for the work done .. They are of three kinds: firstly Group I , Group III and Group VA . Miner/ Loader being to VA. A Piece Rated worker gets annually one SPRS whereas a Time Rated worker gets one increment annually. Time rated workers began to get their increment of Category V since their conversion into Time Rated Workers from their Piece Rated ones . In this reference , Sri Badri Singh , one of the workmen , was never a Piece rated worker . From the aforesaid facts , it stands evident that a Piece Rated Worker does not get an annual increment .
Mr. Samerendra Sinha , Learned Advocate for the Union/workmen has submitted that these workmen were the permanent Piece Rated M/Loader at Jamadoba Colliery of TISCO Management since their appointment dates as pertheir list in TISCO ; the Daily Rated Workers get annual increments according to employees fixed pay scale ; since Piece Rated workers have no fixed rate of pay , they get special Piece Rated allowance (SPRA ) , but the Miners/
7246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIΚΑ 24 , 1936 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
Londers having the harder jobs , they had to get category of Sri Kishori Singh & 32 others be read as 43 others (as
of increment instead of SPRA as per the Settlement per lists) as per corrigendum dt.29.10.2001 , but not with
1.7.2.1991.lt is also argued that while converting the annual increment while fixing their pay in time rate job is
workmen concerned for P /R Mines to time rated Multi
absolutely justified and legal ; therefore , the workmen
Milled Crew, Management paid them one SPRA only
concerned are not entitled to any relief whatsoever .
tead of annual increment of Category V rate of pay,
ough the management had allowed one workman Ram KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer .
Naresh Yadav only Category V rate of increment instead List of the workmen vide Ministry Order of Reference
ofSPRA.
No. L - 20012 / 152/2001 - IR ( C - I ) dt . 10.07.2001 . in respect of
Quite contrary to it Mr.D.K. Verma , Learned Counsel Ref.No. 195/2001
for the O.P./Management has contended that admittedly
Sl . Name P. No. Permanent As M.S.
e workmen initially appointed as Piece rated workers
as Miner Crew
( PRW) got their wages for their work done , so they were
petting their SPRA (Spl . Piece Rate Allowance ) which is an 1 Kishori Singh 208809 31/07/73 21/08/93
Increment ever increasing ' annually, whereas the Time 2 Amrit Lal 220368 25/09/91 01/10/94
rated workmen ( Shortly known as T.R.W. ) got annual
3 Shivnath Rajbhar 218097 06/03/89 15/07/93
Increment annually ; and that the workmen were converted
4 Jagarnath 216334 11/04/83 15/07/93
o Time Rated workers with their wages protection . Sri
Ram Naresh Yadav, one of the workmen , was wrongly 5 Jagdish Saw 216003 29/09/89 01/10/94
allowed V Rate of increment which was corrected as his 6 218408 10/11/90 01/10/94
Rajendra Kumar
basic rate but not that of annual increment , as per the 7 Chandrika Prasad 210778 21/7/77 21/03/95
Management's Letter dt.26 /28.4.1990 (Ext.M.2 ) , so the claim
8 Bachu Yadav 218338 19/11/90 01/10/94
of the workmen based on the aforesaid wrong case of Sri
Ram Naresh Yadav for fixing their pay in Time Rated jobs 9 Indra Dev 216016 26/2/89 15/07/93
with SPRA and annual increment is illegal . 10 Rijwan Ahmad 218396 19/11/90 01/10/94
After. perusal and consideration of the materials 11 MD.Aklakh Khan 218976 05/11/91 21/03/95
Including aforesaid indisputable facts on the case record, 12 Ram Kishun Pattle 216218 04/10/89 15/07/93
I find that Piece Rated Miner / workers in the TISCO
13 Lal Bhadur 214471 01/04/83 15/07/93
Management get only their group wages based on their
workload beyond which the wages are paid pro rata to 14 R.P.Singh 218785 30/10/89 15/7/93
them . Time Rates workers are given their annual 15 Rekhai Rajbhar 211018 25/7/77 15/07/93
Increment . These workers already used to get their SPRA 16 Jettu Lal 206975 03/07/63 15/07/93
(Spl . Piece Rated Allowance) .On their conversion into the 17 K.B.Saw 218584 01/10/94
21/05/91
Miner time Rates Workers ( MSC) Multi Skilled Cat . V, they
18 S.K.Bishkarma 219334 07/02/92 01/10/94
were given initial Cat .V wages with their respective SPRA
earned by them since their conversion in 1993 , 1994 and 19 Onkar Prasad 220006 23/09/91 01/10/94
1995 as per the Circulars dtt.26 /28.4.1990 , 16.6.1995 & 24. 20 Ramasjaire 217666 19/11/83 15/07/93
11,1995 (Extt.M.2 series respectively) . Moreover , the Baghu Mahato 218677 25/09/89 02/03/95
21
authenticated copies of the two charts of the fitment
22 Shri vas taba 219659 02/02/93 01/10/94
Committee as per the Management's both letters
dtt.21.7.1999 related to these workmen (excluding Sri Badri 23 Ram Dhani 217362 16/10/86 21/03/95
Singh , who was never a Piece Rated workman ) on 24 Anil Kumar 218957 05/11/91 21/03/95
Implementation of N.C.W.A. - V rate given appear to be in 25 Girish Dev 218083 03/02/89 15/07/93
consonance with the aforesaid circulars of the O.Ρ./
26 Ram Naresh Yadav 217764 13/04/88 01/10/94
management .At this point , I am of the view that the alleged
27 Puran Ch.Mahato 214476 24/01/81 15/07/93
wrong decision as per the settlement dt . 15.2.1991 ( Ext . W.1 )
on which the claim of the Union/ workmen rests appears to 28 Shankar Yadav 217209 06/05/86 15/07/93
be quite contrary to the established rules ; hence , it is 29 Uttam Kumar 217655 06/11/87 15/07/93
unsustainable .The argument of Mr. Verma, as contrasted 210773 21/04/97 15/07/93
30 Ram Narayan
with that of Mr.Samerendra Sinha appears to be more
31 Jhagroo Mahato 215895 01/04/83 01/10/94
plausible and persuasive .
32 Dinesh Turi 218273 15/11/90 15/07/93
In result , it is , in the terms of the reference , hereby
33 Badri Singh 217127 01/03/86 15.07.93
responded and accordingly awarded as such that the
as Cat . I
action of the Management of TISCO in protecting the SPRA
[ भाग 11 -खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7247
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15, 2014/कार्तिक 24, 1936
List of the workmen as per Corrigendum vide
Ministry Order of Reference No. L- 20012/ 152 /2001 /IR( C - I)
dt. 10.07.2001.In respect of Ref. No. 195/2001
Si . Name. P. No. Permanent As M.S.
asMiner. Crew.
1 Ora Prakash 218583 23.09.91 21.03.95
2 Kanta 218973 06.04.90 21.03.95
3 Santu Prasad 211047 06.06.77 21.03.95
4 Laxman 218679 26.06.89 01.10.94
5 Loutu Yadav 221345 23.07.93 21.03.95
6 Laisa Yadav 218897 26.06.92 04.10.94
7 JoginderSingh 218884 26.12.90 21.03.95
REFERENCE NO. 13 OF 2002
PARTIES : The General Secretary,
BiharCollier) Kamgar Union . Poddar
Para.PO : Jharia . Dhanbad.
Vs.
The General Manager,
Madhuban Washery Zone of M / s . BCCL
PO :Nawagarh . Dhanbad.
Ministry's Order No. L-20012/ 530/
2001 - IR ( C - I ) dt . 28.02.2002
APPEARA CES :
Onbehalf of the
8
219385
Ram Lakhan Prasad
11.12.90 04.10.94
: Mr. S.N.Ghosh , Ld . Advocate
workrnan/Union
9
219655
21.03.95
31.05.01
Hich Lal
Onbehalf of the
217956
10 Duarika Mahato
02.04.88 21.03.95
: Mr. U. N. Lal Ld .
Advocate
Management
10.94 11 Hiru Behia
06.01.92
State : Jharkhand
Total workmen including the Corrigendum List are 44 (Fourty four) (33 + 11 )
नई दिल्ली, 13 नवाम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2935.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिवः अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/530/2001-आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 13th November , 2014
S.O. 2935. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.theAward (Ref. No. 13/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . BCCL, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 13/11/2014 .
[No. L-20012/530 /2001 - 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.
4337 GI /14-13
Industry : Coal
Dhanbad , the 25th 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/ 330/2001 - IR ( C - I ) dt . 28.02.2002.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the RCKU from the Management ECCL, Mahduban Coal Washery to treat Shri Ratilal Mahato and 57 others (as per list) as the direct workman of the M/s BCCL and their regularization with the retrospectiv a effect with full back wages is just and fair? If so , to what reliefs are these workmen entitied and fom what date ?"
On receipt of the Order No L- 20012/ 530/2001- IR(C - I )dt.28.02.2002 of the above mentioned reference from the Government of india , Ministay of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Keforence Case No. 13 of 2002 was registered on 1st April , 2002 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the Registered Pasts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents . In pursuance of the said order , notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties concerned .
Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents . The workman and the O.P./Management through their Lawyers appeared in , and contested the case .
2. The case of Shri Ratilal Mahato and 57 others ( as per list) as sponsored by the Bihar Colliery Kamgar 7248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24 , 1936
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
employer- employee relationship was between them and the Management of Madhuban Coal Washery. The BCCL has got enough man powerwer for managing Madhuban Coal Washery, so it does not need any man due to surplus manpower. The Project Officer of the said Coal Washery as per his letter dt.20.2.2001 and 09.08.2001 has explained the facts of the case in his reply before the ALC (C) , Dhanbad . The demand of the Union is baseless , false and mischievous only with a view to provide employment other persons who never worked under the Management.
The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has specifically denied all the allegations of the workmen , further alleging the fact that the Gate Passes were issued toworkmen on the request of MAMC for security reasons . This can notmake them the employees ofthe Management
FINDINGS WITH THE REASONS
4. In the reference , WWI Ratilal Mahato , one of the workmen for all on behalf of the union , MWI P.K.Mahanty and MW2 Bendict Xalxo the Sr.Manager for the O.P Management have been respectively produced and examined.
Union , Poddar Para , Jharia , Dhanbad, is that they have been working on the job of permanent and technical nature engaged by MAMC in the Washery Project of Madhuban CoalWashery since 1994 onwards . They are performing theirjob directly under the supervision of the Management officers like Sri Ashok Kumar, the Project Officer (Const. ), Sri P.K.Mohanto , the Side In charge and Sri U.K.Jaiswal E/ A.The Management has the full control over the workmen . The bill for payment is passed to the satisfaction ofthe Management persons regarding the performance of the job . Though these workmen of the Adarsh Shramik Sahayog Samiti Ltd. were initially engaged by MAMC , at a very short span of time , these workers were taken under the supervision and control of the Management, since then till now they are uninterruptedly working . They enter the washery through their own gate passes issued in their names .Thus, the employer - employee relationship between the Management and the workmen is established as also admitted by the Management in its rejoinder on 9.8.2001 during the conciliation proceeding before the ALC ( C) , Dhanbad, declaring the BCCL as the Principal Employer responsible for the payment of the workmen . Their performance of job directly relate to the production in addition to other jobs such as the dust extraction from the machines and repair of the same . The services of the workmen as specialized is inevitable for proper functioning ofthe Project in lack of specialized employees of the Management . They had already put in more than 240 days attendance in each calendar year without any break . As per the JBCCI the workmen need to be permanently regularized in the services of the BCCL. The NAMC was under BIFR since long, but at last its winding up came to closure but not as a factor for the BCCL. In result , the management began to directly entrust the workmen with work , as they are readily available at the disposal of the management , yet the sole motive of the Management by alleging the workmen as outsiders to make backdoor entry or by arbitrarily denying their regularization is the depriving them of their genuine demand for regularisaton . The workmen are entitled to egularization as permanent workmen in the BCCL with all retrospective wages etc.
Onperusal of the pleading and evidences of both the parties , it appears the indisputable facts that the tou 58 workmen Ratilal Mahato & Others as the members of the Adarsh Shramik Sahayog Ltd used to be engaged by the contractor MANC Ltd in the construction of Madhuban Coal Washery, Dhanbad , of M/ s . BCCL . Their union used to get the work order through the MANC for the working, for which 39 gate passes (photocopies thereof Extt.W.1 series excluding 19 workers - SI.Nos . 5,6,9,31 to 40,45,50,53,54,56,57 ) were intermittently but once issued to the workmen concerned for limited two to six months during the year 1992- March 1998 on the basis of the Union as a contractor, which had also applied for it for limited 2-3 months in the years 2002-03 as per its applications (Extt . 2 series in 25 sheets ). But in the face of both the parties at variance with the other facts , following issues are required to be determined for proper adjudication:
(i) Whether there is a relationship of the employe -employee relationship between the employers and the workmen , and ;
Inthe rejoinder by one workman Rati Lal Mahato for the workmen , all the allegations of the O.P./Management have been denied as baseless , affirming their engagement byAdarsh Shramik Sahayog Samiti .
(ii) Whether the workmen are entitled regularization with full back wage retrospectively.
3. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.Ρ. / Management with categorical denials is that the reference is unmaintainable in law or in facts , as the BCCL has given Turn Key Project to M / s . MAMC to build Madhuban Coal Washery Project . The workmen were working with the Adarsh Shramik Saghyog Samittee , a Sub Contractor engaged by the said MAMC, so they were issued the Gate passes to enter the work premises for completion of contract work awarded to them . Thus no
Inthe instant reference , written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties . But out of the double written arguments filed by, Mr. S. N. Ghosh , Ld . Authorise Advocate for the Union and Mr. D. Mukherjee , the Leamed Senior Counsel , the latter's appears to be more sava than submissive, so the written argument of Mr.Ghoul राग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7249
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014 /कार्तिक 24 , 1936
Dears to be considerable irrespective of unpleaded lences .
At the first issue of the employer - employee Gonship , Mr.Ghosh submits that the workmen have performing their jobs of permanent and technical we such as gas cutting , welding , repairs of Motors hrough intermediaries the MAMC/ Adarsh Shramik Ayog Samiti verbally since 1985 , but regularly since under the direct supervision and control of the O.P./ magement . They were issued the Gate passes under gnatures of the Authority concerned during the 1992 to 1997 ( Ext . W. I series ) and as per the 25 tocopies of the applicationsdt . 18 / 22.07.2002 to 2003 by their aforesaid Adarsh Shraik Sahayog an Lid to the Project Officer concerned for issuance Gate passes ( Extt . 2 Series ) .Here according to Ghosh , the presence of intermediate contractors with r alone the workers have immediate or direct Daship ex - contract is of consequence whom , on the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors rming employment , discern the naked truth , though oet in different perfect paper arrangement , that the employer is the Management , not the immediate Mactor . The Court must be astute to avoid the mischief achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by maya of legal appearance as held in the case of wainbhai vs. Alath Factory The Zhilali , Union ikode , 1978 LLJ 1264 ( SC ) .further Mr.Ghosh has ru apon the ruling 1999 III SCC 601 , Secretary , Haryana Electricity Board , and submitted as held therein that contract system of deploying the workers in the job rmanent and perennial nature is prohibited and Live of Sec.10 of the Contract Labour ( A & R ) Act if the contract is sham and camouflage , the workmen be treated as workmen of the Principal Employer ; as view of the aforesaid facts of the case , there is toyer- employee relationship between the Management the workmen.
Whereas the statue contention of Mr. U. N. Lal , Advocate for the O.P./Management is that the nagement of M/ s . BCCL had given the contract to the MAMC contractor for construction and operation Madhubad Coal Washery which started in 1985 and teted in 1997 ; the workmen were temporarily issued passes at the requisitions of the contractor MAMC one - two months only ; the contractor was paid in the cheque by the Management on the bills med for the work done by the contractor ; and the men's aforesaid Samiti was never issued any work artwy the Management for any work , no salary or wages maid to the workmen by the Management for any meir work was never under the supervision of the ement; so there was never any relationship of et and employee between the management and tractual workmen .
From the discussion noted above , it stands evident that the construction work of the Madhuban Coal Washery was done by Contractor MAMC Ltd. during the period 1985 to 1997 and only 39 out of the workmen appeared to have irregularly worked under the said contractor for during the years 1992 until the year 1997 .i.e . , the completion of the construction of the said washery , which was neither of permanent nor of perennial in nature .
In such situation , none of the aforesaid rulings as cited by Mr.S.N.Ghosh , Ld.Counsel for the workmen appears to hold good with the instant case . As such , it can safely be concluded that there had never been any employer employee relationship between the both the parties for any single moment .
5. So far as the second issue related to the regularization of the workmen is concerned, the relevant 39 Gate passes of the concerned workmen out their list (Extt. W.1 series) clearly indicate/ establish that none of the workmen concerned appear to have continuously worked for 240 days as required under Sec , 25 - B (2 ) ( a ) of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 in any of the years 1992 to 1997 particularly during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made , rather a few workmen appear to have irregularly got their own Gate passes for one, two, three and six months for entry into the Madhuban CoalWashery at the time of its construction . So none of the workmen is entitled to regularization .
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances , it is hereby responded in the terms of the reference , and accordingly awarded that the demand of the BCKU , Mahduban Coal Washery to treat Shri Ratilal Mahato and 57 others ( as per list ) as the direct workmen of BCCL and their regularization with retrospective effect with full back wages is not only unjust and unfair but also quite baseless . 50 these workmen are not at all entitled to any relief from any date .
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
LIST OF THE WORKMEN AS PER MINISTRY'S ORDER OF REFERENCE NO.L - 20012 / 530 // 2001 - IR( C - I) dt. 28 02 2002 .
Sl . No. Name of employee
1 Sri Bachhu Nandy
2 Sri Rati Lal Mahato
3 Sri Basudeo Mahto -I
4 Sri Basudeo Mahto -11
5 Sri Ramshray Yadav
6 Sri Surendra Yadav - I
7 Sri Premchand Mahato 7250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/ KARTIKA 24 , 1936
8
SriHari Prasad Mahato
9
Sri Nandlal Saw
10 J. Mahato
11
Sri Nand Kishor Mahato
12
Sri Shankar Das
13
Sri Pramod Kumar
14 Sri Jai Narayan Mahato
15
Sri B.N.Mahato
16 Sri Nepal Sav
17 Sri Manoj Kumar Choudhary
18
Sri Sikander Mahato
19 Sri Tarak Nandy
20
Sri Baisum Mahato
21
Sri Manoj Kumar
22
Sri Shankar Mandal
23
Sri Mahro Mahato
24
SriP. Mahato
25
Sri Sewa Mahato
26
SriAnil Kumar Saw
27
Sri Basant Kumar
28
Sri Mohan Lal Mahato
29
Sri Lakhan Mahato
30 Sri Debajit Ghosh Dastidar
31
SriAK Banerjee
32
Sri Bharat Saw
33
Sri Debendra Kumar Sharma
34
Sri Purushottam Kumar
35
Sri Ashok Kumar Rai
36
Sri Chandra Bhusan Prasad
37 Sri Lalan Kumar Singh
38
Sri Ganesh Sahu
39
Sri S. Saw
40
Sri Lalan Mishra
41
Sri Rajan Mahato
42 Sri Raywat Lal Mahato
43
SrLaluManjhi
44
Sri M. P. Yadav
45
Sri M. Mahato
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
46 Sri Balbhagwan Pandey
47 Sri Kamdeo Mahato
48
Sri Hemlal Mahato
49
Sri Khirudhar Mahato
50
Sri Kishun Mahato
51
Sri Chetlal Mahato
52
Shri Bhim Mahato
53
Sri Shanu Rabidas
54
Sri Sitaram Rabidas
Sri Shankar Rabidas
55
56 Somar Rabidas
57
Mithu Rabidas
58 Sri Basudeo Mahat II
नई दिल्ली , 13 नवम्बर , 2014
का.आ. 2936. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय -2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/165/ 2011- आईआर ( सीएम-1 ) ] एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 13th November , 2014
S.O. 2936. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 48/2012 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 2 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/ s . BCCL , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 13/11/2014 .
[No. L-20012/ 165/2011 - IR(CM- 1)) M. K. SINGH, Section Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : Shri KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer
10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 . Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
REFERENCE NO . 48 OF 2012 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7251
भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936
PARTIES : The President ,
Bihar Sharmik Sangh , Qr.No A/ 32 . Bhuli " A " Block, Dhanbad .
Vs.
The Area Manager ,
Bhuli Town Administration . of M/ s . BCCL , PO : Bhuli , Dhanbad. Ministry's Order No. L - 20012 / 165/2011- IR( CM - I )dt.23.07.2012
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the Workman :
Union
Mr. R. K. Prasad , Ld . Union Representative
: Mr. S. N. Ghosh Ld .
Advocate
Onbehal f of the Management
State : Jharkhand
noted in the written statement filed by Mr. R. K. Prasad , as the President of said Sangh as under only firstly named with parentage:
Industry : Coal
Dated , Dhanbad , the 29th 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 thisTribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012/ 165 /2011 - IR ( CM - I ) dt . 23.07.2012 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the Safai work not being carried out by the Management of Bhuli Town Administration of BCCL through Co- operative Societies in spite of Circulardt . 13.03.1990 of their own Organization is fair and justified ? To what reliefs are the workers of concerned Co - operative Societies entitled ? "
Onreceipt ofthe Order No. L- 20012 / 165 /2011 - IR (CM-
1 ) dt.23.07.2012 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. 48 of 2012 was registered on 14.08.2012 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 Sponsoring Bihar Sharmik Sangh , Bhuli , Dhanbad for the named 51 ( fifty - one ) workmen as firstly 1. Smt . Joti Devi , W/ o Sri Bablu Dome , 2. Smt . Parwati Devi , 3. Smt . Chanda Devi , 4. Smt . Uma Devi , 5. Smt . Asha Devi , 6. Smt . Madhu Devi , 7. Smt . Kalawati Devi , 8. Smt . Ranju Devi , 9. Smt . Bano Devi , 10. Smt . Santra Devi , 11. Sri Jogendra Bansfore , 12. Sri Arjun Bansefore , 13. Sri Ram Pravesh Bansfore , 14. Smt . Sunaina Devi , 15. Shri Kali Charan , 16. Sri Santosh Murmu , 17. Smt . Kalyani Devi , 18. Smt . Nirmala Devi , 19. Shri Manoj Ram 20. Smt . Rashmi Devi 21. Smt . Manju Balmiki , 22. Smt . Kunti Devi , 23. Smt . Subhadra Harin , 24. Smt . Kari Devi , 25. Smt . Puran Devi , 26. Smt . Gayatri Devi , 27. Smt . Rekha Devi , 28. Sri Prakash Hari , 29. Sri Bhim Ram Hari , 30. Shri Suraj Harijan , 31. Shri Ram Swarup Hari , 32. Shri Jitendra Bansfore , 33. Shri Bhola Ram , 34. Shri Smt . Shoba Devi , 35. Smt . Pramila Devi 36. Sri Binod Balmiki , 37. Sri Shibu Balmiki , 38. Smt . Santra Balmikiin , 39. Smt . Kaushalya Devi , 40. Sri Madan Ram , 41. Shri Hari Balmiki 42. Smt . Gita Devi , 43. Smt . Sushila Devi , 44. Sri Dipu Balmiki , 45. Shri Chintu Balmiki , 46. Smt . Chintu Devi , 47 Smt . Muni Devi , 48. Smt . Babli Devi , 49. Smt . Shankuntala Devi , 50. Shri Vicky Balmiki 51. Mamta Kumari
is that the total workers are the workmen of Bhuli Town Administration who worked as SAFAI MAZDOORS at different Sectors and Departments of it for maintenance of the Township for several years . They are the members of the aforesaid Union . The Management of itissued the Service Certificates to each of them in the year 1983 while the Union Representative as the Secretary of GRAM VIKASH SAMITTEE had raised a question of their regularization . The Union has adopted and annexed with it as a part the contents of the representation dt.9.9.2010 with the documents before the A.L.C. ( C ) , Dhanbad in pursuant to which the present reference came into existence It is alleged accordingly that the Management illegally terminated the services of the workmen by stopping their work on the basis of department Letterdt . BCCL/BTA/ 90/ 690-694 dt.23 /24.3.1990 without a notice or compensation , instructing them for working under Contractor , though their work was regular and perennial by nature . The workmen were directly engaged and paid wages by the Management for work on daily basis . It is also alleged that the Management as per the aforesaid letter had advised the workmen to form a Co- operative to undertake job of municipal services . The Hon'ble High Court Ranchi Bench in a Writ petition had also directed the workmen to form a Cooperative , directing theManagement to provide them job . The workmen having formed a Co - operative informed the Management and sought for job as well as Tender papers but the Management declined to do so . Thus the Management defied the order of the Hon'ble Court in that regard . Further 7252
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIKA 24 , 1936
alleged that the Management is engaging 53 contractors for the municipal jobs in the Township , but the workmen are not being provided any job . The Municipal services generally mean cleanliness in township , water supply and preventive action against epidemics of Flaria , Maleria etc. Bhuli Town also maintains supply of electricity on the basis of contractors . According to all the NCWAs , the work ofpermanent and perennial in nature will not be carried on contractually . The safai work is the job of permanent and perennial in nature. The Cooperative workmen are experienced in Safai work .There is also an instruction of Government of India , the Department instruction of the H.Qr. of the BCCL in addition to the order of the Hon'ble High Court . Though the workmen are daily going to the office of the Management for the jobs but the action of the Management of Bhuli Town Administration of M/ s . BCCL denying them the Safai work is neither fair nor justified. Hence they are entitled to compensation in the terms of money at the rate of wages other workers getting . They are also entitled to get the job as per the Circular of the Management concerned .
The Union Representative in the rejoinder for the workmen has specifically denied all the allegations of the O.P./Management , further stating that the dispute is existing since the date of disposal , and there is a settlement dt.2.7.91 annexed with the statement of claim .
3. Whereas the contra case of the O.P./Management with categorical denials is that the Reference not falling within the purview of the Industrial Dispute is entirely misconceived and unmaintainable , as it refers to the some job prior to 1990 , so it also time barred as well as stale one . The Industrial dispute was raised after more than 17 years no Industrial Dispute existent nor apprehended in such situation, so the dispute stale one . could not be subject matter of the reference . The Sponsoring Union has neither any legal right nor locus standi to raise the Industrial Dispute on behalf of the concerned workmen who never worked, but claimed to have formed a Co - operative Society to take such work . The Union by claiming the persons concerned as its members has raised the issue with a view toget undue benefits and put the employer in embarrassing situation . It is also alleged that the instant reference relates to the year 2010 in connection with the persons concerned who allegedly worked in the year 1983 onwards and 27 years ago . The Certificates as the basis of the reference are fabricated, as there was no termination of the concerned workmen at any juncture . In order to avoid complication in future , Memorandum dt.23 /24.03.1990 was circulated to discourage the deployment of contractor work in performance of Municipal services , and to get such service done by a Co - operative Society through open tender . The Circular was circulated in view of the Office Memorandum No.L/ 18 / 84 - BPE ( SC & ST) Cell , Government of India , Ministry of Industry recommending that the Public Sector Enterprises should be directed to dispense with the practice of assigning Safai work on contract ; this work would be organized on Co - operative line with the promise that the members of workers are extended the full benefits of these entitlements which are due to other employees . In that aspect , tenders on behalf of the Management were so invited for engagement of Co - operative Societies to do the municipal services of the employees .
Further alleged on behalf of the Management thať one Theka Sharmik Sahyog Samittee Ltd. while admitting the issuance of NIT for municipal service before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Patna , Ranchi Bench in CWJC No.771 / 94 ( R) wherein the Hon'ble Court by order dt . 16 3.1994 directed the employer to , supply tender papers to the Writ Petitioner . The aforesaid Hon'ble High Court by orderdt.14.3.1995 in CWJC NO.116 / 176 of 1995 disposed of vide Orderdt.24.5.1995 confirmed the issuance of tender by the Management for the related job .
Inview of the facts that the tenderer is the employer but the offerer is Cooperative Society , so no Industrial Dispute arises for adjudication . The employer has neither engaged nor inherited to engage any contractor for execution of job of prohibited category. The Union concerned never submitted at any time any list of the persons in regard to the reference as the members of the Cooperative Society or as to the renderers of Municipal services . Hence the claim by the persons concerned through the Sponsoring Union is totally fictitious .
4. The Management has categorically denied all the allegations made by the Union for the workmen , further alleging that the reference is stale one to get the entry in the employment in the Public Sector Company through back door . Despite the policy of Central Government related to deployment of a Cooperative for workmen in regard to municipal services of the employer, the concerned workmen failed to form any cooperative Society, as before the Hon'ble Court one ' Theka Mazdoor ' as the Cooperative Society was the petitioner but not the Sponsoring Union .
FINDING WITH THE REASONS
5 . In the instant reference , WWI Smt . Jyoti Devi , WW2 Baban Pd.Lal , Retd . Gr . - II Bhuli , BCCL on behalf of the Union , and MWI Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya , the Sr. Manager ( E & M ) for the O.P./Management have been examined respectively.
The reference under adjudication relates to alleged violation of Circulardt.13.03.1990 by the O.P./ Management in not engaging the workers through their cooperative societies in the Safai work of the Bhuli Town Admn.of the M/ s . BCCL , and to any due relief to the workers of concerned cooperative societies . In view of
भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 15 , 2014/कार्तिक 24 , 1936 7253
The terms of the reference , the pleadings , evidences and At the first issue , Mr. R. K. Prasad , the Union
arguments of both the parties , it appears no dispute that Representative , has implicitly to submit that the
pursuance of the letter dt.18.12,1989 of the Management of Bhuli Town Administration (hereinafter
vernment of India , Ministry of Industry, Bureau of referred to as B.T.A. ) has violated the direction of the
ublic Enterprises , New ( Ext . M.1 / 2 ) , the BCCL Circular dt.13.3.1990 by not carrying out the sanitation
ersonnel Director , Koyla Bhawan , Dhanbad's Circular work through Co - operative Societies .From the materials
1.13.3.1990 and the Memorandum No. BCCL/BTA/90- available on the case record , it appears that Mr. R. K.
1/690-694 dt 23.03.1990 ( Ext.M1 / 1 and M1 ) were publicly Prasad, as the President of the present Bihar Sharmik Sangh ,
sued respectively with regard to Sanitation work through Bhuli as per his two letters dt.27.2.93 and 5.3.1993 Extt . W.2/
-operative workers / Societies only registered under the 1-2) to the Dy.Chief Personnel Manager and Sri B. D. Ram ,
operative Act with instruction to provide Co - operative Sr. Ex . Engineer ( P) , B.T.A. respectively had sought for the
Forkers all the benefits other workers have available , issuance of tender paper to his Union as per the Order
ut no performance of sanitation work on contract through dt.25.2.1993 of the Hon'ble High Court , Patna ( Ranchi
contractor at any public establishment . Bench )passed in C.W.J.C. Nos . 11/93 ( R) 118/93 ( R) and
183/93 ( R) . Just as on the same ground one Shashi Bhusan
The indisputable facts on judicial notices of the
Prasad , Secretary of Theka Sharmik Shayog Samitee , Bhuli
Copies of the High Court's orders appear to be that one
Nagar, Dhanbad as per his letters dt . 9.8.94 and 18.01.1995
neka Shramik Sahyog Samittee Ltd. Was a party as
(Extt . W.2 & W.2 /3 respectively ) had also sought for the
petitioner against the B.C.C.L. in the CWJC Nos . 771 /
issuance of Tender paper for garbage / Sanitation work for
24 ( R ) . 420/95 ( R ) relates to Bhojudidh Washery and 1994-95 while his aforesaid Co - operative Society was under
fundidih Area respectively and the CWJC No. 1162 176/
registration process which is evident from his documents
(R ) out of which in the first and last cases with
i.e. , the Block Co - operative Extension Officer's letter
ference to the order dt.27.02.1993 of the Hon'ble High
dt.30.11.1992 and the Dy . Collector Incharge , Dhanbad's
Gurt passed in the CWJC No.183 / 1993 ( R) aforesaid
letterdt . July,2012 ( Extt . W.l & W.2/ 5 respectively) . But not
titioner Samitee was directed to firstly produce before any copy of the Hon'ble High Court's Order dt.25.2.1993
Be Management concerned a Certificate of registration passed in the aforesaid C.W.J.C.s has been filed by the
Co - operative Society properly registered under the present Union Representative as a base for his case . The
apropriate Act , and secondly the Writ petitioner is not Union Representative as per the open tender Noticedt .
utled to submit tender when the terms of the tender
9.1.1995 with its two enclosure ( Ext . W.3 ) tends to show
Antice did not Qualify the petitioner to submit so , with a the violation of the aforesaid circular concerned as it was
Frection to the management concerned not to put related to invitation of Sealed Tender from registered
anecessary restriction in the tender notices , if the nature contractors which is related to Roof Repairing but not to
work did not justify so , ... give them opportunity to get " Sanitation work of B.T.A.whereas its both enclosures
themselves experienced in contract works henceforth- dt. 30.05.1996 and 29.05.1996 in the pen and signature
respectively. Aforesaid Writ petitioner Theka Shramik of one Shankar Kishor as the contractor of Theka
Manyog Samittee Ltd is not but Mr. R.K. Prssad , the Sharmik Sahyog Samittee Ltd Bhuli as approved by the
resident of BIHAR SRAMIK SANGH . BHULI NAGAR ,
Issuing Officer of the O.P./Management for cleaning Ash
HANBAD is a party as petitioner to the reference under and Jungle at " A " Block , Bhuli Township , though earlier
mudication .
the Noticesdt.5.5.1993 ( Extt . 13. series ) under Sec . 80 of
the Civil Procedure Code 1999 were also given by aforesaid
In the face of the both the parties namely . Bihar
ramik Sangh and the Bihar Town Admn . ( hereinafter Shankar Kishor of his Co - operative Society through his
Derred to as BTA , Bhuli , at variance with other facts , Advocate S.K.Sinha to the G.M. (A) concerned for
allotment of work to his Samittee . It stands prima facie
following issues need to be determined for proper
Judication" : proved compliance of the circular in issue concerning the
performance of sanitation work by aforesaid Co - operative
( i ) Whether the sanitation work is not being through its own workmen concerned .The G.M. of the
carried out by the Management of the B.T.A, Management as per his letterdt . 20.09.1990 (Ext . W.7/ 3 ) to
of BCCL through Co - operative Societies in the RLC , Dhanbad's letter dt . 17.11.1990 ( Ext . W. 7/2 ) in
spite of the Circulardt . 13.03.1990 . response to the letter dt . 20.09.1990 of Shri R. K. Prasad ,
present President of Bihar Shramik Sangh related to
( ii ) Whether instant petitioner Bihar Shramik
irrelevant matter of working as Sri Raghunath Balmiki and
Sangh is a registered Co - operative society
115 others Safai workers in Bhuli Township during Oct. ,
under the appropriate Societies Act for such
1978 to Feb. , 1986 had clearly introduced with the decision
Municipal Services at Bhuli ; and
ofthe Management to engage workers under Co - operative
( iii ) Whether the workers of concerned societies Societies only registered under the Co - operative Act and
are entitled to any relief. its notice to that effect given by the B.T.A. which should
7254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 15 , 2014/KARTIΚΑ 24, 1936
not be interpreted otherwise by the Present Union .
As such, it goes clear that the sanitation work is being carried out by the Management of B.T.A. through only the Co- operative Societies registered under the Co- operative Societies Act as per the circular concerned. The instant Union Representative appears to have completely beenfailure in proving the main allegation .
6. As to the second issue about the registration of the present Union concerned under the Co - operative Societies Act or not, the instant Union Representative appears to be devoid of any pleading or any evidence of it at this point . The evidence of WWI Jyoti Devi , one of alleged 51 workmen as firstly enlisted in the written statement of the Union concerned , affirms herself as a member of the present Bihar Shramik Sangh , though they had formed the Co - operative ' Thikha Mazdoor Sangh , Bhuli , Dhanbad in the year 1990. Whereas the statement ofWW2 Babal Pd . Lal Retd. Gr.II , Bhuli , BCCL , still living in the Qr . No. 4038 Block at Bhuli of M/ s . BCCL Indicates his unawareness of whether the Union is registered or not ; he is not a member of the Union , and the Union has no office .
From the aforesaid facts , it appears that the present Union concerned is evidently not a society registered under the Co - operative Society registered under the Co- operative Society Act as required under the Circular dt.13.03.1993 of the OP/ Management for the engagement of local workers only through a registered co - operative Society. In result , the instant Union has no locus standi to raise the industrial dispute . Union , Representative by filing it tends to a have a wild goose chase for his own sake only.
7. The third issue is related to entitlement of the workmen concerned to any relief. If it is looked at it as incidental to the nature of the industrial dispute under adjudication , it may be their engagement only through a Co-operative Society and the same be registered under the Co - operative Societies Act . But quite contrary to the
[PART II-SEC. 3( 11)
nature of the instant Industrial Dispute , the claim of Union/workmen concerned for unpleaded regularization in the Municipal Services of the B.T.A. , Bhuli , based their alleged working under the Management in the y 1982 onwards apparently appears to be quite beyond the issue under consideration, as the only four photocopie ofthe Certificates , namely , of Smt . Santra Devi , Sri Binod Kumar, Smt .Kalwanti Devi and Srnt.Jvoti Devi (Extt.W. series respectively) allegedly issued by the Personnel Manager of M/s . BCCL on 15/16.9.1983 relate to the working as General Mazdoor and sweeper since 1978 1979 prior to the aforesaid Circular in issue .
Besides other documents (Ext . W. 10 to 31) including those of Sri Birendra Basfore and 52 others , 444 workmon and one Hanuman Chandra Balmiki and 74 others relate to the Ref.Nos . 48/82 and 48/91 , and that of continuation ofenquirydt . 11.12.10 regarding the awards of the afore Ref.Nos . as well as of Ref.No. 165/93 and 141/92, relating t 175 workmen appear to be the intrusion of the aforesale irrelevant facts by the union Representative for grinding his own axe on the pretest of welfare to innocent worker These documenrs of the union concerned are qu irrelevant to it , hence beyond the scope of the referenc under adjudication . Hence they are not considerable i the case.
Inresult, it is, in the terms of the reference, responded and accordingly, awarded that the Safai work is bein carried out by the Management of Bhuli Towe Administration of M / s . BCCL through Co- operative Societies concerned , but not of their won organization , in compliance with the Circulardt. 13.03.1990 of the O.P Management . It is quite fair and justified . Since the insta union concerned is not a Co - operative Society registere under the Co -operative Societies Act , the alleged work ofalleged cooperative Societies being too vague are entitled to any kind of reliefs .
KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Publishedby the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.