This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 49] नई दिल्ली, नवम्बर 30—दिसम्बर 6, 2014, शनिवार/अग्रहायण 9—अग्रहायण 15, 1936

No. 49] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 30—DECEMBER 6, 2014, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 9—AGRAHAYANA 15, 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 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

(Department of Personnel and Training)

नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर, 2014

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2014

S.O. 3062.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints S/Shri Sanjay Sharma and Sanjay Mahla, Advocates as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the State of Rajasthan at Jaipur as entrusted to them by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and appeals/ revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in the revisional का.आ. 3062.—केंद्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उप-धारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जयपुर स्थित विचारण न्यायालय में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (सीबीआई) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों, जो केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा उन्हें सौंपे गए हैं, का अभियोजन तथा विधि द्वारा संस्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों से सम्बद्ध एवं प्रासंगिक अन्य मामलों में अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों के लिए सर्वश्री संजय शर्मा एवं संजय महला, अधिवक्ताओं को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।

or appellate courts established by law.

[फा. सं. 225/12/2012-ए.वी.डी.-II]

[F. No. 225/12/2012-AVD-II]

राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

4624 GI/2014

(7521)7522 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3063.—दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा असम राज्य सरकार, राजनीतिक (क) विभाग, दिसपुर की सहमति से दिनांक 17 जून, 2014 की अधिसूचना सं. पीएलए-58/2014/15 द्वारा बेहाली पुलिस स्टेशन में दर्ज किए गए अपराध मामला सं. 08/2014 के संबंध में आयुध अधिनियम, 1959 (1959 का अधिनियम सं. 54) की धारा 25(1)(क)/27 के साथ पठित भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 (1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45) की धाराओं 147, 148, 149, 447, 325, 326, 307 एवं 302 के तहत अपराधों तथा उपर्युक्त अपराधों के संबंध में प्रयास करने, दुष्प्रेरित करने तथा षड़यंत्र करने संबंधी कोई अन्य अपराध्/अपराधों की जांच हेतु दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और न्यायाध्किार क्षेत्र का विस्तार संपूर्ण असम राज्य पर करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/43/2014-एवीडी-II]

राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2014 New Delhi, the 26th November, 2014

S.O. 3064.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shridas Singh Rajawat, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct CBI case No. RC 1(S)/2011-SC-III/New Delhi instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I) in the Trial Courts at Rajasthan and appeals/revisions or other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.

[F. No. 225/21/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सीपीवी प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3065.—राजनयिक और कांसलीय ऑफिसर (शपथ और फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में केंद्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा श्री पवन बक्शी, सहायक को दिसंबर 2, 2014 से भारत के कोंसुलावास, म्युनिक में सहायक कोंसुलर अध्किारी के कर्त्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती हैै।

[सं. टी.4330/1/2014]

प्रकाश चन्द, उप-सचिव (कोंसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

S.O. 3063.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Assam, Political (A) Department, Dispur vide Notification No. PLA.58/2014/15 dated 17th June, 2014 hereby extends powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam for investigation of the offences relating to Behali Police Station Case No. 08/2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 325, 326, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) read with Sections 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959) and any other offence/offences attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to the

above mentioned offences.

[F. No. 228/43/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3064.—केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उप-धरा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए राजस्थान स्थित ट्रायल न्यायालय में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (के.अ.ब्यू.) द्वारा संस्थापित सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी 1(एस)/2011- एससी-III/नई दिल्ली तथा अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों या उनसे सम्बद्ध अन्य मामलों तथा इनके अनुषांगिक मामलों के संचालन के लिए श्री श्रीदास सिंह रजावत, अध्विक्ता को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 225/21/2014-एवीडी-II]

राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2014

S.O. 3065.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consoular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Pawan Bakshi, Assistant, in Consulate General of India, Munich to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from

December 2, 2014.

[No. T.4330/01/2014]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

नागर विमानन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 21 नवम्बर, 2014

, का.आ. 3066.—केन्द्र सरकार, सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृत अध्भिोगियों की बेदखली) अधिनियम, 1971 (1971 का 40) की धारा 3 में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा भारत सरकार, नागर विमानन मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी, 2001 की अधिसूचना संख्या एस.ओ. 84 का अधिक्रमण करते हुए, ऐसे अध्क्रिमण से पूर्व पूरे किए जा चुके कार्य अथवा पूरा किए जाने के लिए छोड़ दिए गए कार्यों के अलावा, नीचे प्रस्तुत तालिका के कॉलम (2) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को, सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के समान रैंक के होने के कारण, उपर्युक्त अधिनियिम के उद्‌देश्यों से एतद्‌द्वारा सम्पदा[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7523 अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है जो, अपने संबंधित क्षेत्राधिकार के दायरे में, प्रदत्त की गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए ऊपर उल्लिखित तालिका के कॉलम (3) में विनिर्दिष्ट किए गए सरकारी स्थान के संबंध में अथवा उक्त अधिनियम के अंतर्गत सम्पदा अधिकारी के दिए गए कार्यों का निर्वाह करेंगे।

तालिका

क्र. अधिकारी का नाम सरकारी स्थानों का वर्गीकरण सं.

(1) (2) (3)

1. सहायक महाप्रबंधक, कार्मिक असम, बिहार, मणिपुर, मिजोरम, नागालैंड विभाग, पूर्वी क्षेत्र, एअर उड़ीसा, त्रिपुरा, पश्चिम बंगाल राज्यों इंडिया लिमिटेड, कोलकाता तथा संघ शासित प्रदेश अंडमान एवं निकोबार द्‌वीपसमूह में स्थित एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड की अथवा एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्‌टे पर लिए गए सभी आवासीय परिसर।

2. सहायक महाप्रबंधक, कार्मिक संघ शासित प्रदेश दिल्ली तथा हिमाचल विभाग, उत्तरी क्षेत्र, एअर इंडिया प्रदेश, जम्मू एवं कश्मीर, मध्य प्रदेश, लिमिटेड, इंदिरा गाँधी एयरपोर्ट, पंजाब, राजस्थान, उत्तराखंड, उत्तर प्रदेश अंतर्राष्ट्रीय एअरपोर्ट, तथा संघ शासित प्रदेश चंडीगढ़ में नई दिल्ली। स्थित एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड अथवा एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्‌टे पर लिए गए सभी आवासीय परिसर।

(1) (2) (3)

इंदिरा गाँधी अंतर्राष्ट्रीय तथा संघ शासित प्रदेश चंडीगढ़ में एयरपोर्ट, नई दिल्ली। स्थित एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड के अथवा एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्‌टे पर लिए गए आवासीय परिसरों से भिन्न सभी परिसर।

8. सहायक महाप्रबंधक, सम्पत्ति आंध्र प्रदेश, कर्नाटक, केरल, तमिलनाडु एवं सुविधा विभाग, दक्षिणी तथा तेलंगाना राज्यों मेंं स्थित एयर क्षेत्र, एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड इंडिया लिमिटेड के अथवा एयर इंडिया चेन्नै। लिमिटेड द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्‌टे पर लिए गए आवासीय परिसरों से भिन्न सभी परसिर।

9. सहायक महाप्रबंधक, सम्पत्ति गोवा, गुजरात, मध्य प्रदेश तथा महाराष्ट्र एवं सुविधा विभाग, पश्चिमी राज्यों में स्थित एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड क्षेत्र, एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड, के अथवा एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा मुम्बई। अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्‌टे पर लिए गए आवासीय परिसरों से भिन्न सभी परिसर।

10. सहायक महाप्रबंधक, सम्पत्ति एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड, मुख्यालय, नई एवं सुविधा विभाग, मुख्यालय, दिल्ली के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण के अध्ीन एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड, एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड के अथवा एअर नई दिल्ली। इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्‌टे पर लिए गए आवासीय परिसरों

से भिन्न सभी परिसर।

[फा. सं. एवी.18050/21/2014.एआई]

अमित घोषाल, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

3. सहायक महाप्रबंधक, कार्मिक आंध्र प्रदेश, कर्नाटक, केरल, तमिलनाडु विभाग, दक्षिणी क्षेत्र, एअर तथा तेलंगाना राज्यों में स्थित एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड, चेन्नै। इंडिया लिमिटेड के अथवा एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्‌टे पर लिए गए सभी आवासीय परिसर।

4. सहायक महाप्रबंधक, कार्मिक गोवा, गुजरात, मध्य प्रदेश तथा महाराष्ट्र विभाग, पश्चिमी क्षेत्र, एअर राज्यों में स्थित एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड इंडिया लिमिटेड, मुम्बई। के अथवा एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्‌टे पर लिए गए सभी आवासीय परिसर।

5. वरिष्ठ सहायक महाप्रबंधक, एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड, मुख्यालय, नई औद्योगिक संबंध, मुख्यालय दिल्ली के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण के एअर एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड, एयर- इंडिया लिमिटेड के अथवा एअर इंडिया लाइंस हाउस, नई दिल्ली। लिमिटेड द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से

पट्‌टे पर लिए गए सभी आवासीय परिसर।

6. सहायक महाप्रबंधक, सम्पत्ति असम, बिहार, मणिपुर, मिजोरम, एवं सुविधा विभाग, पूर्वी क्षेत्र, नागालैंड, उड़ीसा, त्रिपुरा, पश्चिम बंगाल एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड, राज्यों तथा संघ शासित प्रदेश अंडमान कोलकाता। एवं निकोबार द्वीप समूह में स्थित एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड के अथवा एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्‌टे पर लिए गए आवासीय परिसरों से भिन्न सभी परिसर।

7. सहायक महाप्रबंधक, सम्पत्ति संघ शासित प्रदेश दिल्ली तथा हिमाचल एवं सुविधा विभाग, उत्तरी क्षेत्र, प्रदेश, जम्मू एवं कश्मीर, मध्य प्रदेश, एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड, पंजाब, राजस्थान, उत्तराखंड, उत्तर प्रदेश New Delhi, the 21st November, 2014

S.O. 3066.—In Exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, notification number S.O. 84, dated the 9th January, 2001, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, being officers equivalent to the rank of the Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (3) of the said Table.

TABLE

Sl. Designation of Categories of Public Premises

No. the Officer

(1) (2) (3)

1. Assistant General All residential premises belonging to Manager, Personnel or taken on lease by or on behalf of Department, Eastern Air India Limited in the States of Region, Air India Assam, Bihar, Manipur, Mizoram, Limited, Kolkata. Nagaland, Odisha, Tripura, West Bengal and Union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

7524 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1) (2) (3)

2. Assistant General All residential premises belonging to Manager, Personnel or taken on lease by or on behalf Department, Northern of Air of India Limited in the Region, Air India National Capital Territory of Delhi Limited, Indira Gandhi and the States of Himchal Pradesh, International Airport, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, New Delhi. Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttrakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh.

3. Assistant General All residential premises belonging to Manager, Personnel or taken on lease by or on behalf of Department, Southern Air India Limited in the States of Region, Air India Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Limited, Chennai. Tamil Nadu and Telangana.

4. Assistant General All residential premises belonging to Manager, Personnel or taken on lease by or on behalf of Department, Western Air India Limited in the States of Region, Air India Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Limited, Mumbai. Maharashtra.

5. Senior Assistant All residential premises belonging to General Manager, or taken on lease by or on behalf of Industrial Relations, Air India Limited and under the Headquarters, Air India administrative control of the Limited, Airlines Headquarters Limited, New Delhi. House, New Delhi.

6. Assistant General All premises other than residential Manager, Properties premises belonging to or taken on and Facilities Depart- lease by or on behalf of Air India ment, Eastern Region, Limited in the States of Assam, Bihar, Air India Limited, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Kolkata. Odisha, Tripura, West Bengal and Union terriroty of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

(1) (2) (3)

7. Assistant General All premises other than residential Manager, Properties premises belonging to or taken on and Facilities Depart- lease by or on behalf of Air India ment, Northern Limited in the National Capital Region, Air India Territory of Delhi and the States of Limited, Indira Gandhi Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and International Airport, Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, New Delhi. Rajasthan, Uttrakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Union territory of Chandigarh.

8. Assistant General All premises other than residential Manager, Properties premises belonging to or taken on and Facilities Depart- lease by or on behalf of Air India ment, Southern Limited in the States of Andhra Region, Air India Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Limited, Chennai. Nadu and Telangana.

9. Assistant General All premises other than residential Manager, Properties premises belonging to or taken on and Facilities Depart- lease by or on behalf of Air India ment, Western Region, Limited in the States of Goa, Gujarat, Air India Limited, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. New Delhi.

10. Assistant General All premises other than residential Manager, Properties premises belonging to or taken on and Facilities Depart- lease by or on behalf of Air India ment, Headquqrters, Limited under the administrative Air India Limited, control of the Headquarters of Air New Delhi. India Limited, New Delhi.

[F. No. AV.18050/21/2014-AI]

AMIT GHOSHAI, Under Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो)

नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3067.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :--

अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृत करने लाईसेंसधारी का नाम व पता भारतीय मानक का र्शीक भा. मा. भाग अनु र्व संख्या संख्या की तिथि र्व/

माह

संख्या

5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 1. 2872673 02-04-2014 भवानी एंटरप्राईस पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004

एल-584, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट, पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वॉटर) पोस्ट ऑफिस के सामने, ओढव, अहमदाबाद-382415

2. 2874980 02-04-2014 निलांग वायर्स तथा केबल प्रा. लिमिटेड पीवीसी इंसूलेटिड केबल 694 - - 1990

शैड नंबर 5 तथा 6, श्याम इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट प्लॉट नंबर 5813, फेस-1, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट, बटवा-382445

3. 2877380 03-04-2014 मैक पम्प इंडस्ट्रीज मोटर्स फॉर सबमसबल पम्पसैट 9283 - - 1996

प्लॉट नंबर 65, फेस-1, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट, एटलस रेडियो के सामने, नरोडा, अहमदाबाद-382330[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7525 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

4. 2878180 03-04-2014 डेसी इंडस्ट्रीज टैक्सटाईल-लैमिनेटिड हाई 15351 - - 2003 49/1ए, पैकी 2, टीमभी गाँव, भलारिया मैटल डैंसिटी पॉलीथलीन के पास, वारोली ब्रीज के पास, (एच डी पी ई) फैबरिक फॉर वाया संजन, उमरगाँव, वलसाद-396150 कैनाल लाईनिंग

5. 2876681 03-04-2014 ज्वैल गोल्डी (इंडिया) स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के 1417 - - 1999 श्री रामकृष्णा कॉम्लैक्स, आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता 22, निशाल फालिया, दूसरी मंजिल, एवं मुहरांकन पीपल्स बैंक के पास, कटटरगाम, सूरत-395004

6. 2875679 07-04-2014 मिलसैंट एपलाईसिंस प्रा लिमिटेड सिंगल फेस स्माल ए सी तथा 996 - - 2009 20, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट, यूनिवर्सल इलैक्ट्रिक मोटर्स विठ्‌ठल उद्योगनगर, गाँव वल्लभ विद्यानगर, ता. आनंद, वल्लभ विद्यागनर-388121

7. 2874677 08-04-2014 आस्क वॉटर प्रोडक्ट्‌स पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 गजानंद हाऊस, गोडाउन नंबर बी, सी, एफ पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वॉटर) पन्ना पार्क बस स्टड के सामने, घाटलोडिया, अहमदाबाद-380061

8. 2874778 09-04-2014 ध््रुव स्टारस, पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 सर्वे नंबर 24/14, कारेमवेले स्टेशन रोड, पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वॉटर) मोहन फाटक, वालवाडा, ता. अंबरगाँव, वलसाद

9. 2874879 09-04-2014 एसट्राल पालीटैकनिक लिमिटेड कांडयूट्‌स फॉर इलैक्ट्रिकल 9537 3 - 1983 ब्लॉक नंबर 149/1, गाँव रामपुर, इंस्टालेशन ढोलका खेड़ा रोड, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट के सामने, ता. ढोलका, अहमदाबाद-382225

10. 2877784 09-04-2014 ट्रू ब्रॉस प्रोडक्ट्‌स, पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 प्लाट नंबर 4510 जी आई डी सी पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वॉटर) इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, अंकलेश्वर, भारूच

11. 2876075 11-04-2014 नीलकंठ बिवरेजिस पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 एट तथा पी ओ बिशातपुरा पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वॉटर) ता कडी (उत्तर गुजरात), मेहसाना, कडी-382715

12. 2876580 15-04-2014 धनश्री एग्रो पाली प्रोडक्ट्‌स, लो डसिटी पॉलिथलिन फिल्म 2508 - - 1984 15/ए, चांगोदर इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, सरखेज बावला रोड, चांगोदर, अहमदाबाद-382213

13. 2877885 15-04-2014 एशियन मिल्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड स्टील ट्‌यूब्स फॉर आईडलर 9295 - - 1983 104, साकार III, ओल्ड हाई कोर्ट के फॉर बैल्ट कनवेयर्स सामने, इनकम टैक्स सर्कल के पास, आश्रम रोड, अहमदाबाद-380014

14. 2877986 15-04-2014 एशियन मिल्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड स्टील ट्‌यूब्स फॉर मैकेनिकल 3601 - - 2006 104, साकार III, ओल्ड हाई कोर्ट के तथा जनरल इंजीनियरिंग परपस सामने, इनकम टैक्स सर्कल के पास, आश्रम रोड, अहमदाबाद-380014

15. 2877279 16-04-2014 एक्वालाईट बिवरेजिस पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 1999 प्लाट नंबर 9, 10, 11 जी आई डी सी टैन, पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वॉटर) ता बारडोली, सूरत-3946017526 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

16. 2877481 16-04-2014 एस पी डी एंटरप्राईस पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 1999 13, गुनाटीनगर सोसाइटी लिमिटेड पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वॉटर) रामेश्वर एस्टेट के पास, स्वास्तिक चार रास्ता, अमराईवाडी, अहमदाबाद-380026

17. 2878483 21-04-2014 रवि प्लांट बॉयो टैक्नोलोजिस लिमिटेड एमिटिंग पाईप्स सिस्टम 13488 - - 2008 सर्वे नंबर 2/1, वास्का ताजपुरा रोड, गाँव वासेटी, ता हलोल, पंचमहल-389350

18. 2878584 21-04-2014 रवि प्लांट बॉयो टैक्नोलोजिस लिमिटेड इरीगेशन इक्यूपमेंट-पालीथलीन 12786 - - 1989 सर्वे नंबर 2/1, वास्का, ताजपुरा रोड, पाईप फॉर इरीगेशन लेटरल गाँव वासेटी, ता हलोल, पंचमहल-389350

19. 2879182 22-04-2014 पार्थ इंजीनियरिंग पम्पस-रिजैनरेटिव और क्लीयर, 8472 - - 1998 2, अमरनाथ एस्टेट, फोर्ज तथा ब्लोयर कोल्ड वॉटर कम्पनी के पास,नरोडा रोड, अहमदाबाद

20. 2879384 23-04-2014 सरस्वती फूड तथा बिवरेजिस पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 1999 प्लाट नंबर 1, सरदारबाग, माधव होटल के पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वॉटर) पास, सननगर के सामने, हाईवे रोड एट तथा पी ओ ता सिद्धपुर पाटन-384151

21. 2880268 28-04-2014 डारसिक हैल्थकेयर इन्स एल्यूमिनियम कंडक्टर्स फॉर 398 5 - 1992 224, सहजानंद एस्टेट, ओवरहैड ट्रांसमिशन परपज सरखेज बावला रोड, सरखेज, अहमदाबाद-382110

22. 2882171 28-04-2014 अक्षर बिवरेजिस पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 पी/363, ए/बी, ग्राउंड फ्लोर, पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वॉटर) सब डिविजन 2 न्यू क्ट्‌टर गाम, सूरत-395004

23. 2883779 28-04-2014 गुनिया एलॉय तथा स्टील प्रा. लिमिटेड कार्बन स्टीन कास्ट बिलेट इनमोट्‌स, 2830 - - 2012 सर्वे नंबर 644, गाँव सिमेज, बिलेट, ब्लूमस तथा स्लेब्स फॉर ता डोलका, अहमदाबाद-382810 रि-रेालिंग इंटू स्टील फॉर

जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल परपस

24. 2881775 29-04-2014 रोमैक्स पम्प इंडस्ट्रीज सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 8034 - - 2002 सी/20, पार्ट 2, मारूति इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, नरोड के सामने, फायर ब्रिगेड, अहमदाबाद-380025

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः11]

डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014

S.O. 3067.—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 grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7527

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licences Grant Date Name & Address of the Party Title of the Standard IS Part Sec Year No. No.

No.

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

1. 2872673 02-04-2014 Bhawani Enterprises Packaged drinding water 14543 - - 2004 L-584, GIDC Estate, (other than packaged Opp Post Office, Odhav, natural water) Ahmedabad-382415

2. 2874980 02-04-2014 Nilang Wires & Cables Pvt. Ltd. PVC Insulated Cables 694 - - 1990 Shed No. 5 & 6, Shyam Industrial Estate, Plot No. 5813, Phase 1, GIDC Estate Vatva-382445

3. 2877380 03-04-2014 MAK Pump Industries Motor for submersible 9283 - - 1996 Plot No. 65, Phase-1, pumpsets GIDC Estate, Opp. Atlas Radio, Naroda, Ahmedabad-382330

4. 2878180 03-04-2014 Daisy Industries Textiles-laminated high 15351 - - 2003 49/1, Paike 2, Timbhi Village density polythylene Near Bhallaria Metal Close to (hdpe) fabric for canal Varoli Bridge Via Sanjan lining Umergaon, Valsad-396150

5. 2876681 03-04-2014 Jewel Goldi (India) Gold and gold alloys 1417 - - 1999 Shree Ramkrishna Complex jewellery/artefacts- 22, Nishal Falia Second Floor, fineness and marking Near Peoples Bank, Katargam Road, Surat-395004

6. 2875679 07-04-2014 Milcent Appliances Private Limited Single-phase small ac and 996 - - 2009 20, GIDC Estate universal electric motors Vithal Udyognagar At Village Vallabh Vallabhnagar, At Tal. Anand Vallabh Vidyanagar-388121

7. 2874677 08-04-2014 ASK Water Products Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 Gajanand House, Godown No. (other than packaged B,C,F, Opp. Panna Park Bus Stand natural mineral water) Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad-380061

8. 2874778 09-04-2014 Dhruv Stars Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 Survey No. 24/14, Karembele (other than packaged Station Road Mohan Fatak, natural mineral water) Valwada Tal: Umbergaon, Valsad

9. 2874879 09-04-2014 Astral Polytechnic Limited Conduits for electrical 9537 3 - 1983 Block No. 149/1, Village Rampur, installations: Dholka Kheda Road, Opp GIDC Estate, Tal Dholka, Distt. Ahmedabad-382225

10. 2877784 09-04-2014 Two Bros Products Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 Plot No. 4510 GIDC Industrial (other than packaged Estate Ankleshwar Bharuch natural mineral water)

11. 2876075 11-04-2014 Nilkanth Beverages Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 At & PO: Vishatpura (other than packaged Tal: Kadi (N.G.) Mahesana, natural mineral water) Kadi-3827157528 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. 2876580 15-04-2014 Dhanshree Agro Poly Product Low density polyethylene 2508 - - 1984 15/A, Changodar Industrial Estate films Sarkhej-Bavla Road, Changodar Ahmedabad-382213.

13. 2877885 15-04-2014 Asian Mills P. Ltd. Steel tubes for idlers for 9295 - - 1983 104, Sakar III, Opp Old High Court belt conveyors Nr. Incometax Circle, Ashram Road Ahmedabad-380014

14. 2877986 15-04-2014 Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd. Steel tubes for mechanical 3601 - - 2006 104, Sakar III, Opp Old High Court and general engineering Nr. Incometax Circle, Ashram Road purposes Ahmedabad-380014

15. 2877279 16-04-2014 Aqualite Beverages Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 1999 Plot No. 9-10-11, GIDC Ten (other than packaged Tal: Bardoli. Surat-394601 natural mineral water)

16. 2877481 16-04-2014 SPD Enterprises Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 1999 113, Gunatitnagar SO. Ltd. (other than packaged Near Rameshwar Estate natural mineral water) Swastik Char Rasta Amraiwadi Ahmedabad-380026

17. 2878483 21-04-2014 Ravi Plant Bio Technologies Ltd. Emitting pipes system 13488 - - 2008 Survey No. 2/1 Baska Tajpura Road, Village Vaseti, Tal Halol Panchamahal-389350

18. 2878584 21-04-2014 Ravi Plant Biotechnologies Ltd. Irrigation equipment- 12786 - - 1989 Survey No. 2/1, Baska polyethylene pipes for Tajpura Road, Village Vaseti, irrigation laterals Tal Halol Panchamahal-389350

19. 2879182 22-04-2014 Parth Engineering Pumps-regenerative or 8472 - - 1998 2, Amarnath Estate, Nr. Forge & clear, cold water- Blower Co., Naroda Road, Ahmedabad

20. 2879384 23-04-2014 Saraswati Foods and Beverages Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 1999 Plot No. 1, Sardarbag Near Madhav (other than packaged Hotal, Opp. Sun Nagar, natural mineral water) Highway Road At & PO Tal Sidhpur, Patan-384151.

21. 2880268 28-04-2014 Darasik Healthcare Inc Aluminium conductors for 398 5 - 1992 224, Sahajanand Estate, overhead Sarkhej- Bavla Road, Sarkhej, transmission purposes Ahmedabad-382110

22. 2882171 28-04-2014 Askhar Beverages Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 P/363, A/B, Ground Floor (other than packaged Sub Division 2, New Katargam, natural mineral water) Surat-395004

23. 2883779 28-04-2014 Gunina Alloy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Carbon steel cast billet 2830 - - 2012

ingots, billets, blooms

Survey No. 644, Village: Simej, Taluka Dholka, and slabs for re-rolling into Ahmedabad-382810 steel for general

structural purposes

24. 2881775 29-04-2014 Romex Pump Industries Submersible pumpsets- 8034 - - 2002 C/20, Part 2, Maruti Industrial Estate, Opp Naroda Road Fire Brigade, Ahmedabad-380025

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7529

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3068.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम (5) के उप-विनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक

ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्‌द/स्थगित कर दिया गया हैः-

अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रकम सम्बद्ध रद्‌द करने की तिथि संख्या संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

सीएम/एल

1. 2817665 मैसर्स जैलको इलैक्ट्रानिक प्रा. लिमिटेड पी वी सी इंसूलेटिड केबल 04.04.2014 ब्लाक नंबर 142, एट तथा पोस्ट कारोली, जलाराम आई एस-694ः1990 सिरामिक्स के साथ में, खतराज चोकड़ी के पास, गांधीनगर-382721

2. 7318672 मैसर्स जर्मल कलरकॉन इंडिया

सिंथैटिक फूड कलर-प्रीपरेशन तथा मिक्सचर्स 09.04.2014 सर्वे नंबर 206/2/1, प्रसारभारती रेडियो स्टेशन के आई एस 5346ः1994 सामने बारेजाडी रोड, गांव बीडज, ता खेडा-387120

3. 7455783 मैसर्स तरल इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लिमिटेड पैकेजबंद पेयजल 29.04.2014 476, विजय इंडस्ट्रियल एसटेट, सामियाला, (अदर दैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

ता पादरा वडोदरा-391410 आई एस 14543-2004

[सं. सीएमडी/13ः13]

डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014

S.O. 3068.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of India Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:—

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licences Name & Address of the Licensee Article/Process with relevant Indian Date of Cancellation No. No. CM/L

Standards covered by the licence cancelled

1. 2817665 M/s Gelco Electonics Pvt. Ltd. PVC Insulated cables

04.04.2014 Block No. 142, At & Post Karoli, Beside IS 694:1990 Lalaram Ceramic near Khatraj Chokadi, Distt. Gandhinagar-382721

2 . 7318672 M/s Greman Colorcon India Synthetic Food Colour-prepartions 09.04.2014 Survey No. 206/2/1 Opp Prasarbharti and mixtures Radio Station Barejadi Road, Vill-Beedaj IS 5346 : 1994 Tal-Kheda, Distt. Kheda-387120

3 . 7455783 M/s Taral Industries Private Limited Packaged drinking water (other than packaged 29.04.2014 476, Vijay Ind. Estate, Samiyala TA-Padra natural mineral water)

Distt. Vadodara-391410.

IS 14543 : 2004

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head7530 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3069.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

अनुसूची

संख्या

माह

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

1. 2880975 01.05.2014 गनैबो इंडिया प्रा. लिमिटेड फायर रिसिंटिंग (इंसूलेटिंग) 14561 - - 2007 प्लाट नंबर 1302-1306, जीआईडीसी फायलिंग केबिनेट इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट चांपानेर रोड, हलोल-389350

2. 2881068 01.05.2014 सोमनाथ पाली प्लास्ट प्रा. लिमिटेड अनप्लास्टिसाईड पी वी सी 4985 - - 2000 प्लाट नंबर 88, निर्मल इंडस्ट्रियल पार्क, पाईप्स फार पोटेबल वाटर जीआईडीसी गोजारिया, ता तथा पोस्ट मेहसाना सप्लाईस

3. 2881674 01.05.2014 हिलकोना केबल पी वी सी इंसूलेडिट केबल 694 - - 1990 नंबर बी-25, अंबिका इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, अंबिका नगर, ओढव, अहमदाबाद-382415

4. 2882272 02.05.2014 वरीटास इंडस्ट्रीज प्राईवेट लिमिटेड एल्यूमिनियम कंडक्टर फार 398 2 - 1996 सर्वे नंबर 32, जी आई डी सी, ता अंबरगोंम ओवरहैड ट्रांसमिशन परपस वलसाद, सारिगाम

5. 2882474 06.05.2014 एन एल एक्स्ट्रूसन कांडयूटस फार इलैक्ट्रिकल 9537 3 - 1983 43, श्रीराम एस्टेट, शाह एलाय के सामने, इन्स्टालेशन सांतेज ता कलोल, गांधीनगर-382721

6. 2883880 06.05.2014 साबेरो आरगैनिक्स गुजरात लिमिटेड मानकोजैब वाटर डिपसबल 8708 - - 1978 प्लाट नं. 2102, जी आई डी सी, सारिगाम, पाउडर कंसंटे्रट मिलाड, वलसाद, वापी-396155

7. 2884579 06.05.2014 गणपति वुल प्लाई इंडस्ट्रीज वुडन फ्लश डोर शटर (सालिड 2202 1 - 1999 एट धर्मपुरा, प्लाट नं. 7, एस आर नं. 276, कोर टाईप) गांव नाईका, ता खेडा-387560

8. 2885682 06.05.2014 ओम बिवरेजिस पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 प्लाट नं. 81/6/1, जी आई डी सी, वटवा पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर) अहमदाबाद

9. 2883981 07.05.2014 ज्योति ज्वैलर्स

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के 1417 - - 1999 शॉप नं. 19, ज्ञामकुंज को ओप एच एस सी आभूषणों शिल्कारी शुद्धता एवं सोसाइटी, अभिलाषा चार रास्ता, न्यू सामा रोड मुहरांकन वडोदरा-390008

10. 2883577 07.05.2014 जय भवानी डायमंड स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के 1417 - - 1999 15, पाटीदार काम्पलैक्स स्टेशन रोड, आभूषणों शिल्कारी शुद्धता एवं बारडोली, सूरत-394602 मुहरांकन

11. 2884983 08.05.2014 श्री साईनाथ बिवरेजिस पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 47, प्रहलाद पार्क सोसाइटी, चांदखेडा, पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर) रेलवे क्रासिंग के सामने, गांव जगतपुर, ता दसक्रोंई, अहमदाबाद-380005

12. 2887080 08.05.2014 रतनम लैमिनेट्‌स प्रा. लिमिटेड डैकोरेटिव थर्मोसौटिंग सिनथेैटिक 2046 - - 1995 सर्वे नं. 116/बी-1, गांव सांपा, ता देहगाम रेसिन बोंडिड लैमिनेटिड शीट्‌स गांधीनगर-382305[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7531 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

13. 2885076 12.05.2014 मालाबार गोल्ड प्राईवेट लिमिटेड चाँदी तथा चाँदी धातुओं के 2112 - - 2003 डोर नं. जी 2, जी 3, तीसरा आई वन आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं कॉमर्शियल काम्पलैक्स, पंचवटी सर्कल मुहरांकन के पास, सी जी रोड, अहमदाबाद

14. 2885177 12.05.2014 गालाबार गोल्ड प्राईवेट लिमिटेड स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के 1417 - - 1999 डोर नं. जी 2, जी 3, तीसरा आई वन आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं कॉमर्शियल काम्पलैक्स, पंचवटी मुहरांकन सर्कल के पास, सी जी रोड, अहमदाबाद

15. 2885783 12.05.2014 आर वी एक्वा पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 एट कंकापुरा, देवपुरा, ता विजापुर, डि मेहसाना पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर) विजापुर-382870

16. 2886482 13.05.2014 श्री बलराम रोलिंग मिल्स (प्रा.) लिमिटेड स्टील फार जनरल स्टकचरल 2062 - - 2011 सर्वे नंबर 1959, गांव वामज, परपस ता कडी।, डिस्ट्रिक्ट मेहसाना, वामेज-382715

17. 2886583 13.05.2014 नेचर प्रोडक्ट्‌स पम्पस-रिजैनरेटिव और 8472 - - 1998 46, नालंदा एस्टेट, गिरनार स्कूटर कंपाउंड क्लीयर, कोल्ड वाटर सरदार पटेल रिंग रेाड सर्कल के पास, ओढव अहमदाबाद-382415

18. 2887787 13.05.2014 डायमंड पावर इंप्रईास्टकचर लिमिटेड एल्यूमिनियम कंडक्टर्स फार 398 1 - 1996 फेस-II गांव वडाडला,ता सावली ओवरहैड ट्रांसमशिन परपस वडोदरा-391520

19.    2887181       16.05.2014       आर बी पालीमर्स लिमिटेड                     डैकोरेटिव थर्मोसैटिंग सिनथैटिक 2046           -          -      1995
                                      प्लाट नं. 103 से 108, महालक्ष्मी इंडस्ट्रियल रेसिन बोंडिड लैमिनेटिड शीट्‌स
                                      एस्टेट एट आइवा, अहमदाबाद-382110
20.    2887383       17.05.2014         फोरम बिवरेजिस                          पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन         14543           -          -      2004
                                      प्लाट नंबर, 49, 50 ग्राउंड फ्लोर,        पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)
                                      अमीधारा इंडस्ट्रियल सोसा 3, टी वी एस
                                        वर्क शॉप के पास, इमाता रोड,
                                        मैगोब सूरत-395001
21.    2887888       20.05.2014       मारवैक्स पाईप टैक प्राईवेट लिमिटेड         हाई डैंसिटी पालीथलीन           4984           -          -      1995
                                      ब्लाक नं. 121, मयूर सिनेमा  के पास,        पाईपस फार  पोटेबल वाटर
                                        बडोदरा गांव, अहमदाबाद हाइवे, एट बडोदरा,  सपलाईस
                                      अहदामबाद, दसक्रोई-382434
22.    2888385       21.05.2014       हिमसन इंडस्ट्रीज                         सिंगल फेस स्माल ए सी तथा         996            -          -      2009
                                       प्लाट नं. 40, रोड नं. ए, काठवाडा, जीआईडीसी यूनिवर्सल इलैक्ट्रिक मोटर्स
                                      काठवाडा अहमदाबाद-382430
23.    2888486       22.05.2014         अशोका फूड्‌स तथा बिवरेजिस              पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन         14543           -          -      2004
                                      19/6-2, प्रकाश एस्टेट, रीटानगर, वस्त्राल रोड, पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)
                                        अमराईवाडी अहमदाबाद
24.    2888688       22.05.2014       श्री कारेश्वरी जवैलर्स                    स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के     1417           -          -      1999

2782/ई/2, काटोपर दरवाजा बाजार, आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं

भारूच-392001 मुहरांकन

25.    2888890      26.05.2014      एक्सीटेरा हैल्थकेयर                     पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन       14543          -          -     2004
                                    प्लाट नंबर 133, शिव सिटी इंडस्ट्रीज     पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)
                                    पार्ट-1 मनकना, सूरत
26.    2889589      26.05.2014      जय अंबे मिनरल्स                         पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन       14543          -          -     2004
                                    एस आर नंबर 195/3, प्लाट नंबर 2          पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)
                                      छानासमा हाइवे, हरिज लिंक रोड, पाटन

7532 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

27. 2889488 28.05.2014 एमपियर इलैक्ट्रिकल्स सिंगल फेस स्माल ए सी तथा 996 - - 2009 28, पटेल नगर, मर्घा फार्म के पास, यूनिवर्सल इलैक्ट्रिक मोटर्स शास्त्री स्टेडियम के पीछे, बापूनगर, अहमदाबाद-380024

28. 2890069 30.05.2014 राज पालिमर्स फर्टिलाइजर तथा कैमिकल 14483 1 - 1997 प्लाट नंबर. 427, रोड नंबर. 10, इंजैक्टर सिस्टम फेस II, जी आई डी सी, काठवाडा, अहमदाबाद-382430

29. 2890170 30.05.2014 राज पालिमर्स

ईरीगेशन इक्यूपमैंट-हाइड्रो 14743 - - 1999 प्लाट नंबर. 427, रोड नंबर. 10, साइकलोन फिलटर फेस II, जी आई डी सी, काठवाडा, अहमदाबाद-382430

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः11]

डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014

S.O. 3069.—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

Sl. Licence Grant Date Name & Address of the Party Title of the Standard IS Part Sec Year No. No.

No.

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

1. 2880975 01.05.2014 Gunnebo India Private Limited Fire resisting (insulating) 14561 - - 2007 Plot No. 1302-1306, GIDC filing cabinets Industrial Estate, Champaner Road, Halol-389350

2. 2881068 01.05.2014 Somnath Poly Plast Pvt Ltd Unplasticized pvc pipes 4985 - - 2000 Plot No. 88, Nirmal Industrial for potable water supplies Park GIDC Gozaria, TA & Dist. Mehsana

3. 2881674 01.05.2014 Hilcona Cable PVC insulated cables 694 - - 1990 No. B-25, Ambica Industrial Estate Ambica Nagar, Odhav Ahmedabad-382415

4. 2882272 02.05.2014 Veritas Industries Pvt. Ltd Aluminium conductors for 398 2 - 1996 Survey No. 32, GIDC Sarigam overhead transmission Tal; Umbergaon, Valsad, purposes Sarigam

5. 2882474 06.05.2014 N L Extrusions Conduits for electrical 9537 3 - 1983

installations

43, Shri Ram Estate, Opp. Shah Alloys Santej, Tal; Kalol, Gandhinagar 382721

6. 2883880 06.05.2014 Sabero Organics Gujarat Ltd., Mancozeb water 8708 - - 1978 Plot No. 2102, GIDC Sarigam, dispersible powder Bhilad Valsad, Vapi-396155 concentrates

7. 2884579 06.05.2014 Ganpati Wood Ply Industries Wooden Flush door 2202 1 - 1999 At Dharampura, Plot No. 7, Shutters (solid core type): Sr. No. 276, Village Naika, Taluka Kheda-387560

8. 2885682 06.05.2014 Om Beverages Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 Plot No. 81/6/1, GIDC, Vatva (other than packaged Ahmedabad natural mineral water)[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7533 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

9. 2883981 07.05.2014 Jyoti Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 - - 1999 Shop No. 19, Gyam Kunj Co-op jewellery/artefacts- Hsc Soc. Abhilasha Char Rasta, fineness and marking- New Sama Road, Vadodara-390008

10. 2883577 07.05.2014 Jay Bhavani Diamonds Gold and gold alloys, 1417 - - 1999 15, Patidar Complex Station Road, jewellery/artefacts- Bardoli, Surat 394602 fineness and marking-

11. 2884983 08.05.2014 Shree Sainath Beverages Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 47, Prahladpark Society (other than packaged Opp. Chandkheda Railway natural mineral water) Crossing Vill: Jagatpur, Tal: Dascroi, Ahmedabad-380005

12. 2887080 08.05.2014 Ratnam Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Decorative thermosetting 2046 - - 1995 Survey No. 116/B-1, synthetic resin Village; Sampa, Taluka-Dehgam, bonded laminated sheets Gandhinagar-382305

13. 2885076 12.05.2014 Malabar Gold Pvt. Ltd Silver and silver alloys, 2112 - - 2003 Door No. G2, G3, Third Eye jewellery/artefacts- One Commercial Complex, fineness and marking Near Panchvati Circle, C G Road, Ahmedabad

14. 2885177 12.05.2014 Malabar Gold Pvt. Ltd. Gold and gold alloys, 1417 - - 1999 Door No. G2, Third Eye One jewellery/artefacts- Commercial Complex, fineness and marking Near Panchvati Circle, C G Road, Ahmedabad

15. 2885783 12/-5.2014 R. V. Aqua Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 At Kankapura, Devpura (other than packaged Tal Vijapur, Distt. Mehsana natural mineral water) Vijapur-382870

16. 2886482 13.05.2014 Shree Balram Rolling Mills(P) Ltd. Steel for general 2062 - - 2011 Survey No. 1959, Vill Vamaj. structural purposes Tal kadi, Distt. Mehsana, Vamaj-382715

17. 2886583 13.05.2014 Nature Products Pumps - regenerative or 8472 - - 1998 46, Nalanda Estate, Girnar Scooter clear, cold water Compound, Near Sardar Patel Ring Road Circle, Odhav Ahmedabad-382415

18. 2887787 13.05.2014 Diamond Power Infrastructure Aluminium conductors for 398 1 - 1996 Ltd., Phase-II Village Vadadala overhead transmission Tal-Savli, Vadodara-391520 purposes

19. 2887181 16.05.2014 R B Polymers Ltd., Decorative thermosetting 2046 - - 1995 Plot No. 103 to 108, synthetic resin Mahalaxmi Ind. Estate bonded laminated sheets At Iyava, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382110

20. 2887383 17.05.2014 Forum Beverages Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 Plot No. 49, 50 Ground Floor, (other than packaged Amidhara Indl SCO. 3, natural mineral water) N/R TVS Work Shop, Imata Road, Magob Surat-395001

21. 2887888 20.05.2014 Marvex Pipe Tech Pvt. Ltd. High density Polyethylene 4984 - - 1995 Block No. 121, NR. Mayur pipes for potable Water Cinema, Badodara Village, suppplies Mahemdabad Highway, At Badodara, Ahmedabad, Daskroi-3824347534 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

22. 2888385 21.05.2014 Himson Industries Single-phase small ac and 996 - - 2009 Plot No. 40, Road No. A, universal electric motors Kathwada, GIDC Kathwada, Ahmedabad-382430

23. 2888486 22.05.2014 Ashoka Foods & Beverages Packaged Drinking water 14543 - - 2004 19/6-2, Prakash Estate, Ritanagar, (other than packaged Vastral Road, Amraiwadi, natural mineral water) Ahmedabad

24. 2888688 22.05.2014 Shree Kareshwari Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 - - 1999 2782/E/2, Katopor Darwaja jewellery/artefacts- Bazar, Bharuch-392001 Gujarat fineness and marking-

25. 2888890 26.05.2014 Exetera Healthcare Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 Plot No. 133, Shiv City (other than packaged Industries Part-1, Mankna natural mineral water) Surat City, Surat

26. 2889589 26.05.2014 Jay Ambe Minerals Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 SR No. 195/3, Plot No. 2, (other than packaged Chanasma Highway natural mineral water) Harij Link Road, Patan Gujarat

27. 2889488 28.05.2014 Ampere Electricals Single-phase small ac 996 - - 2009 28, Patel Nagar, and universal electric Near Margha Farm motors Behind Shastri Stadium, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad-380024

28. 2890069 30.05.2014 Raj Polymers Fertilizer and chemical 14483 1 - 1997 Plot No. 427, Road No. 10, injector system Phase II GIDC, Kathwada Ahmedabad-382430

29. 2890170 30.05.2014 Raj Polymers Irrigation equipment- 14743 - - 1999 Plot No. 427, Road No. 10, hydrocyclone filters Phase II GIDC, Kathwada, Ahmedabad-382430

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist-'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3070.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम (5) के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक

ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्‌द/स्थगित कर दिया गया हैः--

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

सीएम/एल-

1. 7143461 मैसर्स किरलोसकर ब्रदर्स सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट

05.05.2014 254/1 चारोडी गांव, सानंद, आई एस-8034ः2002 अहमदाबाद विरमगााम हाइवे, अहमदाबाद-382170

2. 3745671 मैसर्स जोश इंंडस्ट्रीज ऑटोमोटिव विहीकल्स - ट्‌यूब्स फॉर न्यूमैटिक टायर 16.05.2014 प्लाट नंबर 26, जी आई डी सी दाबोई, आई एस-13098ः1991 वडोदरा, दाबोई-391110

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः13]

डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7535

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014

S.O. 3070.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licences Name & Address of the Licensee Article/Process with relevant Indian Date of Cancellation No. No. CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence cancelled

1. 7143461 M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Submersible Pumpsets 05.05.2014 254/1 Chharodi Village, IS 8034:2002 Sanand Ahmedabad Viramgam Highway, Ahmedabad-382170

2. 3745671 M/s. Josh Industries Automotive Vehicles - Tubes for 16.05.2014 Plot No. 26, GIDC Dabhoi, Vadodara, pneumatic Tyres Dabhoi-391110 IS 13098:1991

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist-'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3071.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैंः--

अनुसूची

संख्या

माह

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

1. 2891677 09.06.2014 एकसिस सोलूशनस प्रा. लिमिटेड एक्सपलोसिव एटमोसफियर्स आई 1 - 2007 प्लाट नंबर 324, रोड नंबर 5, पार्ट 1 इक्यूपमेंट प्रोटेक्शन बाय एस/आई जी आई डी सी, काठवाडा, फलेमप्रुफ एनकलोसर्स ''डी'' ई सी 60079 अहमदाबाद-382430

2. 2892477 16.06.2014 केंटम प्लास्ट क्लोरिनेटिड पी वी सी पोटेबल 15778 - - 2007 85 से 90 शिव शक्ति एस्टेट पाईप फार हॉट तथा कोल्ड वी ट्रान नी गली, नारोल क्रास रोड, वाटर डिस्ट्रिब्यूशन सप्लाईस नारोल, अहमदाबाद

3. 2892073 17.06.2014 फोर के बिवरेजिस पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 प्लाट नंबर 19-ए, कुसमपार्क, पैकजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर) गांव अटक पारडी, ता. वलसाद-396001

4. 2892275 18.06.2014 क्लासिक पम्प सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 8034 - - 2002 3/ए, परेश एस्टेट, सोनिया सिरामिक्स के सामने, अनिल स्टार्च रोड, नरोडा रोड, अहमदाबाद-380025

5. 2892376 20.06.2014 गंगा वाटर पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 63, गंगोत्री काम्पलैक्स, मानसा के समाने पैकजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर) जी आई डी सी, ता. मानसा, गांधीनगर-382845

6. 2897790 20.06.2014 श्री निलोसकर पम्पस सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 8034 - - 2002 263 तथा 264, शुभ इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, सी एल विद्यालय के पास, काठवाडा सिंगरवा रोड, अहमदाबाद-3824307536 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

7. 2892578 22.06.2014 अमी मिनरल वाटर पैकजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन 14543 - - 2004 प्लाट नंबर ए-1-163, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट, पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर) अंकलेश्वर, एट गांव अंकलेश्वर, भारूच, अंकलेश्वर-393002

8. 2892679 23.06.2014 एड लाईफ इंजीनियर्स ओपन वैल सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 14220 - - 1994 बी/6, प्रकाश इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, रीटा नगर के पास, वस्त्राल रोड, अहमदाबाद-382026

9. 2892982 23.06.2014 मारूति पालिमर्स कांडयूट्‌स फार इलैक्ट्रिकल 9537 3 - 1983 ए/29, गोल्डन पार्क, जी आई डी सी कडी इंस्टालेशन कलोल रोड के सामने, मेहसाना-382715

10. 2893277 30.06.2014 जय बालाजी इलैक्ट्रिकल्स पी वी सी इंसूलेटिड केबल्स 694 - - 1990 शैड नंबर 123, आर्शीवाद इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, नरोडा रोड, अहमदाबाद

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः11]

डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014

S.O. 3071.—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

Sl. Licences Grant Date Name & Address of the Party Title of the Standard IS Part Sec Year No. No.

No.

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

1. 2891677 09.06.2014 Axis Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Explosive atmospheres IS/IEC 1 - 2007 Plot No. 324, Road No. 5, part 1 equipment 60079 GIDC Kathwada, protection by flameproof Ahmedabad-382430 enclosures "d"

2. 2892477 16.06.2014 Kantam Plast Chlorinated pvc pipes 15778 - - 2007 85 to 90 Shiv Shakti Estate for potable hot and V Tran Ni Gali Narol Cross Road, cold water distribution Narol, Ahmedabad supplies

3. 2892073 17.06.2014 M/s. 4 K Beverages Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 Plot No. 19-A, Kusampark, (other than packaged Village Atak Paradi, natural mineral water) Tal. Valsad-396001

4. 2892275 18.06.2014 Classick Pump Submersible pumpsets 8034 - - 2002 3/A, Paresh Estate, Opp. Soniya Ceramic Anil Starch Road, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025

5. 2892376 20.06.2014 Ganga Water Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 63, Gangotri Complex (other than packaged Opp. Mansa GIDC Tal. Mansa natural mineral water) Gandhinagar, Mansa-382845

6. 2897790 20.06.2014 Shree Niloskar Pumps Submersible pumpsets 8034 - - 2002 263 & 264, Shubh Indl. Estate Near C L Vidhyalaya, Kathwada- Singerva Road, Ahmedabad-382430[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7537 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

7. 2892578 22.06.2014 Ami Mineral Water Packaged drinking water 14543 - - 2004 Plot No. A-1-163, GIDC Estate. (other than packaged Ankleshwar, AT Village Ankleshwar, natural mineral water) Bharuch, Ankleshwar-393002

8. 2892679 23.06.2014 Add-Life Engineers Openwell submersible 14220 - - 1994 B/6, Prakash Ind. Estate, pumpsets Nr. Rita Nagar, Vastral Road, Ahemedabad-382026

9. 2892982 23.06.2014 Maruti Polymers Conduits for electrical 9537 3 - 1983 A/29, Golden Park, Opp. GIDC installations Kadi-Kaol Road, Mahesana-382715

10. 2893277 30.06.2014 Jai Balaji Electricals PVC Insulated Cables 694 - - 1990 Shed No. 123, Aashirwad Indl. Estate, Naroda Road, Ahemedabad

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist-'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3072.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम (5) के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक

अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रकम सम्बद्ध रद्‌द करने की तिथि सं. संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

सीएम/एल-

1. 3780370 मैसर्स रिलायेंस रबर इंडस्ट्रीज ऑटोमोटिव विहीकलस - ट्‌यूब्स फॉर न्यूमैटिक टायर्स 30.06.2014 शैड नंबर सी-1/602, जी आई डी सी सारीगाम, आई एस-13098ः1991 ता. अंबरगाम, डि वलसाद-396155

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः13]

डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2014

S.O. 3072.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :—

SCHEDULE

S.No. Licences Name & Address of the Licensee Article/Process with relevant Indian Date of Cancellation No. CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence cancelled

1. 3780370 M/s. Reliance Rubber Industries Automotive Vehicles - Tubes for 30.06.2014

IS 13098:1991

Shed No. C-1/602. G.I.D.C. Sarigam, pneumatic Tyres TA. Umbergam, Dist. Valsad-396155

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head7538 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] शुद्धिपत्र

नई दिल्ली, 15 अक्तूबर, 2014

का.आ. 3073.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा भारत के राजपत्र, देखें एस.ओ. 1877 ई, दिनांक 19 जुलाई 2014 के भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो विनियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुपालन में भारत के राजपत्र असाधारण, भाग II, खंड 3 के उपखंड (ii) में प्रकाशित उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग, खाद्‌य एवं सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित संशोध्न करता है :--

(i) अधिसूचना की पंक्ति 3 में - ''मानकों के विवरण, यदि कोई हों, जो कालम (4) में दिए गए ह, जो कालम (5) में दर्शाई गई तिथि को रद्द किए जायेंगे''। को ''मानकों के विवरण'' यदि कोई हों, जो चौथे कालम में दिए गए ह, को भी जब तक कि पॉचवे कालम में उनके सामने दर्शाई गई तिथि को रद्द नहीं किया जाता है, तो वे वर्तमान में भी जारी रहेंगे'', से प्रतिस्थापित करें।

(ii) अनुसूची के कालम (5) में - ''30 जनवरी 2015'' को

''19 जुलाई 2014'' से प्रतिस्थापित करें।

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियॉ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरों, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110 002 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई, तथा शाखा कार्यालयों :अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध ह। भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है।

[संदर्भ : ETD 16/1 Gen/2014]

कला एम. वारियर, निदेशक (विदेशी भाषा एवं प्रकाशन) Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.

[Ref. : ETD 16/1 Gen/2014]

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

शुद्धिपत्र

नई दिल्ली, 15 अक्तूबर, 2014

का.आ. 3074.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा भारत के राजपत्र, एस.ओ. 1175 दिनांकित 15 मार्च, 2014, द्वारा भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987, के भारत के राजपत्र के नियम 7 के उप-नियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुपालन में भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii) में प्रकाशित उपभोक्ता, खाद्‌य एवं सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय (उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित संशोधित करता है :

अनुसूची के कालम 5 के क्रमांक (1)--''15 मार्च 2014'' को

''15 मई 2015'' से प्रतिस्थापित करें।

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियॉ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरों, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110 002 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई, तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध ह। भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है।

[संदर्भ : PUB/STD-1]

कला एम. वारियर, निदेशक (विदेशी भाषा एवं प्रकाशन) CORRIGENDUM

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2014

S.O. 3073.—Bureau of Indian Standards hereby makes the following AMENDMENT to the NOTIFICATION of Government of India under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) published in Part II, Section 3, sub- section (ii) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, of the Gazette of India, vide S.O. 1877 E dated 19 July, 2014:

(i) In line 3 of NOTIFICATION - Substitute "The particulars of the standards, if any, which are given in column (4) shall be cancelled on the date indicated in column (5)." for "The particulars of the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled on the date indicated against them in the fifth column."

(ii) In column (5) of schedule - Substitute "19 July,

2014" for "30 Jan., 2015".

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices :

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2014

S.O. 3074.—Bureau of Indian Standards hereby makes the following AMENDMENT to the NOTIFICATION of Government of India under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) published in the Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, of the Gazette of India, vide S.O. 1175 dated 15 March, 2014:

In the Schedule, Sl. no. (i), Column 5 - Substitute

"15 May 2015" for "15 March 2014".

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.

[Ref. : PUB/STD-1]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7539

नई दिल्ली, 28 अक्तूबर, 2014

        का. आ. 3075.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987      के नियम 7   के उपनियम (1) के खंड (ख)     के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (को) में संशोध्न किया गया/किये गये ह।
                                                           अनुसूची
  क्रम     संशोध्ति भारतीय मानक (कों)                             संशोध्न की संख्या                      स्थापित तिथि
  संख्या   की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक                                और तिथि
  1.       आई एस 302 (भाग 1) : 2008                                 संशोध्न संख्या 3 जुलाई 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  2.       आई एस 807 : 2006 (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)                     संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  3.       आई एस 1084 : 2005 (पांचवा पुनरीक्षण)                   संशोध्न संख्या 2 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  4.       आई एस 1180 (भाग 1) : 1989 (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)            संशोध्न संख्या 2 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  5.       आई एस 1180 (भाग 2) : 1989 (पहला पुनरीक्षण)             संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  6.       आई एस 1321 (भाग 1) : 2003 (चौथा पुनरीक्षण)             संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  7.       आई एस 1321 (भाग 1) : 2003 (चौथा पुनरीक्षण)             संशोध्न संख्या 2 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  8.       आई एस 1417 : 1999 (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)                    संशोध्न संख्या 5 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  9.       आई एस 3009 : 2002 (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)                      संशोध्न संख्या 2 जुलाई 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  10.      आई एस 4084 : 1978 (पहला पुनरीक्षण)                     संशोध्न संख्या 3 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  11.      आई एस 4558 : 1995 (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)                    संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  12.      आई एस 6349 : 1981 (पहला पुनरीक्षण)                     संशोध्न संख्या 2 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  13.      आई एस 8674 :     2013/आई   एस ओ                        संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
         1969 : 2004 (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)
  14.      आई एस 9308 (भाग 1 से 3) (भाग 1)                        संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
         ः 1987 (पहला पुनरीक्षण)
  15.      आई एस 9308 (भाग 1 से 3) (भाग 2)                        संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
         ः 1987 (पहला पुनरीक्षण)
  16.      आई एस 9308 (भाग 1 से 3) (भाग 3)                        संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
         ः 1987 (पहला पुनरीक्षण)
  17.      आई एस 9308 (भाग 4) : 1999                              संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  18.      आई एस 12948 : 1990                                     संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  19.      आई एस 13501 :1992                                      संशोध्न संख्या 1 सितम्बर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  20.      आई एस 14439 (भाग 2) : 1998                             संशोध्न संख्या 3 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  21.      आई एस 14812 : 2005 (पहला पुनरीक्षण)                    संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
  22.      आई एस 16176 : 2014                                     संशोध्न संख्या 1 अक्तूबर 2014         28 अक्तूबर 2014
         इस भारतीय मानक   की प्रतियॉ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरों, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110 002 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयोंः
 नई  दिल्ली,  कोलकाता,  चण्डीगढ़,  चेन्नई,  मुम्बई, तथा शाखा  कार्यालयों  ः  अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल,  भुवनेश्वर,  कोयम्बतूर,  गुवाहाटी,

7540 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

हैदराबाद, जयपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध ह। भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है।

[संदर्भ : PUB/GN-1ः 4]

कला एम. वारियर, निदेशक (विदेशी भाषा एवं प्रकाशन)

New Delhi, the 28th October, 2014

S.O. 3075.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies ê that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. and year of the No. and year of Date from which No. Indian Standards

the amendment

shall have effect

1 2

1. IS 302 (Part 1) : 2008 Safety of Amendment No. 3 July 2014 28 October 2014 Household and Similar Electrical

Appliances Part 1 General Requirements

2. IS 807 : 2006 Design, Erection and Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Testing (Structural Portion) of Cranes

and Hoists - Code of Practice (Second

Revision)

3. IS 1084 : 2005 Textiles - Manila Amendment No. 2 October 2014 28 October 2014 Ropes - Specification (Fifth Revision)

4. IS 1180 (Part 1) : 1989 Outdoor Type Amendment No. 2 October 2014 28 October 2014 Three-Phase Distribution Transformers

Up to and Including 100 KVA 11 KV

Part 1 Non-Sealed Type (Third Revision)

5. IS 1180 (Part 2) : 1989 Outdoor Type Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Three-Phase Distribution Transformers

Up to and Including 100 KVA 11 KV

Part 2 Sealed Type (First Revision)

6. IS 1321 (Part 1) : 2003 Sisal Ropes Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Part 1 Untarred Varieties (Fourth Revision)

7. IS 1321 (Part 1) : 2003 Sisal Ropes Amendment No. 2 October 2014 28 October 2014 Part 1 Untarred Varieties (Fourth Revision)

8. IS 1417 : 1999 Gold and Gold Alloy, Amendment No. 5 October 2014 28 October 2014 Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and

Marking - Specification (Third Revision)

9. IS 3009 : 2002 Brushes, Shoe Amendment No. 2 July 2014 28 October 2014 Polishing - Specification (Third Revision)

10. IS 4084 : 1978 Specification for Amendment No. 3 October 2014 28 October 2014 Eyelets and Washers (SAIL) (First Revision)[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7541 1 2

11. IS 4558 : 1995 Under-Drainage of Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Lined Canals-Code of Practice

(Second Revision)

12. IS 6349 : 1981 Specification for Tape, Amendment No. 2 October 2014 28 October 2014 Nylon, Tuular for Aerospace

Applications (First Revision)

13. IS 8674 : 2013/ISO 1969 : 2004 Fiber Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Ropes - Polyethylene - 3- and 4-

Strand Ropes (Third Revision)

14. IS 9308 (Parts 1 to 3) : 1987 Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Specification for Mechanically

Extracted Coir Fibers Part 1 Bristle

Coir Fibre (First Revision)

15. IS 9308 (Parts 1 to 3) : 1987 Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Specification for Mechanically

Extracted Coir Fibers Part 2 Mattress

Coir Fibre (First Revision)

16. IS 9308 (Parts 1 to 3) : 1987 Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Specification for Mechanically

Extracted Coir Fibers Part 3 Decorticated

Coir Fibre (First Revision)

17. IS 9308 (Part 4) : 1999 Mechanically Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Extracted Coir Fibers - Specification

Part 4 Machine Twisted Curled Coir Fiber

18. IS 12948 : 1990 Tungsten Halogen Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Lamps (Non - Vehicle) - Specification

19. IS 13501 : 1992 Textiles - Determination of Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Flammability by Oxygen Index

20. IS 14439 (Part 2) : 1998 Legal Amendment No. 3 October 2014 28 October 2014 Metrology - Gas Volume Meters Part 2

Diaphragm Gas Meters

21. IS 14812 : 2005 Automotive Vehicles - Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Rear Under - Run Protective Device -

General Requirements (First Revision)

22. IS 16176 : 2014 Ratchet Pipe Threader for Amendment No. 1 October 2014 28 October 2014 Taper Pipe Threads (R-Series)-Specification

Copy of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. : PUB/GN-1:4]

KALA MADHAVI VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publications)7542 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3076.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम (1) के खंड के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गये हैं।

अनुसूची

क्र. सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों) स्थापित तिथि भारतीय मानक(कों) जो रद्द होने की की संख्या र्व और र्शीक

कि रद्द होने हैं, अगर हैं, तिथि

की संख्या र्व और र्शीक

1. आईएस 7620 (भाग 1) : 1986 चिकित्सकीय 26 नवम्बर, 2014 NA NA विद्युत उपकरण डायाग्नोस्टिक एक्स-रे उपकरण

भाग 1 यांत्रिकीय एवं विद्युत सुरक्षा अपेक्षाएं

(पहला पुनरीक्षण) 3 संशोधन के साथ

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकत्ता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नै, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बत्तूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं। भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है।

[संदर्भ : PUB/GN-1/E]

कला एम. वारियर, निदेशक (विदेशी भाषा एवं प्रकाशन)

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2014

S.O. 3076.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars of the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled on the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. & Year of the Indian Date of Establishment No. & Year of the Indian Date of No. Standards Established

Standards to be cancelled, cancellateion

if any

1. IS 7620 (Part 1) : 1986 Medical 26 November, 2014 NA NA Electrical Equipment - Diagnostic X-Ray

Equipment Part 1 Mechanical and Electrical

Safety Requirements (First Revision) with

Three Amendments

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.

[Ref: PUB/GN-1/E]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7543

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3077.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में से कोयला अभिप्राप्त होने की संभावना है;

और उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि के क्षेत्र में अंतर्विष्ट करने वाला रेखांक संख्यांक आरईवी/10/2014, तारीख 07 जून, 2014 का निरीक्षण सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्‌स लिमिटेड (भूमि और राजस्व विभाग), दरभंगा हाउस, रांची-834029 (झारखण्ड) के कार्यालय में या महाप्रबंधक, सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्‌स लिमिटेड, अरगड्डा, जिला हजारीबाग (झारखण्ड) के कार्यालय में या उपायुक्त, जिला हजारीबाग, झारखण्ड या महाप्रबंधक (खोज प्रभाग) आरआई-III, सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इन्स्टीच्यूट लिमिटेड, गोंदवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड, रांची (झारखण्ड) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1, काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट कोलकाता-700001, 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, उक्त 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 के अधीन किसी नुकसानी के लिए प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या

(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 धरा 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, चार्टों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को सुपुर्द करेगा;

इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर महाप्रबंधक, सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्‌स लिमिटेड, अरगड्डा, जिला हजारीबाग (झारखण्ड) या महाप्रबंधक, सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्‌स लिमिटेड, भूमि और राजस्व विभाग , दरभंगा हाउस, रांची-834029 (झारखण्ड) को सुपर्द करेगा।

अनुसूची

चानो रिकबा विवृत परियोजना

जिला-चतरा, झारखण्ड

(रेखांक संख्यांक आरईवी/10/2014, तारीख 7 मई, 2014)

सभी अधिकार

क्र. ग्राम थाना थाना जिला क्षेत्र एकड़ में क्षेत्र हैक्टेयऱ में टिप्पणियां सं. संख्या (लगभग) (लगभग)

1. खपिया माण्डू 29 हजारीबाग 615.32 249.12 भाग 2. कुरा माण्डू 30 हजारीबाग 628.24 254.35 भाग 3. रिकबा माण्डू 31 हजारीबाग 433.85 175.65 भाग 4. कनकी माण्डू 47 हजारीबाग 50.19 20.32 भाग

कुल क्षेत्र : 1727.60 एकड़ (लगभग)़ या 699.44 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) सीमा वर्णन :

क-ख-ग-घ रेखा, बिन्दु 'क' से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम, कुरा, रिकबा, खपिया और कनकी के भाग से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु 'घ' पर मिलती है।

घ-ड़-च रेखा, बिन्दु ग्राम, कनकी खपिया, के भाग से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु 'च' पर मिलती है।

च-छ-ज-झ रेखा, बिन्दु ग्राम, खपिया, कुरा, किरबा के भाग से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु 'झ' पर मिलती है।

झ-क रेखा, बिन्दु ग्राम, खपिया, कुरा के भाग से गुजरती हुई आरम्भिक बिन्दु 'क' पर मिलती है।

[फा. सं. 43015/9/2014-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-I]

दोमिनिक डुंगडुंग, अवर सचिव7544 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2014

S.O. 3077.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And, whereas, the plan bearing number Rev/10/2014, dated the 7th May, 2014 of the areas covered by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land and Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Argada, District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand), or at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand or at the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), RI- III, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700 001.

Now, therefore, in 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 hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land described in the aforesaid Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the afore mentioned Schedule 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 of the said Act; or

(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting licence 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, to the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Argada, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) or the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette.

SCHEDULE

Chano Rikba Opencast Project

District- Chatra, Jharkhand

( plan bearing number Rev/10/2014, dated the 7th May, 2014 )

All Rights:

Sl. Village Thana Thana District Area in acres area in hectares Remarks No.

number

(approximately) (approximately) 1. Khapia Mandu 29 Hazaribagh 615.32 249.12 Part 2. Kura Mandu 30 Hazaribagh 628.24 254.35 Part 3. Rikba Mandu 31 Hazaribagh 433.85 175.65 Part 4. Kanki Mandu 47 Hazaribagh 50.19 20.32 Part

Total area : 1727.60 acres(approximately)

or 699.44 hectares (approximately) Boundary description:

A-B-C-D Line starts from 'A' passes through part of the village of Kura, Rikba, Khapia and Kanki and meets at point 'D'.

D-E-F Line passes through part of village Kanki Khapia and meets at point 'F'.

F-G-H-I Line passes through part of village Khapia, Kura, Rikba and meets at point 'I'.

I-A Line passes through part of village Khapia, Kura and meets at starting point 'A'.

[ F.No. 43015/9/2014-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7545

AWARD

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/105/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 5/9/2013 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

का.आ. 3078.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 86/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल-22012/105/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/ 2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/105/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Bandi Shankar, Ex-Coal Filler, KK-5 Inc., SCCo Ltd., Mandamarri Area with effect from 28.08.1999 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. 86/2013 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 the notice being served on the Petitioner twice, Petitioner is not appearing to make any claim. In the circumstances, taking that petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

ANNEXURE

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

                                                          Witnesses examined for      Witnesses examined for
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,                         the  Petitioner             the  Respondent
          Presiding Officer
                                                          NIL                         NIL
             Dated  the  7th August,  2014

Documents marked for the Petitioner

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 86/2013

NIL

Between:

Documents marked for the Respondent

The President, (Bhandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No. 5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad-504208 ....Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri Adilabad District-504231 ....Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

का.आ. 3079.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 42/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Nil

For the Respondent: Nil

[सं.एल-22012/8/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी7546 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/ 2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/8/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer the services of Shri Komma Ramulu, Ex-Coal Filler, Shantikhani, Mandamarri Area with effect from 18.06.2005 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. 42/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement.

3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Inspite of giving fair opportunity 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.

ANNEXURE

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Appendix of evidence

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated : The 9th September, 2014

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the Petitioner the Respondent

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 42/2013

NIL NIL

Between:

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

The President, (Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) Telangana Trade Union Council H.No. 5-295, Indira Nagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad Dist.-504208 .... Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist.-504231 ....Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Party in person

For the Respondent: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &

Vijaya Laxmi P., Advocates का.आ. 3080.—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 अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 28/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल-22012/244/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/8/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 3.4.2013 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 :

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating S.O. 3080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/ 2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/244/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7547

ANNEXURE

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 9th day of September, 2014 Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the Petitioner the Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 28/2013

NIL

Between:

Documents marked for the Respondent

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telangana Trade Union Council H.No. 5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad-504208 .... Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri Adilabad District-504231 ....Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3081.—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 अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 80/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Party in person

For the Respondent: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &

Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

[सं. एल-22012/200/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/244/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 19/9/2013 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 :

S.O. 3081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/ 2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/200/2012-IR(CM-II)]

SCHEDULE

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Jogula Satyanarayana, Ex-Coal Filler, KK-5 Inc., Mandamarri Area with effect from 16.09.2003 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. 28/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 80/2012

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

Between:

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving fair opportunity, 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.

The President, (Bhandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council (TNTUC) H.No. 5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad-504208 .... Petitioner7548 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AND

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad District-504303 ....Respondent नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Party in person

For the Respondent: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &

Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

का.आ. 3082.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 79/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/201/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/200/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 30/11/2012 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 workman. The reference is :

S.O. 3082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/ 2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

SCHEDULE

[No. L-22012/201/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Gogu Pentaji, Ex-Coal Filler, Chennur-2 Inc., SCCL Sreerampur Area with effect from 28.04.2004 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 80/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,

Presiding Officer

Dated : the 13th day of August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 79/2012

Between:

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 proceeding 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 The President, (Bhandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council (TNTUC) H.No. 5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad-504208 .... Petitioner

AND

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the Petitioner the Respondent The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad District-504303 ....Respondent

Appearances:

NIL NIL

For the Petitioner: Party in person

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

For the Respondent: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &

Vjaya Laxmi P., Advocates

AWARD

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/201/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 30/11/2012[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7549 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.

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

SCHEDULE

[No. L-22012/101/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Kalluri Shankaraiah, Ex-Coal Filler, Chennur-1 & IA Inc., SCCL Sreerampur Area with effect from 25.01.2001 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 79/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,

Presiding Officer

The 9th day of September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 37/2012

Between:

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving opportunity, agian and again Petitioner is not taking any interest in the proceeding 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 The President, (Bhandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No. 5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad-504208 .... Petitioner

AND

Appendix of evidence

                                                           The General Manager,
Witnesses examined for      Witnesses examined for         M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
the  Petitioner             the  Respondent                Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township,
NIL                         NIL                            Adilabad District-504292              ....Respondent

Appearances:

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

For the Petitioner: Party in person.

For the Respondent: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

Vjaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/101/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 23/07/2012 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

का.आ. 3083.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 37/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/101/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 37/2012 of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, "Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Ippa Rayamallu, Ex-Badli Filler, MVK-5 Inc., SCCL Bellampalli Area with effect from 28.03.1995 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 37/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

7550 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

The 9th day of September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 36/2012

Between:

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving opportunity, Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceeding 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 The President, (Bhandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No. 5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad-504208 .... Petitioner

Appendix of evidence

                                                           AND
Witnesses examined for      Witnesses examined for
the  Petitioner             the  Respondent                The General Manager,
                                                           M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
NIL                         NIL
                                                           Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township,
                                                           Adilabad District-504292             ....Respondent

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Appearances:

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

For the Petitioner: Party in person.

For the Respondent: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &

Vjaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

का.आ. 3084.—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 अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 36/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/99/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)] The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/99/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 23/07/2012 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

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3084.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/ 2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/99/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Avunoori Thirupathi, Ex-Badli Filler, Goleti-1 Inc., SCCL Bellampalli Area with effect from 7.12.1999 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 36/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,

Presiding Officer

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7551

Appendix of evidence

                                                            Opp.  Bus  Stand,  Mancherial,
                                                            Adilabad-504208                  .... Petitioner
Witnesses examined for      Witnesses examined for
the  Petitioner             the  Respondent                 AND
NIL                         NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad District-504292 ....Respondent

Appearances:

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

For the Petitioner: Party in person.

For the Respondent: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &

Vjaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

का.आ. 3085.—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 अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 35/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/98/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 23/07/2012 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

[सं.एल-22012/98/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3085.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/ 2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/98/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Bandari Rayalingu, Ex-Badli Filler, Goleti-1 Inc., SCCL Bellampalli Area with effect from 08.01.2000 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 35/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement

ANNEXURE

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Appendix of evidence

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,
          Presiding Officer                                Witnesses examined for      Witnesses examined for
                                                           the  Petitioner             the  Respondent
           The 9th day of September, 2014
                                                           NIL                         NIL

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 35/2012

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Between:

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No. 5-295, Indiranagar,

NIL7552 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/103/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 12/07/2012 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

का.आ. 3086.—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 अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 34/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल-22012/103/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3086.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/ 2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/103/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Mancherla Chandraiah, Ex-Coal Filler, MVK-5 Inc., SCCL Bellampalli Area with effect from 04.10.2001 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 34/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Presiding Officer

The 9th day of September, 2014

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the Petitioner the Respondent

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 34/2012

NIL NIL

Between:

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council 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 ....Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Party in person.

For the Respondent: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &

Vjaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

का.आ. 3087.—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 अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चैन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 4/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/155/2011-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7553 New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3087.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 4/2012 of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/155/2011-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer Selvaraj, Senior Technician Grade-I, Employee No. 31648 is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute thiis Tribunal has numbered it is ID 4/2012 and issued notice to both side. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

3. The case was being posted for enquiry repeatedly. However, the petitioner has not been willing to proceed with the enquiry. Neither the petitioner nor the counsel hav been appearing before the Court. In spite of repeated postponements the petitioner has not appeared before the Court to tender evidence. Not material is available before this Court to justify the case of the petitioner. So the reference is to be answered against him.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 12th November 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

4. For the foregoing reasons, the reference is answered

against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2012 Witnesses Examined :

For  the  1st  Part/Petitioner  Union :      None
For  the  2nd  Party/Management     :        None

Documents Marked :

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation and their workman)

On the petitioner's side

BETWEEN

Ex.No. Date Description

Nil

On the Management's side

The General Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union NLC Workers Solidarity Union A-2, Screw Lane, Block-11 Neyveli-607803

And The Director/HR : 2nd Party/Respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Corporate Office Neyveli-607801

Ex.No. Date Description

Nil

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s R. Prabhakaran, Union Advocates

for the 2nd Party/Repondent: M/s T.S. Gopalan, & Co.,

Advocate

का.आ. 3088.—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 अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 19/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

AWARD

The Central Government Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-22012/155/2011-IR (CM- II) dated 11.01.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is;

"Whether the action of the management of NLC Ltd. in removing from the rolls the name of Sri M. [सं. एल-22012/180/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3088.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 19/ 2014 of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,7554 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/180/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 19/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving fair chance, Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim. In the circumstances, taking that Peittioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,

Presiding Officer

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Dated the 16th September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 19/2012

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the Petitioner the Respondent

BETWEEN

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H. No. 5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad-504208.

....Petitioner

And

The General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District-504231.

....Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3089.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.एस.बी. के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न0 2, धन्बाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 47/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Party in person

For the Respondent: Party in person [सं. एल. 42012/80/2004-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/180/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 28.1.2014 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,

S.O. 3089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 47/ 2005 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Silk Board, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

SCHEDULE

[No. L-42012/80/2004 - IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD

"Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Salluri Rayaposham, Ex-Coal Filler, KK-5A Inc., Mandamarri Area with effect from 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, to what relief the aplicant is entitled for?"

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7555 In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 47 OF 2005.

PARTIES : Sh.Shiv Shankar Pandey,

Village & PO : Kathi Kund, Dist : Dumka

Vs.

The Asstt.Director, Central Silk Board, Kathi Kunda, Dist; Dumka (Jharkhand).

Ministry's Order No L-42012/80/2004-IR (CM-II) dt. 04.04.2005

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union : Mr. U. N. Lal Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management : Mr. N. N. Sinha,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry : Textile Industry

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th October, 2014.

2. The case of Sri Shiv Shankar Pandey is that he had been working as the Night Guard at the Basic Seed, Multiplication & Training Centre, Kathikund in Dumka under the Central Tasar Research & Training Centre, Kathikunda in Dumka under the Central Tasar Reasarch & Training Institute, Central Silk Board, Government of India, from 1.10.1982 to 15.8.1985.In course of service, he had fallen sick so he had been under treatment of the Medical Officer, which was time to time intimated of his physical condition to the Asst. Director, Central Silk Board, Kathikunda, Dumka. The Management assured him of resumption of his duty on recovery. But on 24.8.2001 when he had gone to the Asst. Director for resumption of his duty on declaration of fitness, he was not allowed to do so, and was informed of his termination of the service without giving any opportunity as per the provision of the I.D.Act., 947. Finally, he raised the Industrial Dispute before the AL.C.(C), Patna but its failure in conciliation on 27.3.2004 due adamant attitude of the Management resulted in the reference for the adjudiction.He had also filed a Writ petition before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Patna for getting the matter entrusted to the CGIT for adjudication. The action of the Management in terminating his employment is not just and reasonable.

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-42012 /80/2004-IR (CM-II) dt.04.04.2005. The workmen in his rejoinder has specifically denied all the allegations as incorrect, further alleging that he had been engaged for a pretty long time ; so after completion of 240 days work, he had the claim for regularization/further engagement for livelihood.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre, Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed Organization, Kathi Kunda, Dumka (Jharkhand) in terminating the services of Shri Shiv Shankar Pandey, Casual Labour without complying the provisions of ID. Act is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No L-42012 /80/2004-IR (CM-II) dt. 04.04.2005 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. 47 of 2005 was registered on 26.04.2005 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 respective Learned Counsels appeared in, and contested the case.

3. Whereas having categorically denied the allegations of the workman, the O.P./Management has challenged the maintainability of the Industrial dispute as no I.D under of Sec.2A of the Act, stating that the person is not an employee of the Central Silk Board, Kathikund, Dumka, as he was never appointed in any capacity by B.S.M.S.T.C., B.T.S.S.O.Central Silk Board, Kathikunda, Dumka (Jharkhand), At any vacancy except in casual for any post in the office of the Management, it is filled as per the recruitment prescribed rules/regulations of the Government of India, under which no branch of Silk Board is empowered to appoint any person in the employment. So no question arises either for his regularization in service or in his termination. At times, the O.P./Management had casually employed some casual laboures as daily wages for 30 to 35 days as whenever required for safety of silk worms against the insects and pests predators during the rearing period of the silk worms. The Silk Board has no rule to regularize any casual /daily rated person in the service.

In their rejoinder as well, the O.P./Management has categorically denied all the allegations of the person concerned as baseless and absurd in particular about his treatment for Maleria for 16 years from 14.11.1984 to 20.8.2001 just as his alleged fitness for resumption of duty on 24.8.2001.It also falsifies the claim for his regular7556 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] working from 1.10.1982 to 15.8.1985.The person concerned is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant case, WWI Shiv Shankar Pandey as the workman himself, and MWI Suraj Pal,the Scientist, and MW2 Kishore Kumar Sharma, for the O.P./ Management have been examined respectively.

From the perusal of the materials on the case recorc, it appears the fact beyond the dispute that the workman was a daily wager who worked as the night Guard for the period 01.10.1982 to 15.8.1985 during which he never worked for 30 days in any month. He was neither a temporary workman nor a permanent one. He was not dismissed.

Mr. U.N.Lal, Lerned Advocate for the workman submits that the workman was a casual worker for the relevant period but due to his suffering from Malaria as apparent from his medical treatment for 15 years (Extt. W.1 Series) he had been under medical treatment all along intimating of it to the Management. On his recovery, when he went to resume his duty, he was not allowed to do so, thus he is entitled to reinstatement.

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3090.—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 सं. 10/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/164/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3090.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/ 2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/164/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Whereas Mr. N.N. Sinha, Ld. Advocat for the O.P./ Management has vociferously contended that the workman was never an employee of the O.P./Management, so no question arises as to his retrenchment, as he was out and out a casual seasonal work for the period 1982 to 1985 and thereafter his long absence for malaria stopped him to be a casual worker, so he deserves no relief whatsoever.

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 10/2014

BETWEEN

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the workman was total a seasonal casual daily wager for temporary relevant period; thus he was never a regular worker during the period concerned. The fact of termination does not apply to a casual labour like the instant workman who has never been in continuous service for 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with the present reference as laid down under Sec., 25. of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.The case of the workman has no merits whatsoever.

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council 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. ….Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : NIL

AWARD

5. In result, it is hereby responded, and accordingly awarded that since workman Shiv Shankar Pandey as a casual labour had not been in continuous service for requisite period of 240 days in twelve months of the calendar year preceding the date of the reference, no question arises as to the alleged action of the management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre, Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed Organization Central Silk Board, Kahikunda, Dumka (Jharkhand) to terminate the alleged service of the work, nor it arises whether it is legal and justified. Hence, the workman is not at all entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/164/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 9/12/2013[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7557 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,

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

SCHEDULE

S.O. 3091.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/ 2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/163/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Nagula Venkataswamy, Ex-Coal Filler, Goleti-2 Inc., SCCL, Bellampalli Area with effect from 9.1.1997 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for ?"

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 10/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 9/2014

BETWEEN :

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of the notice being served on the Petitioner twice, Petitioner is not appearing to make any claim. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, UDC and corrected by me on this the 7th day of August, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No.5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad - 504208 .….Petitioner

AND

Appendix of evidence

                                                          The General Manager,
Witnesses examined for     Witnesses examined for the     M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
the  Petitioner            Respondent                     Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231
                                                          Adilabad District                     ….Respondent
NIL                        NIL

APPEARANCES :

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : NIL

AWARD

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/163/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 9/12/2013 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

का.आ. 3091.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 9/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/163/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी "Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Enagandula Ankaiah, Ex- Badli Filler, MK-4 Inc., Mandamarri Area, with effect from 23.3.1998 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for ?"7558 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 9/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 7/2014

BETWEEN :

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of the notice being served on the Petitioner twice, Petitioner is not appearing to make any claim. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, UDC and corrected by me on this the 7th day of August, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer The President, (Bhandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No.5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad - 504208 .….Petitioner

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for      Witnesses examined for the
the  Petitioner             Respondent
NIL                         NIL

AND

The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township,
Adilabad District-504292.              ….Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/166/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 17/12/2013 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

का.आ. 3092.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 7/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/166/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3092.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/ 2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/166/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Penukula Chandraiah, Ex- General Mazdoor, MVK-5 Inc., SCCo Ltd., Bellampalli Area, with effect from 20.10.1996 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. 7/2014 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 the notice being served on the Petitioner twice, Petitioner is not appearing to make any claim. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7559

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, UDC and corrected by me on this the 7th day of August, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer AND

Appendix of evidence

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad District-504292. ….Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/167/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 17/12/2013 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

का.आ. 3093.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकारएस. सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 8/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/167/2013-आई. आर. (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3093.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/ 2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/167/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township(P.O.), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Mohammad Jani, Ex- Coal Filler, MVK-6 Inc., SCCo Ltd., Bellampalli Area, with effect from 10.10.1998 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. 8/2014 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 the notice being served on the Petitioner twice, Petitioner is not appearing to make any claim. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

ANNEXURE

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, UDC and corrected by me on this the 7th day of August, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Dated the 7th day of August, 2014 Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 8/2014

NIL NIL

BETWEEN

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No.5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad - 504208 .….Petitioner Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL7560 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

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

का.आ. 3094.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 5/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/169/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3094.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/ 2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/169/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Samudrala Shankar, Ex-Coal Filler, SMG-1 Inc., Mandamarri Area, with effect from 5.4.1999 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. 5/2014 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 the notice being served on the Petitioner twice, Petitioner is not appearing to make any claim. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, UDC and corrected by me on this the 7th day of August, 2014.

ANNEXURE

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Appendix of evidence

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of August, 2014 Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 5/2014

Documents marked for the Petitioner

BETWEEN :

The President, (Bhandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No.5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad - 504208 .….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri Adilabad District-504231. ….Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3095.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 6/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : NIL

[सं. एल-22012/168/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/169/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 17/12/2013 S.O. 3095.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7561 Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/ 2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/168/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer notice being served on the Petitioner twice, Petitioner is not appearing to make any claim. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, UDC and corrected by me on this the 7th day of August, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

Appendix of evidence

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of August, 2014 NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 6/2014

Documents marked for the Respondent BETWEEN

The President, (Bhandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council 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. ….Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3096.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 4/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/162/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)] APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/168/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 17/12/2013 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.

S.O. 3096.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/ 2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/162/2013-IR(CM-II)]

SCHEDULE

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

"Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Banoth Devudu, Ex-Badli Filler, Goleti 2 Inc., SCCo Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 29.1.1997 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for ?" Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2014

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 6/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

BETWEEN

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of the The President, (Bhandari Satyanarayana)7562 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Telengana Trade Union Council H.No.5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad - 504208 .….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri Adilabad District-504231. ….Respondent नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3097.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय असनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 150/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

[सं. एल-22012/24/1999-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/162/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 9/12/2013 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.

S.O. 3097.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/ 1999) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Nimcha Colliery, Satgram Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

SCHEDULE

[No. L-22012/24/1999-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

"Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Abdul Rahman, Ex-Badli Filler, MK-5A Inc., Mandamarri Area, with effect from 9.10.1998 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. 4/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

PRESENT: SRI PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 150 OF 1999

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

PARTIES: The management of Nimcha Colliery, Satgram

Coalfields Ltd., ECL.

Vs.

Sri Sitaram Nonia

REPRESENTATIVES :

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of the notice being served on the Petitioner twice, Petitioner is not appearing to make any claim. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, UDC and corrected by me on this the 7th day of August, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer For the management: Shri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate,

ECL

For the union Shri Rakesh Kumar, Gen. Secy., (Workman): KMC

INDUSTRY: COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL Appendix of evidence

Dated : 11.11.2014

AWARD

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L- 22012/24/99/IR(CM-II) dated 31.08.1999 / 08.09.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7563

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Nimcha Colliery, Satgram Coalfields Ltd. by forcefully superannuating Sh. Sitaram Nonia, Wagon Loader on 02.03.1997 and not considering the mid point of the age assessed by the Apex Medical Board on 13.02.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/158/2013-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 16th day of September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 3/2014

BETWEEN

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/24/99/IR (CM-II) dated 31.08.1999 / 08.09.1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 150 of 1999 was registered on 23.09.1999 / 08.10.2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

Sri Rakesh Kumar, representative of the union appears and submits that the case may be closed as the union/ workman does not want to proceed with the case further. None appears on behalf of the management. Since the union/workman does not want to proceed with the case further and the reference is too old. I think it wise to close the case. As such the case is closed and accordingly a "No Dispute Award" may be passed.

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council 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, (P.O.) Adilabad District-504292. ….Respondent

ORDER

APPEARANCES :

Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer For the Petitioner : Party in person

For the Respondent : Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/158/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 11/11/2013 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. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 3098.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 3/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/158/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3098.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, "Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township(P.O.), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Kanukula Ravinder, Ex-Coal Filler, Goleti-2 Inc., SCC Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 21.1.1998 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. 3/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

7564 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated the 16th day of September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 2/2014

BETWEEN

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving fair chance, 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.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri, P.A. and corrected by me on this the 16th day of September, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No.5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad - 504208 .….Petitioner

AND

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.) Adilabad District-504292. ….Respondent

APPEARANCES:

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

For the Petitioner : Party in person

For the Respondent : Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/161/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 11/11/2013 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. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 3099.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 2/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/161/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3099.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/161/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township(P.O.), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Pochapalli Yellaiah, Ex-Timberman, Goleti-1 Inc., SCC Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 5.6.2004 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. 2/2014 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 chance, 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.

ANNEXURE

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, P.A. and corrected by me on this the 16th day of September, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7565 AND

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for      Witnesses examined for the
the  Petitioner             Respondent
NIL                         NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri
Adilabad District-504231.             ….Respondent

APPEARANCES:

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent For the Petitioner : Party in person

For the Respondent : Party in person

AWARD

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/156/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 11/11/2013 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. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 3100.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/156/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/156/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Salluri Rayaposham, Ex-Coal Filler, KK-5A Inc., Mandamarri Area with effect from 31.3.1997 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. 1/2014 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 chance, 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.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri, P.A. and corrected by me on this the 16th day of September, 2014.

ANNEXURE

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

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 Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 1/2014

NIL

BETWEEN

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No. 5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad - 504208 .….Petitioner Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3101.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल.

7566 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 105/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/160/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 105/ 2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/160/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Ramchetty Posham, Ex-Coal Filler, MVK-1 Inc., SCC Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 11.10.1998 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. 105/2013 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 fair chance, 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.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri, P.A. and corrected by me on this the 16th day of September, 2014.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Dated the 16th day of September, 2014 Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 105/2013

BETWEEN

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council 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 (P.O.), Adilabad District-504292. ….Respondent NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner : Party in person

For the Respondent : Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad,

Advocate

का.आ. 3102.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 103/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल. 22012/157/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/160/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 11/11/2013 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7567 Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 103/ 2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/157/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer 3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving fair chance, 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.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri, P.A. and corrected by me on this the 16th day of September, 2014.

ANNEXURE

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Appendix of evidence

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 16th day of September, 2014 Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 103/2013

Documents marked for the Petitioner BETWEEN

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council 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 (P.O.), Adilabad District-504292. ….Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner : Party in person

For the Respondent : Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad,

Advocate

का.आ. 3103.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 102/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल. 22012/150/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/157/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 11/11/2013 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. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

SCHEDULE

S.O. 3103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 102/ 2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/150/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Pudari Lochagoud, Ex-Coal Filler, MVK-5 Inc., SCC Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 5.1.1995 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for ?" BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 103/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer7568 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Dated the 16th day of September, 2014 Documents marked for the Petitioner

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 102/2013

NIL

BETWEEN

The President, (Bandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council 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 (P.O.), Adilabad District-504292. ….Respondent Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3104.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 16/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/187/2004-आईआर (सीएम-II)] APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner : Party in person

For the Respondent : Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad,

Advocate

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/150/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 11/11/2013 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. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

S.O. 3104.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/ 2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Lacchipur Colliery, M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/187/2004-IR(CM-II)]

SCHEDULE

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

"Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Katepally Shankar, Ex-Coal Filler, Goleti-1 Inc., SCC Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 5.4.2005 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?" Present : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 16 of 2005

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 102/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

PARTIES : The management of Lacchipur Colliery under

Kajora Area, ECL

Vs.

Late Ramnath Mahato

REPRESENTATIVES :

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving fair chance, 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.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri, P.A. and corrected by me on this the 16th day of September, 2014.

For the management : Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the Union (Workman) : Sri Rakesh Kumar, General

Secretary

Industry : Coal State :- West Bengal

Dated :- 10.11.2014

AWARD

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/187/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 30.03.2005 has been[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7569 pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Lacchipur Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in not providing employment to the dependent of Late Ramnath Mahto, Winding Engine Operator, U.M. No.568592 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the dependent of the deceased workman is entitled?"

________

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/187/2004- IR(CM-II) dated 30.03.2005 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 16 of 2005 was registered on 12.04.2005. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their representative.

Dependent of workman Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto has stated in written statement that Late Ramnath Mahato ex- Winding Engine Operator was a permanent employee of the company, posted at Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of ECL who died while he was in service. As per provision of wage agreement / NCWA VI one of the dependent of deceased employee is entitled for employment. Accordingly wife of deceased employee claimed for employment to her son-in-law Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto. Wife of deceased employee have no male issue. She is not willing to join in lieu of her late husband because of her old age and her illness. She has no objection for providing employment to her son-in-law. All necessary required documents are submitted to the management for providing employment to dependent son- in-law. Management of the colliery processed the proposal and after screening at colliery level sent the file to Kajora Area office. At Kajora Area office also screening was done. After medical examination at Area Hospital employment proposal was sent to ECL Head Quarter, which is still lying pending. Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto is not having any other source of income. He was fully dependent on earnings of his father-in-law and he was residing with his father in law because Late Ramnath Mahato was not having son. Late Ramnath Mahato has only two daughters. The management provides employment to hundreds of cases earlier even now dependents are joining duty. The management of ECL neither regretted the employment proposal not provided employment to the dependent till date. Dependent son- in-law of Late Ramnath Mahato is entitled to get the employment. It has been prayed Sri Vinod Kumar Mahato, the dependent son in law of Late Ramnath Mahato should be provided employment from the date of his application for employment and till such time the wife of Late Ramnath Mahato should be paid maintenance allowance to maintain her livelihood with all other consequential benefits.

The then Presiding Officer has provided more than 20 opportunities to file written statement but even then management has not field any written statement.

Union on behalf of workman has filed 15 photo copies of documents. Management has not filed any documents. Union has filed affidavit of Smt. Dhanmati Devi wife of Late Ramnath Mahato, ex-Winding Engine Operator, Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto son-in-law of Late Ramnath Mahato. Management has not filed any affidavit.

I have heard the argument of Sri Rakesh Kumar on behalf of the union/workman and Sri P. K. Das Ld. Advocate on behalf of the management.

Sri P. K. Das Ld. Adv. on behalf of the management has argued that appointment on compassionate ground can not be claimed as a matter of right. Now married daughter is also entitled for employment. Therefore when married daughter is entitled for employment then son-in- law of late Ramnath Mahato is not entitled for employment. He has place reliance on case laws; MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh, 2013 (139) FLR 469, S.C. & State of Gujrat and others Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and another, 2012 (135) FLR 560, S.C. On other hand Sri. Rakesh Kumar has argued those case law are not applicable for present reference. Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto being dependent son-in-law is eligible for employment. He resides in the house of his deceased father-in-law Late Ramnath Mahato.

The copy of letter of Agent of Lacchipur Colliery addressed to ALC(C), Raniganj has been filed by the union. Again Lacchipur Colliery has admitted that Late Ramnath Mahato U.M. No. 568592 was Winding Engine Operator who expired on 11.02.2002. He has also admitted that employment proposal in respect of Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto, son-in-law of Late Ramnath Mahato is pending for finalization. Death Certificate paper No. W.E.-I & W.E.- II has been filed by the union. It is clear from these that Late Ramnath Mahato has expired on 11.02.2002 in Central Hospital, Kalla, ECL. Union has filed letter of Smt. Dhanmati Devi wife of Late Ramnath Mahato requesting employment to her son-in-law Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto in lieu of job of her deceased husband. She is facing financial crisis. The copy of letter of Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto is addressed to management of Lacchipur Colliery, ECL has been filed in which Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto has requested to provide employment in lieu of job of his father-in-law Late Ramnath Mahato. Sri Binod Kumar Mahto is son-in-law and dependent of Late Ramnath Mahato, this has been certified by 'Khand7570 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Bikash Adhikari' and member of Bidhan Sabha, copy of this certificate has been filed. The marriage registration certificate has been issued by Registrar Hindu Marriage, dist: Burdwan. It is apparent from this documents Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto son of Sri Ram Udit Mahato has been married to Smt. Kalyani Devi daughter of Late Ramnath Mahato. The copy of letter of Smt Rinku Devi, second daughter of Late Ramnath Mahato has been filed. Smt. Rinkku Devi has no objection in providing job to Sir Vinod Kumar Mahto son-in-law of Late Ramnath Mahato. Smt. Dhanmati Devi by affidavit has supported the facts contained in the written statement. Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto and Smt. Kalyani Devi wife of Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto and daughter of Late Sri Ramnath Mahato stated in their affidavit that Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto has no other source of income. He has to look after his mother-in-law. Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto resides in the house of Smt. Dhanmati Devi as 'Ghar Jamai'. This witness has been cross-examined. In cross-examination they also supported the facts stated in affidavit. Union has filed the Xerox copy Voter ID cards of Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto, Smt. Kalyani Devi and Smt. Dhanmati Devi, addresses of these three persons are same in all the Voter ID cards.

NCWA VI settlement is an agreement between the union and management of Eastern Coalfields Limited. As per rule 9.3.3 the dependent son-in-law residing with late employee Sri Ramnath Mahato and almost wholly dependent on the earning of the employee may be considered for employment.

Section 2 (p) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, settlement

has been defined:

" 'Settlement' means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to [an officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer; (Ins. by Act 35 of 1965)]."

Section 18 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 provides:

"A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement (Ins. by Act 36 of 1956, S.13 (w.e.f. 07.10.1956))."

employment of Late Ramnath Mahato as per NCWA VI settlement.

State of Gujrat and others Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and another, 2012 (135) FLR 560, S.C. The facts of this case is that in this case son of deceased Asst. Sub- Inspector applied for employment in Police department on compassionate ground for the post of peon. But he was not qualified for the post.

I am in respectful agreement with the proposition of law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court. But the fact of this reference case is different. This reference is under section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act., 1947. Moreover there is specific settlement between management and union regarding employment of deceased workman.

MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh, 2013(139) FLR 469, S.C. The hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that appointment on compassionate ground may not be claimed as matter or right. It depends on various other circumstances. A candidate cannot claim that his case is to be considered as per the scheme existing on the date the cause of action had arisen. Respondent may apply for consideration of his case under the new scheme. In this case father of the respondent was working as Class III employee with the appellant bank died on 19.04.2006 while in harness. The respondent applied for compassionate employment on 12.05.2006. During the pendency of the application a new scheme dated 12.06.2006 was introduced w.e.f. 06.10.2006. Clause 14 provides that application pending on the date of commencement of the scheme shall be considered for grant of ex-gratia payment to the family instead of compassionate employment. The hon'ble Supreme Court held that case under new scheme would be considered.

I am in respectful agreement with the law propounded by hon'ble Supreme Court but the facts of this reference case are different. In the present reference case the Wage Agreement NCWA VI settled between the management and the union does not provide any ex-gratia payment.

In view of discussion above, I come to the conclusion that the action of the management of Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. ECL in not providing employment to Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto dependent and son-in-law of ate Ramnath Mahato, Engine Operator is illegal and unjustified.

Management of Lacchipur Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s. ECL is directed to provide employment to Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto, the dependent and son son-in-law of Late Ramnath Mahato, in lieu of job of Late Ramnath Mahato within 2 months from the notification.

ORDER

Hon'ble Kerala High Court in The Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Mumbai and another Vs. Jayabindu, 2014 LAB. I.C. 452, has observed that entitlement on compassionate ground has to be considered as per schemen available as on date of submission of applications. The settlement is effective before the death of the deceased workman. Therefore in view of the hon'ble Kerala High Court, Sri Vinod Kumar Mahto dependent son-in-law of Late Ramnath Mahato is entitled for employment in lieu of Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7571 नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 3105.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 95/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/104/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 95/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/104/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Bukya Swamy, Ex-Coal Filler, KK-5 Inc., SCCo Ltd., Mandamarri Area, SCCo Ltd., Mandamarri Area with effect from 5.3.2001 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.95/2013 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 the notice being served on the Petitioner twice, Petitioner is not appearing to make any claim. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Appendix of evidence

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of August, 2014 Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the Respondent Petitioner

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 95/2013

Between:

The President, (Bhandari Satyanarayana) Telengana Trade Union Council H.No.5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad - 504208. ….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri Adilabad District-504 231. ….Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : NIL

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3106.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय असनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 42/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/104/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 3/9/2013 [सं. एल-22012/141/2004-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी7572 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 42/2005 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Ningah Group of Mines of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/141/2004 - IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record I find that my predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then Presiding Officer) had reserved an award in this case because the workman neither appeared not took any step after 03.08.2010. It seems that the workman is now not interested to proceed with the case further. As such the case is closed and accordingly a "No Dispute Award" may be passed.

ORDER

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 42 OF 2005

PARTIES: The management of Ningah Colliery, ECL.

Vs.

Sri Shyam Behari Singh

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2014

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management: Shri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman): Shri J. P. Gupta, Ld. Advocate

Industry : Coal State : West Bengal

Dated : 7.11.2014

का.आ. 3107.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय असनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 27/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/317/2000-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/141/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 17.05.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

SCHEDULE

S.O. 3107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.27/2001 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Jambad Colliery of M/s ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-22012/317/2000 - IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

'Whether the action of the management of Ningah Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. ECL in dismissing Shri Shyam Behari Singh, Security Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 24/24.11.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?'

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT: Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 27 OF 2001

PARTIES :

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/141/2004- IR(CM-II) dated 17.05.2005 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 42 of 2005 was registered on 31.05.2005 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents The management of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area, ECL[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7573 Vs.

Sri Keshar Bhuia

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management         :  Sri P. K. Das, Ld.
                              Advocate
For the union (Workman)    :  Sri S. K. Pandey,
                              General Secretary

Industry : Coal State : West Bengal

Dated : 12.11.2014

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/317/2000-IR(C-II) dated 08.08.2001 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

During his sickness he informed the management twice for his absence by sending letters under certificate of posting. The workman was never served with any notice of enquiry. He was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself. The management dismissed the service of the workman for absence of only 3 months. Since, dismissing authority was not appointing authority therefore dismissing authority was not vested with the power to pass dismissal order. The workman belongs to S.C. Community. The reasons for absent is sufficient therefore dismissal order is bad in eyes of law and required to be set-a-side. Quantum of punishment is very harsh. That deserves to be set-a-side and the workman be reinstated with full back wages and all incidental benefits.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Jambad Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Keshar Bhuia, Underground Loader from services vide order dated 18.01.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief Sh. Keshar Bhuia is entitled to?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/317/2000- IR(C-II) dated 08.08.2001 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 27 of 2001 was registered on 10.09.2001. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their representative.

In brief the worker has stated in his written statement that worker, Sri Keshar Bhuia was permanent workman of ECL. He was posted at Jambad Colliery of M/s. ECL as Underground Loader. Sri Keshar Bhuia due to his illness could not attend his duty from 01.04.1999 to 06.07.1999. Being medically fit he reported for duty but he was not allowed to resume his duty by the management. He was informed that a charge sheet had been issued against him and as such he could not be permitted to join his duty. The workman was never served with any charge sheet. The workman was undergoing treatment for his illness at Bahadurpur P.C.H. After being declared fit when he reported for duty he was informed for the first time regarding issuance of any charge sheet against him.

The management has stated in his written statement that reference is bad in eyes of law. The worker Sri Keshar Bhuia was absent from his duty from 01.04.1999 without any prior permission or authorized leave. The workman Sri Keshar Bhuia is Ex-Underground Loader. The workman Sri Keshar Bhuia was charge sheeted vide charge sheet No. ECL/JC/C-6/P&IR/99-00/5B/01 dated 06.07.1999. The Ex-workman failed to submit any satisfactory explanation to the charge leveled against him. Therefore domestic enquiry was conducted in the charge sheet by the enquiry officer. The notice of enquiry was sent to the Ex-workman by registered post with A/D at his home address and it was duly served. But as the Ex-workman failed to appear in the enquiry and as such enquiry proceeding was held ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of the enquiry proceeding held the workman to be guilty to the charges of misconduct. The management issued 2nd show cause notice vide reference no. KA/PM/C-6/10/3780/58 dated 28.12.1999/ 03.01.2000. But it was un-replied. The disciplinary authority after careful consideration of enquiry finding, enquiry proceeding and other connected papers, passed the dismissal order on 18.01.2000. The dismissal order was in accordance with the gravity of misconduct committed by Ex-workman which was duly established in the enquiry proceeding. The punishment awarded to the Ex-workman is justified and proportionate. It is denied that the Ex-workman was ever sick or that he ever intimated to the management about his alleged sickness. Ex-workman is not entitled for setting aside the dismissal order.

Worker has submitted the dismissal order KAPM/ C-6/10/4016/399 dated 18.01.2000. The management has not submitted any documentary evidence. The worker Sri Keshar Bhuia has filed affidavit in oral evidence. Management has not filed any affidavit in their support.

I have heard the argument of Sri S. K. Pandey on behalf of the union/workman and Sri P. K. Das Learned Advocate on behalf of the management.

It is admitted fact that before dismissal Sri Keshar Bhuia was underground Loader, a permanent employee7574 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] in Jambad Colliery of M/s. ECL. It is not disputed that the workman was absent from his duty from 01.04.1999 to 06.07.1999.

It is the case of management that Sri Keshar Bhuia, workman was absent from 01.04.1999 to 06.07.1999 without any prior permission or authorized leave, therefore workman was charge sheeted vide charge sheet No. ECL/ JC/C-6/P&IR/99-00/5B/01 dated 06.07.1999. The workman after issuance of notice did not appear, therefore enquiry proceeding was held ex-parte. After second notice the competent authority passed the dismissal order. On other hand workman Sri Keshar Bhuia was absent from duty due to his illness. As per written statement of the workman he informed the management regarding his illness. Workman has not submitted any medical report or registered notice regarding of his illness. But even if, it is presumed that workman was not sick and his absence from duty was unauthorized. Even then in enquiry proceeding he ought to have been given opportunity to defend himself. More so when workman has challenged the enquiry proceeding.

The management ought to have submitted the order regarding appointing enquiry officer, copy of enquiry report, copy of enquiry proceeding and finding of enquiry officer along with copy of notices sent to the workman. There is no piece of evidence on the record, on basis of which tribunal may come to the conclusion that notice was sent to the workman and it was actually served. The workman in his affidavit has stated that he was not issued any chargesheet. He was not given any opportunity to defend himself. He was compelled to remain absent w.e.f. 01.04.1999 to 06.07.1999 due to his sickness. He has been cross-examined by the management.

Domestic enquiry in Industrial Law has acquired great significance. Industrial adjudication attaches considerably importance to such enquiry. In number of cases, the hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an enquiry is not an empty formality, but an essential condition to the legality of the disciplinary order. In other words before the delinquent workmen can be dismissed for misconduct, the employer shall hold a fair and regular enquiry into the misconduct. Dismissal without holding a regular enquiry would be an illegality. It is well settled that disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry. It should be held according to principles of natural justice and Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicially because the charges of misconduct, if proved, will result not only in deprivation of livelihood of the workman, but also attach stigma to his character.

In dealing with domestic enquiries held in industrial matters, the fact that the large majority of cases employees are likely to be illiterate and ignorant, should be borne in mind. The Enquiry Officer has to take care in the facts and circumstances of such case that the defence of the workman is not prejudiced in any manner. The rules of natural justice require that the workman proceeded against, should be informed clearly of the charges leveled against him, witness should be examined in his presence. The workman should be given a fair opportunity to examine witness, in support of his defence.

Unfair or wrongful discharge or dismissal of industrial workmen as a measure of disciplinary action is one of the major causes of industrial dispute though the employers have always regarded the right of disciplinary action as a concomitant to the efficient attainment of the objectives of industrial activity. On the other hand, the workers and their unions have tended to regard protection from arbitrary or unjustified disciplinary action as one of the most important functions of the trade union activity.

In all cases of detrimental action taken against a worker, for misconduct, the employer has to establish whether the action was taken for "Just and sufficient reasons". An industrial worker is always entitled to question the property and justice of punitive or detrimental action taken against him.

In view of the discussion above the punishment of dismissal for absence of near about 3 months under compelling circumstance and without any malafied intention is not just and proper, rather it is too harsh a punishment which is totally disproportionate to the alleged proven misconduct. Besides this as per direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court No. 2nd show cause notice before imposing the punishment of dismissal has been issued to the workman concerned, which is the violation of the directives of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the principle of natural justice as well.

In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. S. C. Sharma, AIR 2005, S.C., page No. 768, the hon'ble Supreme Court has held when the question of determining the entitlement of a person for back wages is concerned, the employee has to show that he was not gainfully implied. The initial burden is on him. The worker Sri Keshar Bhuia in his affidavit has stated that he was unemployed and without any job. He has no other source of income. Management has not disputed this fact that during period of dismissal Sri Keshar Bhuia was not employed anywhere. So workman Sri Keshar Bhuia was entitled for back wages. But it is worthwhile to mention the dismissal order is passed on 18.01.2000. Awarding full back wages appears to be unreasonable, workman will get a huge amount just sitting idle. Therefore it appears to be just and proper that the workman Sri Keshar Bhuia be awarded only 20% of his back wages.

In view of this matter I think it just and proper to modify and substitute the same by exercising the power u/s 11(a) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In order to meet the ends of justice the impugned order of dismissal is set-a-side and he is to be reinstated with continuity of service. I think it appropriate that the delinquent workman be imposed a punishment of stoppage of 2 increments without any cumulative effect. It is further directed that[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7575

AWARD

the workman concerned will be entitled to get only 20% of the back wages.

(Passed on this 23rd day of September, 2014)

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3108.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सुरगुजा क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीन बैंक प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या (325/99) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/11/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/23/99-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014

S.O. 3108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 325/ 99) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.

[No. L-12011/23/99-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer 1. As per letter dated 11-11-99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L- 12011/23/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the chairman, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kumar Complex, Mahamaya Chowk, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (MP) in

(1) In not making payment of N.I.T arrears upto 1-9-97 equivalent to State Govt.

(2) Withholding the increment in respect of Shri Satyavrat Hari without conducting enquiry,.

(3) Not regularizing the services of Shri Mohanlal and Shri Ramswaroop, temporary messenger after the completion of 240 days.

are legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned Bank employees are entitled for?"

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/325/99

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE

The President, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank Karmchari Sangh, Kumar Complex, Mahamaya Chowk, PO Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (MP) ....Workman/Union

Versus

The Chairman, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kumar Complex, Mahamaya Chowk, PO Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (MP) ....Management 2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Present reference relates to denial of payment of arrears till 1-9-87 equivalent to State Govt. (2) withholding increments of Shri Satyavrat Hari. Denial of regularisation of services of Mohanlal and Ramswaroop temporary messengers. Employees Union submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/7. Case of Ist party Union is that IInd party is industry under I.D.Act. Ist party union served charger of demands along with strike notice. It is submitted that IInd party denied NIT arrears till 1-9-87 as per State Govt. circular dated 11-1-1984. Addnl facilities and benefits to the employees working in remote areas were not given to the employees of the IInd party Bank. That Ministry of Finance vide letter dated 22-2-91 directed all sponsored banks for implementation of National Industrial Tribunal Award. Arrears for the period 1-9-87 to 31-12-87. That NIT award directed employees who are getting benefits against available State Govt. service are entitled till August 1987. Relevant portion of the award is reproduced in para-7 of the statement of claim. It is submitted that as per letter dated 20-3-93 by NABARD, Tribal area allowance was extended by State of MP to the employees working in certain areas payable to the employees of Regional Rural Banks. It is also submitted vide earlier dated 5-7-91, NABARD had directed Chairman and Managing Director of all sponsored Banks. That instructions contained in annexure with letter should be followed that inspite of award of National Tribunal, and repeated directions of NABARD, management did not pay arrears to the employees to IInd party Bank. Letter dated 9-7-97 by NABARD again directed Chairman of all RRBs and all sponsored banks to pay arrears as per award of National Industrial Tribunal. Despite of such directions, judicial decision, workmen were not paid7576 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] arrears. On such grounds, arrears is claimed by Union for employees of IInd party.

3. With reference to Point No.2 in reference order, it is submitted that increments of Shri Satyavrat Hari were withholding without conducting enquiry. Said act of IInd party is illegal withholding increment without giving opportunity for defence is contrary to principles of natural justice. With respect to Point 3 of reference order, it is submitted that the respective employees Ram Swaroop and Mohanlal temporary messengers have completed 240days continuous working. Their services were not regularized. Denial of regularisation to those employees is unfair labour practice and victimization. On such ground, Union is praying reliefs for payment of arrears to set-aside order of withholding increments of Satyavrat and regularize services of respective employees.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/13. With respect to Item no.1 of reference order, IInd party submits that M.P.Ministry of Finance issued order dated 11-1-84 Tribal Area allowance to its employees working in scheduled part of State. Section 17 of RRB Act provides salary of RRB employees envisages Central Govt. may decide salary of such employees time to time. That NABARD Central office vide letter dated 29-9-85 advised to pay integrated Tribal allowance to the Bank staff vide letter dated 25-6-86 Regional office to NABARD informed to extend ITDP benefits to eligible employees of Bank with prior approval of the Board of Directors. That as per Board of Director meeting held on 24-5-89, Board decided to allow benefits of Bank employees w.e.f. 1-10-85. Accordingly circular was issued on 1506089 to the branches. For payment of allowances from 1-10-85 to 31-8-87.

5. It is submitted that National Industrial Tribunal Award was implemented from 1-9-87 vide office letter dated 20-3-93. The arrears were worked out upto 31-8-87 (b) arrears till 1-10-87 to 31-12-90, (c) arrears from 1-1-91. That as per instructions of NABARD, ITDP to be paid from the date of approval of Board. The Board had taken lenient view and benefits of ITDP from 1-10-85 till 31-8-87. That arrears from 1-9-87 to 31-3-90 has been paid as directed by NABARD vide letter dated 9-1-97. The claim of Union for arrears from 1-10-85 doesnot arise.

there is no employee employer relationship. Shri Mohanlal and Ram Swaroop were not employees of the Bank. The reference order is illegal. That Mohanlal was not working in Bank as part time messenger. It is denied that they were in continuous employment within meaning of Section 25 B of I.D.Act. Those employees were not appointed following selection process. They cannot be regularized. Any employees were engaged on temporary basis by way of staff gap arrangement. IInd party denies all adverse allegations of the Union w.r.t. claim of Shri Mohanlal and Shri Ram Swaroop. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the chairman,Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kumar Complex, Mahamaya chowk, Ambikapur, In Affirmative Distt. Surguja (MP) in not making payment of N.I.T arrears upto 1-9-97 equivalent to State Govt. is legal and justified?

(ii) Whether the action of the chairman, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kumar Complex, Mahamaya In Affirmative chowk, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (MP) in withholding the increment in respect of Shri Ssatyavrat Hari without conducting enquiry is legal and justified?

(iii) Whether the action of the chairman, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kumar complex, Mahamaya chowk, Ambikapur, In Affirmative Distt. Surguja (MP) in not regularizing the services of Shri Mohanlal and Shri Ramswaroop, temporary messenger after the completion of 240 days is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman Relief prayed is entitled to?" by workman is

rejected.

REASONS

6. With respect to Point No.2 of reference order, IInd party submits that reference is made mechanically without application of mind. The terms of reference is highly prejudicial to the management. Shri Satyavrat was issued chargesheet. He admitted charges unconditionally. Consequently punishment of with-holding increment was imposed by the management. That disputed question of fact cannot be referred for adjudication. Reference is made to ratio held in different cases That Section 32 of Staff Regulation Act provides right of appeal to the employees belonging aggrieved. Mr. Satyavrat did not file appeal against order of withholding increments. The claim of Union is barred. IInd party further submits that 8. Terms of reference clearly pertains to 3 distinct reliefs denial of payment of arrears and allowances, withholding increment of Shri Satyavrat and denying regularisation of Shri Mohanlal and Shri Ramswaroop. Management has denied claim of Union on all grounds. Though Union raised above dispute, Union has failed to adduce evidence in support of his claim. Management of IInd party produced documents Exhibit M-1 charter of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7577 the management of Central Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.

[No. L-41011/22/89 - D-2 (B)- IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/252/89

demand submitted by Union. Demand No.13 related to management agreed that demand will be fulfilled according to circular of the Bank and irregularities will be rectified. Exhibit M-2 is letter issued by Regional Office of NABARD Exhibit 3,4 & 6 are directions issued by NABARD office for payment of arrears and antiquity allowance. The affidavit of Chairman of the Bank Shri R.B.Gupta is filed by IInd party. In para-12 of his affidavit, chairman has stated that as per NABARD Instruction ITDP was to be paid from date of approval of Board. The Board was lenient and benefit was extended from 1-10-85 till 31-8-87. The decision to make payment with retrospective date was taken in Board meeting dated 24-5-89. In Para-13 Chairman states arrears from 1-9-87 till 31-3-90 have been paid as per directions of NABARD dated 9-7-87. Arrears prior to 1-10-85 are not payable. The evidence of management's witness remained unchallenged. Union has failed to cross-examine management witness.

President, Rashtriya Chaturth Rail Mazdoor Congress, Central Office, 2/236, Agra

.....Workman/Union

Versus

Assistant Engineer, Central Railway, Agra

.....Management

AWARD

9. Management's witness has further stated that increment of Shri Satyavrat were withheld after admission of charge. Management's witness Vinay Sharma Sr. Manager of the Bank has also supported the evidence of Chairman of the Bank on all points. Union failed to adduce evidence to substantiate its claim. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1, 2, 3 in favour of IInd party. I make it clear that Union has failed to establish the arrears of ITDP due against IInd party. It has also failed to establish withholding increment of Shri Satyavrat is illegal, denial of regularization to Mohanlal is illegal. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1, 2, 3 in Affirmative.

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

(1) The action of the management is legal and proper.

(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3109.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मघ्य रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 252/99) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011/22/89- डी-2 (बी)-आई आर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014

S.O. 3109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 252/89) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between (Passed on this 5th day of November, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 5-12-89 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L- 41011/22/89-D-2(B). The dispute under reference relates to:

" Whether the action of the management of Assistant Engineer(M) Central Railway, Agra in not providing employment to Shri Noor Islam S/o Buddu Khan and Shri Sitaram S/o Shri Govinddas MRCL after 19-2-87 and 16-7-86 and whether his termination is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Statement of claim is submitted by Class IV Railway Mazdoor Congress. The case of Ist party is that employees working more than 120 days acquires temporary status as per Indian Railway Estt Manual. The employees completing more than 240 days continuous services acquires right for regularization. The services of Noor Islam and Sitaram were discontinued from 19-2-87 and 16-7-86. Their services were discontinued on ground that they had submitted bogus service card. That Rule 2511 A of Indian Railway Establishment provides that services of such employees cannot be terminated without giving opportunity following principles of natural justice. It is further contented that the employees who were terminated junior to the workmen are regularized as per letter dated 25-12-86 has been approved. The employees who were terminated on ground of obtaining service on false service card. They are also reinstated and continued. The workman are not allowed to work in violation of Article 14 of the constitution. The services of Ist party7578 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

workman are terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D.Act. The principles of first come last go was not followed. The charges are proved. The services of employees cannot be terminated. Though the allegations were made that the workmen secured employment on basis of false service card, the charges were not inquired. Without conducting any enquiry, termination of their services is illegal. They have referred to ratio held by Supreme Court in some cases. It is reiterated that termination of their services is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for appropriate relief.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement through Assistant Engineer. IInd party submits that Noor Islam casual labour card No. 257923 was informed that said card was suspicious. He should be directed to submit service card duly verified until he submits service card, he would not be allowed to work. Letter of termination was received. Said workman did not submit the service card duly verified rather he did not report to work. Shri Sitaram holding service card No. 261528 issued from Bhopal office was found suspicious. He did not submit verified service card instead he remained absent from duty. It is submitted that both workmen did not work in time. The service card issued was not issued in their names. The service card of both workmen were bogus. Notice was issued to Shri Sitaram on 14-8-86. Reply was not given. On such ground, it is submitted that workmen are not entitled to any relief.

4. My predecessor passed award dated 16-7-01 against workman. Said award was challenged by Shri Sitaram workman in Writ Petition 93/01. Said writ petition was decided on 6-8-03. His Lordship observed it was for management of Railway to adduce evidence and justify its action by proving before the Tribunal the allegations against workman w.r.t. securing employment by producing false and fabricated casual card. The matter is remanded with direction that the Tribunal to decide question, allegation made by employer before the Tribunal on merit by permitting the management to adduce evidence and thereafter he prayed to grant liberty to employee.

5. The award was challenged only by workman Shri

Sitaram, Noor Islam did not challenged the award.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Assistant In Negative Engineer(M) Central Railway, Agra in not providing employment to Shri Sitaram S/o Shri Govinddas MRCL after 16-7-86 and whether his termination is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" As per final order 7. As stated above, the award is challenged only by Shri Sitaram filing Writ petition in High Court and matter has been remanded after setting aside award passed by my predecessor. The record shows that the affidavit on which he was cross-examined appears to have been submitted for summons of record. In his cross-examination workman says that appointment letter was not given to him. PWI Morena has discontinued him from work. No appointment letters is given to casual labour. He was discontinued from work as per letter Exhibit M-1. He had gone for joining duties but was not allowed on work. He could sign but unable to read. Document Exhibit M-2 was produced by management. Workman denies that after his discontinuation, he did not report to work with PWI Morena. As award was not challenged by Noor Islam, affidavit submitted by Noor Islam and Bashir Ali needs no discussion.

8. After remand of the matter, management adduced evidence of witness Shri S.A. Khan. The management's witness says as per documents available with the department, workman had secured employment submitting service card. The matter was inquired and found that both employee did not work at Morena Bhopal. Both workmen left their job. Service cards submitted by both workmen were found bogus. In Para-8 of his affidavit, management's witness has stated that Shri Sitaram S/o Govinddas Card No. 261258 was directed to submit verified service card but he had not returned to duties. As per letter dated 2-8-86, it was found that said workman did not work in the division neither card was issued. It is reiterated that the workman had not returned to work. The workman had secured employment on basis of bogus card. In his further evidence, witness of management says he is working as Suptd. In Engineering department of Morena office. The document dated 19-2-88 is copy of termination order its original was submitted before CGIT Kanpur. M-4 is its certified copy. Exhibit M-2 is order calling workman to produce verified service card, its original was produced before CGIT Kanpur. The documents Exhibit M-1 to M-4 are admitted in evidence. Management's witness in his cross says he was not knowing Sitaram. He did not work under him. Witness of management admitted that Shri Sitaram had worked for 120 days as temporary employee and acquired status of temporary employee. The witness admits that when temporary status is given to employees he cannot be terminated without enquiry. Before termination of Shri Sitaram no enquiry was conducted. The witness explained that there was no need for enquiry. Notice was issued to workman for production of verified service card. The original of Exhibit M-2 is produced before CGIT, Kanpur. The witness claims ignorance about decision by CGIT Kanpur in the matter. However he says the matter is decided Exhibit M-2 bears signature of the officer where workman was working he denies that workman had not given reply to Exhibit M-3. That attendance register of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7579 workman is produced. His attendance is not marked. The witness of management Naresh Kumar Sinha in his affidavit says that notice was given to both employees calling their explanation why they should not be terminated. The employee did not give reply. They had left the job. That the casual labours were required to deposit 1 Re for issue of the card. The document Exhibit M-5/1 to 5/2 proved from evidence of said witnesses are list of persons submitting bogus casual card. In his cross-examination, management's witness says the said list was received from office of Central Railway Mumbai. Name of Shri Sitaram was at Sl.No. 102 as person securing employment producing bogus service card. Before preparing said list, whether employee was given opportunity for hearing is not known to him.

9. The evidence on record clearly shows that workman had acquired status of temporary employee. Management's witness admits that service of such employee could not be terminated before enquiry. Any record of enquiry conducted against workman is not produced. Therefore the termination of service of workman Shri Sitaram is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3110.—औद्‌योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्‌योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्‌योगिक अध्किरण जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 100/99) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/11/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/334/98-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014

S.O. 3110.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/ 99) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.

[No. L-12012/334/98 - IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

10. Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of service of workman is illegal, question arise whether he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. The evidence of management is silent about gainful employment. However workman in his evidence after remand says that he was removed from service on 16-7-86 without notice. After removal from service, he was not gainfully employed. In his cross-examination, workman says that he was working at Morena, he has 4 child residing with him. The children are receiving education. His brother in law Munshi and Bhagwati Prasad are helping him for payment of fees of his children. Workman is discontinued from service in 1986. It is difficult to believe that all those long period, the workman is not doing any work and depends on his relatives. Considering age of workman, possibility of workman not doing some work for his family may not be ruled out. Considering the facts and circumstances and long period workman is out of employment, reinstatement with 30 % back wages would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

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

(1) The action of the management of Assistant Engineer(M) Central Railway, Agra in not providing employment to Shri Sitaram S/o Shri Govinddas MRCL after 16-7-86 and terminating him from service is illegal.

NO. CGIT/LC/R/100/99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Premdas Manikpuri, C/o Bhukhandas Manikpuri, BS Bhasin and Sons, Telbandha, Raipur .....Workman

Versus

Chief Manager, State Bank of India C&I Division, SBI Main Branch, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur

.....Management

AWARD

(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate workman Shri Sitaram in service with continuity of service with 30% back wages. IInd party shall pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the workman Shri Sitaram.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In (Passed on this 23rd day of September, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 25-02-99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification7580 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] No. L-12012/334/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the termination of service of Shri Manikpuri Ex-messenger-cum-Casual Labour S/o Nirmaldas Manikpuri by the management of State Bank of India w.e.f. 24.09.96 is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?

(ii) Whether Shri Manikpuri In Affirmative

Ex-messenger-cum-Casual Labour S/o Nirmaldas Manikpuri has actually worked in the Main Branch of SBI Raipur from 11-07-96 to 26-09-86?

(ii) If so, to what relief the workman As per final

is entitled to? order

REASONS

"Whether Shri Manikpuri Ex-messenger-cum-Casual Labour S/o Nirmaldas Manikpuri has actually worked in the Main branch of SBI Raipur from 11-07-96 to 26-09-96, if so what should be his wages for the above period".

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties workman submitted. Statement of claim at Page 2/ 1 to 2/4. Case of workmen is that he was appointed on post of messenger with IInd party from April 1995, His duties of workman were of distributing vouchers concerned division etc. that he performed duties regularly from April 95 to 23-09-96. IInd Party not allowed him on duty. His services were discontinued without assigning reasons that he completed 240 days continuous service in calendar year. He acquired status of permanent employee. The services were terminated without notice retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25- F of I.D. Act. His services are terminated by victimization. Action of IInd party is malafide, arbitrary. On such ground. Workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/ 4. Claim of workman is denied outright. IInd party submits that workman was engaged in October 95. Workman worked till December 95 for total 56 days. In January to July 96, workman was engaged for cleaning work for 138 days, thus workman had worked for total 194 days intermittently. Workman not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman is not entitled to protection of ID Act. IInd party has not appointed nor terminated services of workman. Workman was not completed continuous service as per Section 25B of I.D. Act. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

4. Workman has filed rejoinder at page 10/1/ to 10/2 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. That he had completed more than 240 days continuous service. Contentions of management that he worked only for 194 days is denied.

5. Considering pleadings on recond, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the Reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the termination of In Negative

service of Shri Manikpurii Ex-messenger-cum-Casual Labour S/o Nirmaldas Manikpuri by the management of State Bank of India w.e.f. 24.09.96 is justified?

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The engagement of workman by IInd party is not in dispute. The dispute is about working days of workman. According to management, workman has worked only for 194 days. According to workman he completed more than 240 days continuous service.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating that he was continuously working with IInd party as messenger from April 95 to 24.09.96. He was not paid wages from 31.07.96 to 23.09.96. He stated that from April 95 to December 95, he worked for 275 days, from January 96 to 23.09.96 he worked for 266 days. In his cross- examination workman says he had not appeared for any examination, he was appointed. His name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. The Bank Officer had asked him to work. The wages were fixed at time of joining work. He denies that he was doing work only of cleaning. Workman reiterates that work of messengers were extracted from him. He reiterates that his wages were paid by Bank and not by contractor. He denies working under contractor Shri Prakash. The pleadings in Written Statement of IInd party are silent that workman was working under Sanity contractor Shri Prakash. Workman has produced various zerox copies of bank cheque and zerox copies of his applications for payment with endorsement of payments by branch manager at Page 13/12 to 13/66. Management denied all those documents.

8. Affidavit of evidence of management's witness Adhishwar Kumar Goyal is filed supporting contentions of management that workman was working for 194 days broken period. He not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman was paid wages. Management witness in his cross-examination says on 4.09.13, he was working in head office. As per record, workman was working from October 95 to December 95 on daily wages. He denies Zerox copies of documents referred to him. In his further cross-examination witness of management says any document about working days of workman are not produced. Said documents are not brought by him. The documents are destroyed after 5-10 year. As per pleadings beteween parties workman was working from 95-96. The reference is made as per order dated 25.02.99 hardly after 3 years. The document must be available with IInd party. In view of evidence of management's witness, documents[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7581 are destroyed after 5 years. The documents are not produced by management despite application for production of documents was filed by workman in July 2007, Learned counsel for workman Shri H.N. Das pointing out evidence relies on ratio held in

"Case of M/S Sriram Indusrtial Enterprises Ltd. versus Mahak Singh reported AIR 2007-SC-1370. Their Lordship dealing with Section 2(g), 6N of I.D. Act held that workman in order to be in continuous service must have worked continuously for a period of 240 days in any calender year during his period of service. Section 2(g) doesnot require to prove that he had worked for 240 days continuously only during preceding period of 12 months prior to termination of his Service."

Their Lordship dealing with evidence and proof held workman had discharged their initial bones by producing whatsoever documents were in custody to show that they were continuously worked for 240 days.

9. On the point, learned counsel for IInd party Tripathi

relies on ratio held in

Case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. versus Mohammed Rafi reported in 2009(11) SSC 522. Their Lordship held burden of proof as to completion of 240 days of continuous work in a year reiterated lies on the aggrieved workman. The reliance is also placed in 2013(2) SSC-751. Their Lordship held there is no reason and justification to interfere on the order passed.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 75,000/- to workman and also to pay wages for the period 01.08.96 to 23.09.96.

(3) IInd party is directed to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/-

to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3111.—औद्‌योगिक विवाद अधिनियम,1947 1947 का 14 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आई एन जी वैश्य बक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्‌योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्‌योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 29/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/11/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल.12012/234/2005-आई आर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014

S.O. 3111.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/ 2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.

[No. L-12012/234/2005 - IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

In present case, workman has produced zerox copy of documents available with him. IInd party has not produced any documents about payment of wages, attendance etc. therefore adverse interference needs to be drawn. The evidence of workman therefore cannot be rejected. For above discussion, it is establishment that workman had worked more than 240 days continuously. Services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in negative.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 29th day of October, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 29/2006

Between:

10. Point No. 2- in view of my finding in Point No. 2, termination of service of workman is illegal. Question arises whether he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Cross-examination of workman shows he was not sponsored by Employment Exchange. He was engaged from April 95 till 23.09.96 for about 16 months. Considering short spam of work, reinstatement of workman would be justified. reasonable compensation would be justified. Considering evidence of workman, he was working till 23-09-96., he was not paid wages after 31-07-96, workman is also entiled for wages for said period. Thus compensation Rs. 75,000/- to workman is justified in addition to wages for the period 1-8-96 to 23.09.96. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 3, 4.

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

(1) Action of the management is legal.

Sri J. Anand Gupta, Ex. Sub. Staff, C/o Sri S.G.K. Murthy, H.No. 15-16-5, Rajanagar Colony, Old Mirjalaguda, Malkajigiri, Hyderabad-500047 ---Petitioner7582 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AND

1. The Chief (HRD), ING Vyasya Bank Ltd., Regional Office, 3-6-438/5&6, 5th Floor, Naspur House, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-500029.

....Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M/S. D. Ravisankar Rao, Ch. Venkata Raju, K. Raghuram Reddy, M.V. Sastry, Advocates.

For the Respondent:

M/s C. Niranjan Rao, M. Subrahmanya Sastry & L. Chandra Mohan Reddy, Advocates.

AWARD

Vide the proceeding No. L-12012/234/2005-IR(B-I) dated 17.03.2006 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi made a reference to this Tribunal requiring this Tribunal to give its award on the question,

"Whether the action of Management of M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Hyderabad in dismissing Sri J. Anand Gupta, Sub-staff, Sadasivapet branch of the bank from service with effect from 17.03.2005 without conducting a domestic enquiry is proper and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitiled?"

On receipt of the above referred reference this Tribunal issued notices to both the workman and the Management. They both appeared before this Tribunal and also engaged their respective advocates to assist them with the consent of each other and leave of the Tribunal.

2. The workman filed his claim statement with the

averments in brief as follows:—

The workman was appointed as sub-staff in the Respondent bank branch office at Sadasivapet on 08.12.1993 and was placed under probation for a period of 6 months. Thereafter he was confirmed in the said post with effect from 08.06.1994. While so, he was falsely implicated in a petty offence and was taken to Sadasivapet Police Station while he was on duty on 26.10.2004 at about 11 AM on the pretext to know the whereabouts of some of his neighbours. He was released only at 9PM on that day and he was instructed to attend to the Police Station on the next day at 9 AM. On 27.10.2004 Police took him to the Court at Sangareddy and while surrendering him to the court threatened him to accept everything. Police filed chargesheet alleging that the workman conmmitted an offence punishable under Sec. 9(1) of A.P. Gambling Act. The case was registered at STC 270 of 2004 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy. The said court by virtue of judgement dated 27.10.2004 convicted the workman

and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence under Sec. 9(1) of A.P. Gambling Act. The workman challenged the said judgement by filing Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2004 before the Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. He also informed the Management bank regarding these incidents through his letter dated 29.10.2004. The Vice President of the Respondent bank issued a show cause notice dated 27.11.2004 stating that as the workman was convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude why he should not be dismissed from the service of the bank in terms of Sec. 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and para 3(b) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. The workman submitted his explanation dated 10.12.2004 informing the bank that he preferred an appeal against his conviction and that the appellate court suspended the order of conviction and sentence imposed against him by the trial court. The Appellate Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2004 vide judgement dated 07.02.2005 setting aside sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment but confirming the fine of Rs. 300/-. The Management vide order dated 17.03.2005 dismissed the workman from service stating that he was convicted by trial court and the conviction remains and therefore inclined to dismiss the workman from service. This order is passed arbitarily and without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the procedure for taking disciplinary action and in total violation of principles of natural justice. The workman there upon raised conciliation proceedings before the ALC(C) which ended in failure. thus, the reference made. The workman is not guilty of any crime which got anything to do with his employment with the Respondent bank. Solely on the basis of his conviction it can not be generalised that his credentials are not worthy of credence. The act on the part of the workman was not a conduct involving moral trupitude warranting imposition of dismissal. Payment of fine of Rs. 300/- is trivial in nature and the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Management for a such a trivial offence is very severe and disproportionately high. Neither the service conditions applicable to the workman nor the Banking Regulation Act, do not enumerate the offence under Sec. 9(1) of A.P. Gambling Act as moral turpitude. Further, when one Mr. Anjaneyulu, (E. No. 903) was involved in a criminal case on the allegation of committing the same offence and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, during the year 1993 the Management of the Respondent bank conducted Departmental enquiry took a lenient view and has not awarded any punishment at all. Thus, the Respondent bank is adopting different methods while dealing with executives and sub-staff which amounts to discrimination. In case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another 1996 (4) SCC 17, the Apex Court held that punishment of fine upto to certain limit say upto Rs. 2000/- or so on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose and all the whole for[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7583 entry into the retention in government service. For all these reasons the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. The workman could not get any alternative employment in spite of his best efforts. He, his wife and two children are totally depending upon mercy of his parents and other villagers. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.03.2005 issued by the Management of the Respondent bank dismissing the workman for service of the bank is to be set aside ordering for reinstatement with full wages and continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

3. The Respondents/Management filed their counter

with the averments in brief as follows:

Gambling Act. Thereon he was convicted and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month and to pay Rs. 300/- as fine in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months vide judgement dated 27.10.2004. Thereafter the Vice President of the bank issued show-cause notice dated 27.11.2004 for which the workman gave his reply which was found not satisfactory. Thereon the impugned order dated 17.3.2005 was issued. Aggrieved by the same, the workman preferred an appeal to the next higher authority. Considering the grounds for appeal and other material on record the Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The said proceedings are legal and valid and in accordance with law. The allegations made contra are all incorrect. Whenever an employee involved in an offence relating to moral turpitude, he can be dismissed from service without holding enquiry as per the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002. The contention of the workman that his action is not involving moral turpitude warranting the imposition of dismissal is also baseless and incorrect. The offence in which the workman was involved is grave and serious in nature involving moral turpitude as such punishment of dismissal imposed is legally valid and justified. The case of another employee by name Mr. Anjaneyulu has no relevance to the facts of the present case and it happened in the year 1993. The gravity of the facts in both the cases are totally different and they are unequal by any comparison. The bank is neither discriminated the sub-staff. The case reported in 1996 4 SCC at page 17 has no relevance to the facts of the present case since the same dealt with service conditions of government servants. The workman is gainfully employed after leaving the service of the Respondent bank. He filed the present case only to have wrongful gain. As per the present legal position, even an acquittal in a criminal case will not nullify the decision taken by the Management. Whereas the workman has been convicted by the trial court and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. Therefore the dismissal order passed against him is legal, valid and justified. Any amount of indiscipline from the employees of the bank which is dealing with the public money effects its reputation in the eye of public. Therefore, the workman can not be continued in bank's service. The claim is liable to be dismissed.

4. To substantiate the contentions of the workman he examined himself as WW1, through him Ex.W1 to W8 were marked. On behalf of the Management MW1 was examined and Ex.M1 to M9 were marked. While MW1 was under cross examination Ex.W9 was marked.

5. Heard the arguments of either party. Written arguments were also filed for the Respondents and the same are considered.

6. The points that arise for determination are:

The reference itself is against established principles of law. The Management can dismiss an employee without conducting any enquiry and the Management can lead evidence and prove reasons for dismissing the employee before the competent court. This issue was settled long back i.e. in the year 1975 itself by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd., vs. P.P. Mundhe (1975 2 LLJ page 379). The officials of the bank who were included as parties got nothing to do with the dispute. The dispute is between the bank and the employee only. The Respondent bank is a commercial bank which made considerable progress due to honest efforts, good Management and cooperation of the employees. Being a banking institution its business is solely depends upon the patronage of the customers which requires high degree of honesty, integrity, devotion to duty, promptness and diligence in discharging duties and also high degree of discipeline from its employees. Thus, any kind of indulgence of an employee in any unlawful activity will adversely affect the customer relations and as such the employees working in the bank are required to maintain good amount of honesty, integrity, devotion to duty, high degree of discipline and decency. On 27.10.2004, on reliable information that the workman was conducting Matka on Shastry Road, Near Vysya Bank, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sadasivapet Police Station along with his staff came and found the workman conducting Matka. At about 9.30 AM on that day he obtained the statement, conducted panchanama of the confession in the presence of Mr. Kummari Satyanarayana and Md. Sikinder who are also the employees of the bank. Police recovered an amount of Rs.130/- and four matka chitties from the workman, arrested him and took him to the Police Station. Thus, it is clear that the workman was involved in activities of moral turpitude due to which the Respondent bank's reputation got affected badly. STC No.270 of 2004 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy for the offence under Sec. 9(1) of A.P. Gambling Act was registered against the workman and the said fact was intimated to the bank by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sadasivapet by virtue of letter dated 28.10.2004. The workman was prosecuted in the said case and while so he pleaded guilty of the offence under Sec.9(1) of A.P.

I. Whether the action of Management of M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Hyderabad in dismissing Sri J. Anand7584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Gupta, Sub-staff, Sadasivapet branch of the bank from service with effect from 17.3.2005 without conducting a domestic enquiry is proper and justified?

II. To what relief the workman is entitled to?

7. Point No.I:

When the reference which is to be answered in this case and the language of the reference are minutely considered, what one can reasonably understand is that the referring authority is calling upon this forum to verify whether the action of the Management in rendering the order dated 17.3.2005 without conducting a domestic enquiry is proper and justified. That means the referring authority is not calling upon this forum to go into the merits and demerits of the order dated 17.3.2005. It is only asking this forum to verify whether passing of such order without conducting a domestic enquiry is proper and justified only.

8. In the light of the above, understanding of the reference made, the impugned order and circumstances surrounding it are to be verified. The material on record is disclosing that the workman has been working as a sub-staff of the Sadasivapet branch of the Respondent bank. While so, on 26.10.2004 during morning hours, he was found to be involved in 'Matka' ín Sastry Road, of Sadasivapet near Vysya Bank and on information Police came there, apprehended him while he was in possession of matka chitties and also some cash, recorded his statement in the presence of two other bank staff who acted as Panchas, and recovered the said chitties and cash under the cover of a panchanama and arrested the workman, registered the crime under Sec. 9(1) of A.P. Gambling Act, and presented the case before Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy on whose file the said case has been registered as STC 270/2004. It is an admitted fact that when the workman was facing the prosecution in the said case, he pleaded guilty of the charge under Sec. 9(1) of A.P. Gambling Act. As can be gathered from Ex.W5, the copy of judgement rendered in STC 270/2004 dated 27.10.2004, the court found the plea of guilt made by the workman as voluntary, accepted the same and proceeded to find him guilty of the charge under Sec. 9(1) of A.P. Gambling Act, basing on such plea, convicted him and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

9. Aggrieved by Ex.W5 judgement the workman has preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 139/2004 to the Court of Sessions, Medak at Sangareddy. By virtue of judgement dated 7.2.2005, a copy of which is marked as Ex.W7, the Appellate Court confirmed the finding of guilt and the conviction order passed by the trial court by virtue of Ex.W5 judgement, but modified the sentence imposed against the workman by limiting it to the payment of fine of Rs. 300/- only, setting aside the imposition of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. That means, the appellate court also accepted the plea of guilt of the workman as voluntary and took the same as basis for confirming the finding of guilt of the workman and his conviction. Evidently, the said judgement became final and thus, binding on the workman, since it was not challenged before any forum.

10. But, contrary to the said judicial findings, the workman is making a claim that his plea of guilt was not voluntary and that it was forced from him by the Police by putting him under threats. But a fact to be noted is that at no point of time, and in spite of having due opportunity to contend so, i.e., at the time of preferring the appeal against Ex.W5 judgement, the workman has chosen to contend that his plea of guilt was not voluntary. Ex.W5 judgement clearly makes out that the appellant has not claimed any where in the grounds of his appeal that the plea of guilt made by him was not voluntary.

11. After, the workman was convicted by the trial court in STC 270/2004 the Disciplinary Authority issued Ex.W2 show cause notice dated 27.11.2004 calling upon the workman to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service of the bank in terms of Sec.10(1)(b)(i) of Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and para 3(b) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002 and granting seven days time for the workman's reply. Ex.W3 is the reply dated 7.12.2004 given by the workman whereunder he stated that he preferred appeal against the judgement of the trial court and that the Appellate Court suspended the sentence imposed against him by the trial court till the disposal of the appeal and that he was pursuing the case for acquittal by the court. Evidently thereafter, the appellate court rendered Ex.W7 judgement confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence imposed against the workman by the trial court. Considering all these aspects the Disciplinary Authority rendered Ex.W5, the impugned order dated 17.3.2005 dismissing the workman from the service of the bank with immediate effect in terms of Sec.10(1)(b)(i) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and para 3(b) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002. This is the order which is now under challenge.

12. The above referred facts of the case clearly show that before passing Ex.W5 order, except for issuing a show-cause notice to the workman and securing his reply to it, the Disciplinary Authority has not taken up any enquiry. It is the claim of the workman that it is not legal, proper and justifiable action on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to pass the impugned order without any departmental enquiry. With this regard he is relying upon the principles laid down in the case of Balubhai Amidas Khristi Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 1978 2 SLR 815, in this case no banking institution is a party and the provisions of Banking Regulations Act and the Memorandum of Settlement referred to in the present case were not under consideration. Even otherwise, while[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7585 considering the case of a Civil Servant who was dismissed from service on his conviction by a criminal court for the offence of Varli Matka, Hon'ble the Gujarat High Court has observed that as per the procedure prescribed and rules governing the area, the Disciplinary Authority got discretion either to hold Departmental enquiry or otherwise while dealing with such cases. But it is held to the effect that while imposing major penalty on the ground of a conduct which has lead to the conviction of the employee on a criminal charge the Disciplinary Authority must give an opportunity to the said employee and also shall consider the conduct and circumstances which lead to the conviction under a criminal charge. The facts and circumstances of the cited case regarding dispensation of Departmental enquiry are different from that of the present case since, the present case is in connection with a banking institution and it is not so in the cited case.

13. Further more, in the present case, there is no violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the Disciplinary Authority. An opportunity has been given to the workman by way of issuance of show cause notice whereunder, the provisions of law and the part of the Memorandum of Settlement which the Disciplinary Authority intended to invoke for passing the order of dismissal have been disclosed to the workman calling upon him to show cause why such order should not be passed. If such provisions are not applicable to this case in the opinion of the workman, the avenue was open to him to say so, giving his reasons while giving his reply but he has not done so. It is not his case that the Disciplinary Authority has no discretion to dispense with the Departmental enquiry while acting upon his being convicted on a criminal charge by a court of law, and to pass an order imposing punishment on him on administrative side. Further more, Ex.W9 i.e., a copy of Chapter 8 of the Memorandum of Settlement, according to the workman itself, shows that an enquiry need not be held if the bank has issued a show cause notice to an employee advising him of misconduct and the punishment to which he may be liable for such misconduct. This provision is available in Clause 12 (e) (i) of Ex.W9.

14. No doubt for Ex. W2 notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority, the workman has given Ex.W3 reply whereunder he has not chosen to accept his guilt. But, a reading of Ex.W3 together with the factum of his plea of guilt made before the criminal court and which was found voluntary by the trial court as well as appellate court as already discussed above, what one can reasonably understand is that the workman has pleaded his guilt before all the relevant forums. In Ex.W3 reply he gave a reference to Ex.W1 letter dated 21.10.2004 addressed by him to the bank where under he claimed that he never committed any offence. But the fact remains that such claims were not made before the appellate court though the appeal proceedings took place much subsequent to the date of Ex.W1, and further the appellate court upheld the conviction of the workman ordered by the trial court which was basing on the plea of guilt made by the workman before the said court. In the given circumstances, it can not be said that Disciplinary Authority has not followed the rules and regulations governing the service of the workman while taking action against him.

15. In any view of the matter it is the contention of the Respondent bank that Ex.W9 is not a part of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002. When such plea has been taken, it is bounden duty of the workman to prove that it is part of the said settlement by adducing relevant evidence, as rightly contended for the Respondent. He failed to do so.

16. Further more, it is an admitted fact that as per the rules governing the service of the bank employees, when an employee is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude by a criminal court, he is liable to be dismissed from service of the bank by the Disciplinary Authority. Though, the reasonableness or otherwise of the order of dismissal is not a question under the present reference and the only question to be decided is whether the order of dismissal is legal and justified since it has been issued without Departmental enquiry, as the question whether the offence involved in this case is an offence involving moral turpitude, has been raised time and again by the parties to the proceeding and an elaborate discussion has taken place, it is the duty of this Tribunal to go into it incidentally.

17. Even as per the case of Balubhai Amidas Khristi referred to above and which has been relied upon by the workman himself, Hon'ble the Apex court has considered the question whether an act of gambling is an offence involving moral turpitude, way back in the year 1957, in the case of state of Bombay vs. R.M.D. Chamar Baugwala AIR 1957 SC 599 and held that the vice of gambling was frowned upon by the society and it is a shocking conduct. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, though noted of this finding in the case of Balubhai Amidas Khristi, held that the changing scenario in 20th century circumstances remained different. But the fact remains that it is the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the gambling is an offence which is to frowned upon by the society and it is a shocking conduct.

18. In the case of Pawan kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another [1996 (73) FLR page 1501, Supreme Court] Hon'ble the Supreme Court has defined the expression - moral turpitude used in legal and also societal parlance, as the conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having connection showing depravity. When this finding is considered in the light of the verdict of Hon'ble the Supreme Court given in the case of State of Bombay Vs. RMD Chamber Baugwala referred to above, what one can reasonably understand is that the act of gambling squarely falls under this definition of moral turpitude.

19. It is an undisputed fact that as per the rules governing the banking service and the settlements arrived7586 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Petitioner

at between the employees and Management of the banking institutions the employee who committed the offence involving moral turpitude and is convicted by a court of law can be dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority.

20. It is the other contention of the workman that he has been discriminated by the Respondent bank in awarding the punishment of dismissal though for similar conduct ie., conviction for the offence under Sec.9(1) of A.P. Gambling Act, way back in the year 1993 another employee by name Sri Anjaneyulu was not at all punished even though departmental enquiry was conducted against him. Whereas it is the contention of the Respondent bank that the case of Sri Anjaneyulu is totally different from that of the workman. In such case, it is for the appellant to establish that the case of Sri Anjaneyulu is similar to that of his case and inspite of it he has been discriminated by the Respondent bank, though this is not a point which can cover the question referred in the present reference as it has been seriously raised by the workman it is being mentioned.

Ex. W1: Photostat copy of lr.dt.29.10.2004 addressed to the Vice President, Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Regional Office, Hyderabad

Ex. W2: Photostat copy of show cause notice dt.

27.11.2004

Ex.W3: Photostat copy of WW1's explanation

dt. 10.12.2004

Ex.W4: Photostat copy of dismissal order dt. 17.3.2005

Ex.W5: Photostat copy of order dt. 27.10.2004 made un

STC No. 270/2004

Ex.W6: Photostat copy of order passed by the Hon'ble Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy dt. 28.10.2004

Ex.W7: Photostat copy of orders dt. 8.11.2004 made in Crl M.P. No.1114/04 in Crl. A. No.139/04 by the Hon'ble Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Medak

Ex.W8: Photostat copy of judgement dated 7.2.2005

made in Crl. Appeal No.139/04

Ex.W9: Photostat copy of settlement dt. 10.4.2002 on

disciplinary action procedure for award staff

Documents marked for the Respondent

21. In view of the foregone discussion of the material on record, it can safely be held that the action of the Management of M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Hyderabad in dismissing Sri J. Anand Gupta, Sub-staff, Sadasivapet branch of the bank from service with effect from 17.3.2005 without conducting a domestic enquiry is proper and justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

22. Point No.II:

In view of the finding given at Point No.I the workman

is not entitled for any relief sought for.

This point is answered accordingly.

Ex. M1: Certified copy of judgement passé din STC No.270/2004 on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

Ex. M2: Photostat copy of judgement dated 7.2.2005

made in Crl. Appeal No.139/04

Ex. M3: Photostat copy of show cause notice dt.

27.11.2004

Ex. M4: Photostat copy of chargesheet submitted by

the Police authorities in STC No.270/2004 Result:

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of Management of M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Hyderabad in dismissing Sri J. Anand Gupta, Sub- staff, Sadasivapet branch of the bank from service with effect from 17.3.2005 without conducting a domestic enquiry is proper and justified. In the circumstances the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 29th day of October, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer Ex. M6: Photostat copy of lr. sent by Sadashivpet Police

Station dt. 28.10.2004

Ex. M7: Photostat copy of order passed in WP No.

23061/2004

Ex. M8: Office copy of dismissal order dt. 17.3.2005

Ex. M9: Office copy of order in appeal dt.26.8.2005

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2014

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the Petitioner the Respondent

WW1: Sri J. Anand Gupta MW1: Sri T.S. Krishna

Rao

का.आ. 3112.—औद्‌योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार धनलक्षमी बैंक लि. के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्‌योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्‌योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, अरूनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 24/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/11/ 2011-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7587 New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014

3. Workman was appointed as Relationship Manager in the Kannur branch of the management bank on 20.03.2010. He was terminated from service on 25.09.2010. Challenging the validity and the legality of the termination he had raised the industrial dispute which resulted in this reference.

S.O. 3112.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 24/2011) of the Cent. Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/11/2014.

[No. L-12012/11/2011- IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

SHRI.D.SREEVALLABHAN, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Tuesday the 21st day of October, 2014/29th Asvina, 1936)

ID 24/2011

Workman : Shri Babumon C Weavers Colony Thykadappuram Neeleswaram Kasargod - 671314 By Adv. Smt Sajitha S Dharan

Management : The Assistant General Manager

Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. Dhanalaxmi Buildings Naickanal Trichur Kerala - 680001 By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 08.10.2014 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 21.10.2014 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 as per Order No-L-12012/ 11/2011-IR(B-I) dated 28.06.2011 referred the industrial dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of Dhanalaxmi Bank Limited, Trichur, Kerala in terminating the services of Shri Babumon C, Employee Code No.4502 of Kannur branch, vide their order date 25.09.2010 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?"

4. After appearance before this tribunal workman filed claim statement. The allegations made therein, in brief, are that at the time of his appointment as relationship Manager he was informed that he would be in charge of four branches and he will be assisted by four relationship officers. At the time of interview the offer was for appointment as Non-sourcing and Team handling(Grade 1-Manager) in Kasargod area. But he was appointed as relationship manager in the Kannur branch. When he enquired about it to the Area Sales Manager Mr. Jimmy Dominic, Regional Sales Manager Mr. Vinod Anilkumar and HRD Manager Mr. Amith Antony they behaved in a very rude and inhumane manner. He was not entrusted with the responsibilities of any branch and was not provided with the job profile as promised by the management bank. In spite of repeated requests made by him he was not given the job profile. It was because of the offer made at the time of interview that he would be given posting in Kasargod District he had resigned from the service of ICICI Prudential Bancassurance and joined in the management bank. He was having six years' experience in the insurance field. He had maximum business in the Kozhikode region. It is incorrect to say that his conduct and performance level is not even below the average but could only be rated as zero. He was not intimated about performance level. Being the relationship manager there was no occasion for him to approach the general public directly. He used to participate actively in the training programmes conducted by the management bank. Even though the 'DAR' is actually meant for sales executives and relationship officers he had also to furnish the same. It is not correct to say that he was given counseling to improve his performance. He had not violated the conditions of appointment for termination of his service during probation. He did not receive any notice before termination. He was denied employment without hearing him and in violation of the rules and regulations. As per the Exit Management Process of the management bank he is to be given three months' notice with three months' salary as CTC/gross salary for termination of service. Management bank did not pay the salary for the month of September, 2010 and conveyance allowance @ ` 4,500/- per mensem from the date of appointment. It is not correct to say that he being the relationship manager will not come within the purview of the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. Because of the persistent demands made by him for the work profile to the Area Sales Manager and Regional Sales Manager he was asked to resign from service or to act in accordance with the directions of his superiors. Afterwards he was transferred to Kattambally branch as7588 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] a revenge. His request to the HRD manager Mr.Srikant at Thrissur branch for a transfer to another branch was not considered and on 10.09.2010 he was asked to report before the Regional Office. The Area Sales Manager Mr. Jimmy Dominic and Regional Sales Manager Mr. Vinod Anilkumar asked him to resign from service or else he would be terminated from service. He had disagreed with their demand for resignation. On 30.09.2010 he was asked to appear before the Kozhikode branch and without notice he was terminated from service. The continuous demands made by him for the work profile provoked them for the illegal termination of his service. Their behaviour resulted in the resignation of other employees also. Since the termination of his service is illegal he is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service, back wages and all other consequential benefits.

5. Management filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the provisions of the ID Act are not applicable to the workman as he is not a workman as defined under the said Act. It is further contended that all the terms and conditions of service were categorically narrated in the offer of appointment sent through e-mail dated 19.03.2010 and the appointment letter dated 04.06.2010 issued to him. The allegations in the claim statement that at the time of appointment the workman was informed that he would be in charge of four branches and he would be assisted by four relationship officers and that at the time of interview he was informed that he would be appointed as a Non- sourcing and Team handling profile at Kasargod are not true. The allegations that he was told by the management that he would be transferred to Kasargod and that the ASM, RSM and HRD behaved rudely and in an inhumane manner when he enquired about the non-entrustment of the job profile promised to be given to him are not correct. He was satisfied with the terms and conditions of service and that is why he had resigned from the service of the ICICI Prudential. His performance level as well his conduct was not at all satisfactory. He was below average. His insubordination to the superiors was very well reflected throughout the period of his probation. He was given e-mail communications and warnings for his insubordination and lack of performance. The averment that the workman being the relationship manager was not having any occasion to approach the general public directly is denied. He was not actively participating in the training programmes. The training programme is vital for improving the performance of the employees and its non-attendance is detrimental to the interest of the bank. Explanation was called for from him vide e-mail dated 21.08.2010 for his failure to attend the training programme. He was counselled several times to improve his performance and his conduct towards his superiors. He had to submit the DAR to the area sales manager. It is an essential part of his duty but he was not submitting it in spite of several e-mail communications. E-mail communication dated 15.09.2010 was sent to him asking his explanation for not terminating him from service by invoking Clause 7(iii) of the appointment letter dated 04.06.2010 owing to poor performance in the business, insubordination to his superiors and non-attendance of training programmes. He did not respond and hence his service was terminated by issuing termination order dated 25.09.2010. He had violated the conditions of appointment in Clause 6(i) of the appointment letter. The allegation in the claim statement that he had not received any notice before termination is wrong. The allegation that he has not received salary and conveyance allowance is denied. He is not entitled for three months' notice or three months' salary in lieu of notice since he was terminated from service by invoking Clause 7(iii) of the appointment letter. The transfer to Kattampally branch was not on account of revenge as alleged by him. He was never been asked by the management bank to resign from service. He was on probation for a period of 12 months as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. The confirmation was subject to the satisfactory performance and conduct of the workman. He was not terminated illegally and hence he is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

6. Workman filed rejoinder denying the contentions in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the claim statement.

7. Evidence, both oral and documentary, was adduced from both sides. From the side of the workman he was examined as WW1 and Exts.W1 to W6 were marked. For the management one witness was examined as MW1 and Exts.M1 to M11 were marked.

8. The points for determination are:

(i) Whether the workman will come within the purview of the definition under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act?

(ii) Whether the termination of his service is to be in accordance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act?

(iii) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?

9. Point No.(i):-Maintainability of the reference itself depends upon the question as to whether the workman is one coming within the purview of the definition of 'workman' under section 2(s) of the ID Act. He was appointed as relationship manager in the service of the management bank vide appointment letter dated 04.06.2010, marked as Ext.W1 from the side of the workman and the copy of which was marked as Ext.M2 from the side of the management. His duties and responsibilities are stated in para 6 of the appointment letter. It is expressly stated therein that his duties are entirely managerial in nature. Para 6(i) in it is relevant to consider whether he is a workman and hence the same is extracted below:-

"(i) Your duties are entirely managerial in nature and the Bank will expect you to work with a high standard of initiative, efficiency and economy and[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7589 encourage and motivate people under you to achieve optimum output. You will perform, observe and confirm to such duties, directions and instructions assigned or communicated to you by the Bank and those in authority over you."

10. It is expressly stated that his duties are entirely of managerial nature. His total emoluments per annum is Rs. 4,25,000/-. So from Ext.M2 it is very clear that the duties are of managerial in nature and also in a supervisory capacity with salary and allowances amounting to Rs. 4,25,000/- per annum.

justifiability of the termination of his service in the management bank cannot be decided in this reference.

14. Point No.(iii):-As it is found that he is not a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act he is not entitled to any relief in this case.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 21st day of October, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

WW1 28.01.2014 Shri C Babumon

Witness for the management

MW1 25.06.2014 Shri Vinod Anilkumar

Exhibits for the workman

11. In paragraph 2 of the claim statement it is alleged that at the time of appointment he was informed that he would be in charge of four branches and would be assisted by four relationship officers, but he was not entrusted with the responsibility of any of those branches. The workman when examined as WW1 has stated during his cross examination that he was in manager cadre for supervising the work of eight Assistant Managers. It was asserted by him that he was in manager cadre and the subordinate officers had to submit DAR to him. The allegation that he was not given charges of four branches is not proved by adducing any convincing evidence. There is ample evidence in this case to prove that he was discharging managerial functions and was supervising the work of assistant relationship managers. Even though it was stated by him that he was assigned with the duty to canvass business it cannot be accepted as true in view of the express allegations made in Para- 5 of the claim statement that he being the relationship manager had no occasion to approach the general public directly. In paragraph 3 of the proof affidavit of MW1 it is averred that the workman was given the work as offered at the time of interview and as mentioned in the appointment letter and hence he is not a workman under the ID Act. He was not cross examined by the workman and hence the same can also be relied on to prove that he was discharging duties of managerial nature.

12. In view of the aspects discussed above it can very well be held that the workman was employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity and also in a supervisory capacity drawing wages of more than `10,000/- per mensem. He was discharging the functions mainly of a managerial nature. Hence he will not come within the purview of the definition of 'workman' under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

W1 - Appointment letter No.DLB/HR/610004 dated 04.06.2010 issued by the Senior Vice President- HR, Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd., Thrissur to the workman

W2 - Copy of Termination Order No.PER:CON: 2024:2010-11 dated 25.09.2010 issued by the Senior Vice President - HR, Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd., Thrissur to the workman

W3 - Copy of Exit Management Process

W4 - Copy of letter dated 08.10.2010 addressed to the Assistant Central Labour Commissioner, Kakkanad, Ernakulam by the workman

W5 - Copy of the reply letter dated Nil addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central), Kendriya Shram Sadan,Olimughal, Kakkanad, Kochi by the management bank

W6 - Copy of the Minutes of Conciliation Proceedings held on 29.12.2010 with the management bank and the workman

Exhibits for the management

13. Point No.(ii):-It is not in dispute that he was terminated from service by issuing termination order dated 25.09.2010, copies of which were marked as Ext.W2 and Ext.M11. The termination was not in accordance with the provisions contained in section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. As it is already found that he is not a workman as defined under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act there is no question of complying with the mandatory requirements as provided under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The legality and M1 - Copy of the E-mail communication as to the offer of appointment dated 19.03.2010 sent by the Manager-Human Resources, Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd., Corporate Office, Thrissur to the workman

M2 - Copy of the appointment letter No.DLB/HR/ 610004 dated 04.06.2010 issued by the Senior Vice President-HR, Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd., Thrissur to the workman7590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

M3 - Copy of the e-mail communication dated 14.09.2010 regarding the performance of the workman from Shri Jimmy Dominic to Shri Sreekanth T V

Reference No. 64 of 2013

M4 - Copy of the e-mail communication dated 14.09.2010 from Shri Sreekanth T V to Shri Jimmy Dominic

M5 - Copy of the e-mail communication dated 14.09.2010 regarding the performance of the workman from Shri Jimmy Dominic to Shri Sreekanth T V

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of IRCTC, Regional Office

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

….Presiding Officer

Appearance:

M6 - Copy of the e-mail communication dated 21.08.2010 from Shri Jimmy Dominic to the workman

M7 - Copy of the the e-mail communication dated 21.08.2010 from the workman to Shri Jimmy Dominic

M8 - Copy of the e-mail communication dated 21.08.2010 from Shri Jimmy Dominic to the workman and another

M9 - Copy of the e-mail communication dated 14.08.2010 from Shri Jimmy Dominic to the workman

On behalf of the : Ms. Paushali Banerjee, Ld. Management Counsel on behalf of IRCTC,

Regional Office.

On behalf of the : Workmen

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Railways.

Dated: 10th November, 2014.

AWARD

M10 - E-mail communication dated 20.09.2010 sent by the Sr.Vice President-HR, Dhanlaxmi Bank to the workman

M11 - Copy of Termination Order No.PER:CON: 2024:2010-11 dated 25.09.2010 issued by the Senior Vice President - HR, Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd., Thrissur to the workman

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3113.—औद्‌योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आईआरसीटीसी प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्‌योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्‌योगिक अध्किरण कोलकता के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या (64/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/11/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/46/ 2013-आई आर (बी-1)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th November 2014

S.O. 3113.—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 Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of IRCTC and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/11/ 2014.

[No. L-41012/46/2013 - IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer By Order No.L-41012/46/2013-IR(B-I) dated 09.12.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action on the part of the mgt of IRCTC and the contractor Swastika Enterprise Kolkata both jointly taking action not to re-engage Shri Tushar Kant Behera, Data Entry Operator with them either through contractor or IRCTC directly is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. When the case is taken up today, none appears either on behalf of the workman or M/s. Mind Mart (Allied Manpower Service Provider) or M/s. Swastika Enterprises (Consultancy Organization) inspite of service of notice though the IRCTC, Regional Office is represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears from the record that none ever appeared nor any step was taken on behalf of the workman concerned to proceed with this reference. From the above facts and circumstances it is clear that the concerned workman at whose instance this reference case has been initiated is not at all interested to proceed with this reference. So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending.

3. In view of the above facts and circumstances the present reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute Award".

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Kolkata, the 10th November, 2014[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7591

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3114.—औद्‌योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चीकमागलर कोडागु ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्‌योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्‌योगिक अध्किरण बैंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 78/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/11/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/70/2008-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014 "Whether the action of the management of Chikmagalur Kodagu Grameena Bank in dismissing the services of Sri S Lokesh Kumar w.e.f. 01-01-1999, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR 78/2008 when notices were issued to both the parties they entered their appearance through their respective advocate and I Party filed his claim statement on 08.11.2010 and II Party filed its counter statement on 06.12.2010.

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

4. The I party while working as Messenger cum Sweeper at II Party Office at Chickmagalur was served with charge sheet dated 07.04.1998 as under :

"Charge Sheet

S.O. 3114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.78/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Chikmalur Koddagu Grameena Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24/11/2014.

[No. L-12012/70/2008 - IR(B-I)] You had worked as Messenger-cum-Sweeper of our Madikeri Branch for the period from 02.07.1993 to 08.01.1998.

Article of Charge No. 1

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

That you have temporarily misappropriated various amounts aggregating Rs. 8500/- entrusted to you by Sri M Ponneer, C/o Chitra Lodge, Main Road, madikeri, a prospective customer of our Madikere Branch during the period from September 1997 to December 1997.

BEFORE THE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

DATED : 17th NOVEMBER 2014

PRESENT : Shri S N NAVALGUND

Presiding Officer

C R No. 78/2008

I Party II Party

By your aforesaid acts of omission and commission, you failed to serve the Bank honestly and faithfully and to use your utmost endeavour to promote the interest of the Bank and thereby knowingly did the acts highly detrimental to the interest of the Bank, in violation of Regulation 19 and 30(1) of Chikmagalur Kodagu Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations 1985 and thereby you have committed serious misconduct punishable under regulation 30(1) of Chikmagalur Kodagu Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations 1985.

Article of Charge No. 2

P B No. 111, I G Road, Sri S Lokesh Kumar, The Chairman, S/o Sri N Swamy Gowda, Chikmagalur Kodagu No. 18/71, Sudarshan Grameena Bank, Extension, MADIKERE - 571 201. CHICKMAGALUR - 577 101.

Appearances

I Party : Shri D P Prasanna

Advocate

II Party : Shri N Srinivasa Rao

Advocate

That you have temporarily misappropriated various amounts aggregating Rs. 2000/- entrusted to you by Sri G Kumar, C/o Chitra Lodge, main Road, Madikeri, a prospective customer of our Madikeri Branch, during the period from 5.11.1997 to 29.12.1997.

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/70/ 2008-IR(B-I) dated 18.12.2008 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the following schedule:

7592 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Article of Charge No. 3

That you collected the proceeds of Rs. 800/- each inrespect of OBC 21:110:97-98 dated 14.10.1997 and OBC:21:123:1997-98 dated 03.11.1997 of our Bokeri Branch sent for collection to Madikeri Branch from Madikeri Town Co-operative Bank Limited, Madikeri, on 10th October 1997 and 5th November 1997 resepectively. That you failed to remit the said amounts on the respective dates of collection and finally remitted the aggregative amount of Rs. 1600/- only on 11th November 1997 and thereby temporarily misappropriated the Bank funds.

Disciplinary Authority charge being proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority while sending the copy of the enquiry finding to the CSE called upon him to give his comments/reply within 15 days through his letter dated 07.09.1998 and as he gave his reply dated nil received by the Disciplinary Authority on 02.11.1998 stating that he has nothing to say and as he has sufficiently repented for his action and requested to view leniently the Disciplinary Authority by his proceedings dated 20.11.1998 arrived at conclusion of proposing the punishment of Dismissal and gave a show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service. On his reply dated 30.11.1998 wherein also he has not disputed the charges levelled against him and claimed leniency on the same day giving him a personal hearing, on 01.01.1999 he passed the order Dismissing him from Service. Then the I party approached the ALC(C), Mangalore with conciliation petition which ended by his submission of failure report dated 21.04.2008 the ministry made this reference for adjudication.

Article of Charge No. 4

That you misappropriated an amount of Rs. 400/- entrusted to you by Sri J Ravi C/o B Swamy, Madikeri, a prospective customer of our Madikeri Branch during the period from August 96 to 03.03.1998.

Though the I party by his reply dated 16.04.1998 admitted the charges qualified it saying that it occurred due to his misunderstanding the Disciplinary Authority ordered to face enquiry by appointing Sh. K Chandrakanth Nayak as Enquiry Officer and Sh. N Krishna Pai as Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer securing the presence of CSE/I Party and the Presenting Officer on 06.08.1998 while observing the formalities of preliminary hearing when asked him whether he confirm the admission of charges given by him through his reply to the charge sheet dated 16.04.1998 he agreed in other words he confirmed having accepted the charges levelled against him, the Enquiry Officer on the same day while receiving the documents tendered by the Presenting Officer with the consent of the CSE/I Party marking them as Ex M-1 to Ex M-34 the detailed description of which are narrated in the Annexure and as CSE/I Party submitted that he has no defence to make he concluded the enquiry and submitted his enquiry finding dated 01.09.1998 to the 5. The I party in his claim statement since contended his confessional statement was obtained by coercion using undue influence assuring the continuance of his services, the finding of the Enquiry Officer being given without examining any witnesses the same is perverse and the punishment imposed is disproportionate while raising a Preliminary Issue as to

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party by the II Party is fair and proper?"

After receiving the evidence adduced by both the sides and hearing the arguments addressed for both the sides by order dated 13.10.2011 since it came to be answered in affirmative holding that the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II party against the I Party is fair and proper the I Party was called upon to lead evidence on victimization if any and being not gainfully employed, on his advocate filing his affidavit and examining him on oath as WW 1 (V) and the learned advocate submitting that there is nothing in his affidavit being victimized he has no cross-examination and also no rebuttal evidence the learned advocate appearing for both sides filed their written arguments wherein they have reiterated the averments made in the claim statement and contention of the counter statement.

6. In view of the Domestic Enquiry being held as fair and proper the points now that arises for my consideration are :

Point No. 1 : Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer the charge being proved on the basis of the admission of charges before him is perverse?

Point No. 2 : If not, whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the I party?

Point No. 3 : What Order/Award?

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7593

ANNEXURE - I

Witnesses examined on behalf of II Party:

MW 1 - Chandrakanth Nayak, Enquiry Officer 7. On appreciation of the pleadings, evidence brought on record in the Domestic Enquiry and arguments put forward by the learned advocates appearing for both the sides my finding on Point Nos. 1 and 2 are in the Negative and Point No. 3 is as per the final order for the following.

Witnesses examined on behalf of I Party:

REASONS

Nil

Documents exhibited in the Domestic Enquiry on behalf

of management:

Ex M-1 : Complaint letter dated 30.12.1997 of

Sri Ponner

Ex M-2 : Ficticious Savings Pass Book issued to Sri Ponner bearing SB Account No. 2925

Ex M-3 : Ficticious Savings Bank Account opening form held in the name of Sri M Ponnar

Ex M-4 : SB Ledger Folio of SB Account No. 2925

Ex M-5 : Photostat copy of SB Account opening form and specimen signature card originally held in the name of Sri Cheluvamani V R at our Madikeri Branch

Ex M-6 : Letter dated 01.01.1998 received from

Sri S Lokesh Kumar

Ex M-7 : Complaint letter dated 30.12.1997 of Sri G

Kumar

Ex M-8 : Ficticious S B Pass Book issued to Sri G

Kumar bearing SB Account No. 2951

Ex M-9 : Ficticious SB Account opening form held in the name of Sri G Kumar bearing S B Accout No. 2951

Ex M-10 : SB ledger Folio of SB Account No. 2951

Ex M-11 : Photostat copy of the SB Account opening form and specimen signature card originally held in the name of Sri M M Kaleem Ahmed at Madikeri Branch 8. As already adverted to by me above the CSE/I Party on receipt of the charge sheet by way of his reply to the Disciplinary Authority conceded to the charges levelled against him qualifying it that it was due to his misunderstanding and even before the Enquiry Officer he confirmed his acceptance of the charges and submitted that he has no defence to make and during the enquiry on the Domestic Enquiry issue before this tribunal since he failed to demonstrate that the confession/ acceptance of charges by him was outcome of any persuasion or undue influence as claimed in the claim statement that issue came to be answered against him his claim that he had not accepted the charges voluntarily being not accepted there was no need for the Enquiry Officer to proceed to record the evidence of management witnesses and as the CSE/I Party consented to exhibit the documentary evidence he received them by exhibiting them as Ex M-1 to Ex M-34 and considering them he has given his finding charge being proved. The Enquiry Officer having regard to the plea of the acceptance of charges by the CSE/I Party and discussing the documentary evidence tendered by the management by his detailed finding held the charges as proved. The learned advocate appearing for the I Party failed to demonstrate how his finding could be termed as baseless or perverse. Under the circumstances, I have no reason to say or term the finding of the Enquiry Officer charge is proved as baseless or perverse. Since the charges against the I Party was of temporary misappropriation of the customers money collected by him in a banking institution continuing such person in service being dangerous the decision arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority by giving cogent reasons in his order proposing the punishment of Dismissal as well as in the order of dismissal passed by him cannot be said to be unreasonable or disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the I party. Under the circumstances, since I find no reason to set aside the enquiry finding or to term the punishment of dismissal as disproportionate; I proceed to pass the following

Ex M-12 : Cash Credit Challan bearing No. 10976 dated 29.12.1997 for Rs. 7500.00 for credit of suspense creditor account of M Ponner

ORDER

Ex M-13 : Cash Credit challan bearing No. 10977 dated 29.12.1997 for Rs. 2000.00 for credit of Suspense creditor account of Sri G Kumar

The Action of the management of Chikmagalur Kodagu Grameena Bank in dismissing the services of Sri S Lokesh Kumar w.e.f. 01.01.1999 is legal and justified and that he is not entitle for any relief.

Ex M-14 : Letter dated 30.12.1997 from Manager,

madikeri Branch

(Typed to my dictation by U D C, corrected and

signed by me on 17th November 2014)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

Ex M-15 : Copy of the folio Nos. 142, 143, 144 and 145 of Register of Cheques and drafts received for collection at Madikeri Branch7594 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ex M-16 : Copy of the Branch advice No. 726 dated 11.11.1997 for Rs. 1600.00 of Madikere Branch

Ex M-17 : Cash Credit Challan No. 249762 dated 11.11.1997 for Rs. 800.00 for credit of Head Office General Account, Boikeri Branch being the OBC 20/23/97.

Ex M-18 : Cash Credit Challan No. 249763 dated 11.11.1997 for Rs. 800.00 for credit of Head Office General Account, Boikeri Branch being the OBC 20/110/97.

Ex M-32 : Cash Credit Challan No. 190981 dated 03.03.1998 for credit of Suspense Creditors Accounts of Sri J Ravi, at Madikeri Branch

Ex M-33 : Letter written by Sri K P Aiyyanna, E-7, Clerk, Chikmagalur Kodagu Grameena Bank, Madikeri Branch

Ex M-34 : Letter written by Sri K P Aiyyanna, E-7, Clerk, Chikmagalur Kodagu Grameena Bank, Madikeri Branch.

Documents exhibited on behalf of the CSE in Domestic

Enquiry :

Ex M-19 : Copy of the cheque collection forwarding lettr of Boikeri Branch, dated 14.10.1997 alongwith copy of the Cheque bearing No. 019539/5/7/1997 for Rs. 800.00 of OBC 21:110:1997-98

Ex M-20 : Copy of Cheque collection forwarding letter of Boikeri Branch dated 03.11.1997 alongwith copy of the cheque bearing No. 01692:5:8:97 for Rs. 800.00 of OBC:21:123:1997-98

Ex M-21 : Letter dated 11.11.1997 of Sri C Lokesh

Kumar, Chiko Bank, Madikeri

Ex M-22 : Report dated 02.01.1997 of Sri D A Ramachandra Murthy, Officer, Inspection Department, Head Office, Chikmagalur.

Ex M-23 : Complaint letter dated 23.02.1998 of Sri J

Ravi

Ex M-24 : Ficticious SB Pass Book issued to Sri J

Ravi

Ex M-25 : Letter dated 28.02.1998 of the Manager,

Madikeri Branch

Ex M-26 : Letter dated 17.03.1998 of Sri S Lokesh

Kumar

Ex M-27 : Report dated 21.03.1998 of Sri D A Ramachandramurthy, Officer, Inspection Department, Head Office

Nil

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3115.—औद्‌योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आई एन जी वैश्य बैंक लि. के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, बैंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 01/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/156/2006-आई आर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014

S.O. 3115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/ 2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ING Vysya Bank Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-12012/156/2006-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

Ex M-28 : Photostat copy of the SB Ledger folio of Account No. 2849 originally held in the name of Smt. K G Parvathy at Madikeri Branch

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Ex M-29 : Photostat copy of SB Account opening form and SB specimen signature card of Account No. 2849

DATED : 10th November, 2014

PRESENT : Shri S N NAVALGUND,

Presiding Officer

C R No. 01/2007

Ex M-30 : Letter dated 20.03.1998 submitted by Sri D A Ramachandra Murthy, Officer, Inspection Department

I Party II Party

Ex M-31    :    Cash  Credit  Challan  No.  203210  dated  Shri  M A  Suryanarayana     The Vice President,
                20.02.1998 for credit of SB Account No.    Shastry,  S/o  M  S          ING Vysya Bank Limted,
                2849 in the name of Sri J Ravi at Madikeri Anatharama  Shastry,         22, M G Road,
                Branch                                     "Sree Rama Krupa",           BANGALORE - 560 001.

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7595

3/1, I Main Road, 4th Cross, Govindaraja Nagara, Vijaynagar Post, Bangalore - 560 040.

Appearances :

I Party : Shri V S Naik,

Advocate

II Party : Shri B C Prabhakar,

Advocate

remained absent from duty as mentioned by the I Party and was issued with charge sheet and enquiry was initiated against him and after affording fair and proper opportunity he was Dismissed from Service. Having regard to the certain allegations made by the I Party in his claim statement touching the Domestic Enquiry a Preliminary Issue was framed as to

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I

Party by the II Party is fair and proper?"

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/ 156/2006-IR(B-I) dated 07.12.2006 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of ING Vysya Bank Limited is justified in dismissing Shri M A Suryanarayana Shastry from service? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR 01/2007 when notices were issued to both the sides, they entered their appearance through their respective advocates and I party filed his claim statement on 07.05.2007 and II Party filed its counter statement on 09.09.2010.

3. The I Party in his claim statement asserts that he joined the services of the II Party on 03.05.1979 at K G Road Branch and in the year 1984 he was transferred to Hunsur Branch and later to Mysore Main Branch in the year 1993. He further asserts that management had issued him Articles of Charges dated 18/20.12.2001 and 25/ 26.02.2002 for his absenteeism from duty from 08.07.2001 to 07.09.2001 and 18.12.2001 to 01.02.2002 without prior permission or sanction of leave under 19.5(e) and 19.5(p) of Bipartite Settlement though he wanted to avail VRS as notified by the management during March 2002. He also states that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty for the said period due to ill-health of his wife and same was also stated in the Domestic Enquiry and requested to take lenient view in this regard and without considering them the II Party management Dismissed him from service on 07.09.2002 and then conciliation was initiated which ended in failure and later Government of India referred this reference for adjudication and as he is unemployed he be reinstated with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits with full back wages from the date of dismissal from service. INTER ALIA, the II Party in its counter statement without disputing the fact that I Party was appointed on 03.05.1979 states that though a lenient view was taken for his unauthorized absence from duty in the year 2001 by way of censure he again 4. On the above said Preliminary Issue while receiving the evidence of II Party and on a Memo being filed for the I Party conceding the fair of Domestic Enquiry, by order dated 05.07.2011 same being answered in the affirmative holding that the Domestic Enquiry was fair and proper the learned advocate appearing for the I Party on the points of victimization and being not gainfully employed while filing the affidavit of I Party examined him on oath as WW 1 (v) and in his cross-examination counsel for II Party by way of confrontation getting exhibited Show Cause Notice dated 14/15.12.2000 issued to the first party; Medical certificate dated 14.05.2001 given by the Bassappa memorial hospital certifying that the first party is fit to work; Memo dated 11.06.2001 issued by the second party bank calling upon the first party to give explanation for his unauthorised absence; the order dated 07.07.2001 of the second party bank regarding unauthorised absence of the first party; Article of charge dated 24/27.08.2001 issued to the first party and Order dated 29.10.2001 of the Disciplinary Authority as Ex M-20 to Ex M-25 respectively did not lead any rebuttal evidence and both sides learned advocates addressed their arguments.

5. It is borne out from the records that the Vice President who happens to be the Disciplinary Authority issued two charge sheets against the I Party one dated 18.12.2001 for unauthorised absence from 08.07.2001 to 07.09.2001 and another from 18.12.2001 to 01.02.2002 and as no explanation was offered except simply submitting leave applications stating that he could not attend due to some family problems initiating the Domestic Enquiry as he accepted the charges and requested to view leniently on the ground that he could not attend due to his wife's health condition and to accept the VRS application concluding the enquiry he held the charges being proved and after giving the opportunity of hearing imposed the punishment of Dismissal and on Appeal the Appellate Authority while giving cogent reasons upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority and dismissed the Appeal, then the I Party since approached the ALC(C), Bangalore and as the conciliation failed the ministry made this reference for adjudication.

6. On appreciation of the pleadings and material available on record in the light of the arguments put forward by the learned advocate appearing for both sides, I have arrived at conclusion the management being justified in dismissing the I Party for the following7596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, बैंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 04/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/182/2002-आई आर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014

S.O. 3116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.: 04/2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-12012/182/2002 - IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED          :    11th November, 2014
PRESENT        :    Shri S. N. NAVALGUND,
                    Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 04/2003

I Party II Party

Sh. K. Pandian, Organiser, The Assistant General State Bank of India Manager, Ambedkar Union, State Bank of India, State Bank of India, Regional Zonal Office, M. G. Road Branch, No. 48, Church Street, Bangalore - 560 001. Bangalore - 560 001.

Appearances :

7. There is no dispute the I Party having remained unauthorised absent for the period 08.07.2001 to 07.09.2001 and 18.12.2001 to 01.02.2002 covered under the two different charge sheets issued to him and it is borne out from the records that after service of the first charge sheet on 21.12.2001 he just gave an application to grant him privilege leave from 18.12.2001 to 10.01.2001 on the ground that due to some family problems he could not attend his duty and later on 15.01.2002 he sent another letter to extend leave upto 19.01.2002 without assigning any reasons. If at all he had any such family problems that reasonably prevented him to attend the duty he could have explained the same and if possible produce evidence to substantiate the same but both are absent in his application for leave and extension of leave dated 21.12.2001 and 15.01.2002. Even when he was summoned to face the Domestic Enquiry he did accept the charges and submitted that he regret for the unauthorised absence and to accept his VRS application on humanitarian grounds. During the course of arguments his learned advocate also submitted that after service of charge sheet the I Party having applied for VRS on 11.03.2002 instead of imposing such harsh punishment of Dismissal from Service his VRS ought to have been accepted and relieved him of the job. It is borne out from the admitted facts even earlier he had remained unauthorised absent and was 'censured', therefore, the contention/argument on behalf of the I Party that this time also taking lenient view he would have been permitted to go on voluntary retirement has no force. A person to seek Voluntary Retirement must have a clear record and when he had remained unauthorised absent of two spells spreading over 107 days who was even prior to this censured his claim that he would have been admonished of unauthorised absence and permitted to go out on voluntary retirement is unacceptable. Under the circumstances having found no reasonable excuse for the long unauthorised absence of the I Party the II Party did not commit any error in imposing the punishment of Dismissal. In the result, I pass the following

I Party : Shri Muralidhara

Advocate

ORDER

II Party : Shri J. Satish Kumar,

Advocate

AWARD

The Reference is Rejected holding that the action of the management of ING Vysya Bank Limited is justified in dismissing Shri M A Suryanarayana Shastry from service is legal and justified and he is entitle for any other relief.

(Typed to my dictation by U D C, corrected and

signed by me on 10th November 2014).

S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/ 182/2002-IR(B-I) dated 27.01.2003 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the following:

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2014

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of State Bank of India is justified by imposing the punishment of reduction का.आ. 3116.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7597 of two increments, on Shri V Sigamani, Armed Guard cum Messenger with effect from 10/01/2000 for the alleged misconduct? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference and registering it in C R 04/2003 when notices were issued to both the sides, they entered their appearance through their respective advocates and I Party filed his claim statement on 04.04.2003 and II Party filed its counter statement on 28.09.2004.

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under :

4. While Sh. V Sigamani, Armed Guard cum Messenger (hereinafter referred as I Party workman) with the II Party while serving at its Dooravaninagar Branch on 05.03.1999 was served with Charge Sheet as under

"It is alleged that while you were on armed guard duty, with a loaded gun, at our Kumara Park Branch, on 7.1.99 at about 3.30 p.m. you approached Sri K. Rajaram, (Armed Guard), who was also on Armed Guard duty with a loaded gun, with "Watchman Duty Allotment Register" and picked up an argument with him and questioned him as to who asked him to come for duty and who asked him to write the Register. Sri. Rajaram replied that he has been writing the Register as per the instructions of Dy. Manager (Cash), Sri H M Ravindra. Then both of you started walking to the cabin of Dy. Manager (Cash). While walking through the Banking Hall outside the counters, in a fit of anger, you reportedly abused Sri. Rajaram in Tamil: "Ungamma thevidia pillai, unga pondati seria arivu kathkuduthu illai" which roughly translates into English as "Your mother child of a prostitute, your wife did not teach you well". When Sri. Rajaram protested, you strongly punched in the stomach of Sri. Rajaram with your right fist, Shouting at each other, both entered the cabin of Dy. Manager (Cash). Then, you, in a high pitched of voice, questioned the Dy. Manager (Cash) that the allotment of duty was not proper and why Dy. Manager (Cash) was asking only Sri Rajaram to enter in the Register and why not yourself. After such argument, Dy. Manager (Cash) asked both of you to go to your respective positions. While going through the Banking Hall, near the Accountant's table, suddenly, you forcefully slapped Sri. Rajaram's left cheek with your right hand. That the above incidents occurred when both of you and Sri Rajaram were carrying loaded guns is all the more serious.

If proved, the above narrated incidents will be construed as gross misconduct vide para 521(4)(c) and (e) of Sastry Award, read in conjunction with para 18.28 of Desai Award and VI Bipartite Agreement.

You are called upon to submit your statement of defence within 7 days from the date of receipt of this chargesheet, failing which the Bank will take further action as it deems fit.

Please acknowledge receipt of this chargesheet on the duplicate hereof.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- Asst. General Manager, Region-I, Disciplinary Authority"

5. Since the I Party workman gave his reply stating that he deny the charges without any explanation to the alleged incident Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the same the Disciplinary Authority appointing Sh. N R Karunakaran as Enquiry Officer and Sh. A N Vasudevan as Presenting Officer ordered him to face disciplinary enquiry. The Enquiry Officer while securing the presence of the I Party workman after observing the formalities of preliminary hearing on the first date of the enquiry receiving the evidence of Sh. H M Ravindra, Dy. Manager (Cash), Smt. Indira Babu, Computer Operator, Sh. Sampath Raj, Record Keeper, Sh. Chandran, Armed Guard and Sh. Rajaram, Armed Guard as PW 1 to 5 and exhibiting Duty Register for Guards; letter sent to controlling authority regarding Police Complaint against Sri V Sigamani; letter forwarding the complaint letter lodged by Shri K Rajaram against Sri V Sigamani; Enclosure to PEx-3 complaint letter of Shri K Rajaram; letter forwarding complaint by M Krishnan & others; Complaint letter of Shri Krishnan & others (enclosed to PEX-5) and Acknowledgement from police for a complaint lodged by Shri K Rajaram as P-1 to P-7 respectively on submission of the Defence Representative that CSE/I Party workman has no evidence to present, after receiving the written briefs of the Presenting Officer and the Defence Representative submitted his finding to the effect that charge is proved excepting for the abusive words alleged to have been uttered by the CSE/I Party workman. Then the Disciplinary Authority while affording him an opportunity of hearing imposed the punishment of Stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect and on appeal to the Deputy General Manager he too after affording opportunity of hearing confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, ALC(C), Bangalore was moved for conciliation and on its failure this reference is made for adjudication.

6. The I Party in its claim statement attacked the action of the management contending that the Domestic Enquiry was not fair and proper, that the enquiry finding is perverse and the punishment imposed is also being disproportionate. INTERALIA, the II Party in its counter statement contended all fair and proper opportunities were provided to the CSE in the Domestic Enquiry and Enquiry Officer having regard to the entire evidence placed before him has rightly come to the conclusion the charge being proved excepting for the abusive words alleged to have been uttered by the CSE/I Party workman and as this misconduct on the part of the CSE/I Party workman who was on Armed Guard Duty was being highly of indiscipline who was to maintain peace and7598 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

discipline in the premises the punishment of reduction of two increments is just and proper.

7. Having regard to the assertion of the I Party touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry while framing a Preliminary Issue as to.

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party by the II Party is fair and proper?"

After receiving the evidence adduced by both sides and hearing arguments of both sides since answered in the affirmative i.e., the Domestic Enquiry held against the I party by the II Party is fair and proper by order dated 11.08.2011 and then counsel for I Party while filing the affidavit of I Party on the point of victimization examined him on oath as WW 1 (V) and II Party counsel rest contended by his cross-examination and did not lead any rebuttal evidence the arguments on merits were heard.

10. Though in the charge sheet the details of the occurrence alleged to have created by the I party was narrated in detail in his reply he just stated that he deny the charges levelled against him without explaining the circumstances under which the alleged incident occurred, whereas, during the cross-examination of the witnesses he tried to make out a case that there was some grievance by the I Party workman with regard to allotment of duty to him. On carefully going through the evidence given by PW 1 to PW 5 all of them except PW 2 have categorically stated as to the alleged high ended action of the I Party workman except the abusive words uttered by him in Tamil Language. Since the abusive shoutings alleged to have uttered by the I Party workman were in Tamil Language as rightly put it by the counsel for the II Party they were not able to reproduce the same while giving evidence before the Enquiry Officer as such I find no fault with the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding that the charge is proved excepting for the abusive words alleged to have been uttered by the CSE/I Party workman. Only because a part of the charge regarding verbal utterances of the I Party workman could not be reproduced by the witnesses their entire veracity cannot be rejected. If at all the I Party workman has some grievance with allotment of duty to him he could have resolved it by giving representation to the concerned but the way he adopted creating scene in the office premises and punching an official on the stomach is highly unbecoming of a Guard on Duty. Under the circumstances absolutely I find no reason to term the finding of the Enquiry Officer the charge is proved excepting for the abusive words alleged to have been uttered by the CSE/I Party workman. As far as the punishment imposed having regard to the proved misconduct on the part of the Guard on Duty the management is just and reasonable in imposing him the punishment of reduction of two increments, with effect from 10/01/2000. Since the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on the evidence placed before him and the punishment imposed is found just and reasonable, absolutely I find no victimization being played against the I party by the management. In the result, I arrived at conclusion of holding that the action of the management is justified. Accordingly, I pass the following.

ORDER

8. The learned advocate appearing for the I Party while taking me through the charge, evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and his finding that charge is proved excepting for the abusive words alleged to have been uttered by the CSE/I Party workman since suggest that the witnesses examined did not support the charge of shouting by the I Party workman in abusive language the other part of the charge also could not have been accepted and even otherwise the punishment imposed being excessive it has to be set aside with all consequential benefits. INTERALIA, the learned advocate appearing for the II Party vehemently urged that since the abusive shoutings by the I Party workman was in Tamil Language the witnesses who witnessed the incident and examined before the Enquiry Officer were since not acquainted with that language they could not reproduce the abusive shoutings made by him and having supported the other alleged actions of the I Party workman after shouting certain words in Tamil Language punching PW 5 Raja Ram on his stomach in the office premises creating an ugly scene the finding of the Enquiry Officer the charge is proved excepting for the abusive words alleged to have been uttered by the CSE/I Party workman cannot be termed as perverse and having regard to such unhappy incident created by the I party workman the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority is just and reasonable as such there is no need to interfere either in the finding of the Enquiry Officer or the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

The Reference is Rejected holding that the action of management of State Bank of India in imposing the punishment of reduction of two increments, on Shri V Sigamani, Armed Guard cum Messenger with effect from 10/01/2000 is legal and justified and he is not entitle for any relief.

(Typed by U D C to my dictation, corrected and

signed by me on 11th November 2014)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer 9. On appreciation of the pleadings, defence of the bare denial by the CSE in his reply to Charge sheet and the evidence of the witnesses given before the Enquiry Officer, I find no reason to interfere either in the finding of the Enquiry Officer or the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority upheld by the Appellate Authority for the following.

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7599

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3117.—औद्योगिक विवाद, अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत हेवी इलेक्ट्रिकल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 62/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/31/2013-आईआर (डीयू)] पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014

S.O. 3117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 62/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-42012/31/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/31/2013-IR(DU) dated 27.05.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the Management of BHEL, Trichy in removing Sri K. Balu from service w.e.f. 22.05.2012 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 62/2013 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3.The petitioner has raised the dispute claiming reinstatement in the service of BHEL at its Ranipet unit with all consequential benefits.

ANNEXURE

4. The petitioner had been removed from service by BHEL, Trichy unit after initiating action against him under Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of BHEL. The petitioner has contended that action taken against him under the above enactment is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has raised it as a preliminary point and I have entered a preliminary finding on this date to the effect upholding the contention of the petitioner.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 12th November, 2014

PRESENT : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 62/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and their workman)

5. Once it is found that the very proceedings initiated against the petitioner has no backing of law, that the same is illegal and without jurisdiction, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. Accordingly, BHEL is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service at Ranipet unit with all consequential benefits. Back wages payable to the petitioner is restricted to 50% and the same is payable within a month. In default of payment within the time, he is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 12th November, 2014).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

BETWEEN

Sri K. Balu : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Executive Director : 2nd Party/Respondent Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Trichirappalli-620014 Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. Balan Haridas,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondent : M/s. T.S. Gopalan &

Co., Advocates For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Ex. No. Date Description

Nil7600 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 'kqf)&i=

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

according the impugned order dismissal of the concerned workman is hereby set-a-side and he is directed to be re-instead with continuity of the service without back wages. I think it appropriate that delinquent workman be punished with stopagge of one increment without cumulative effect.

ORDER

dk-vk- 3118.—केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल (प. बंगाल) द्वारा पारित संदर्भ संख्या 88/2000, दिनांक 05.08.2014 का भारत सरकार द्वारा 12. 09.2014 को अधिसूचित किए गए पंचाट को उक्त अधिकरण से प्राप्त संदर्भ संख्या 88/आई. टी. सी. (2000), दिनांक 29. 10.2014 के शुद्धिपत्र के साथ संलग्न किया जाता है।

[सं. एल-22012/88/2000-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3118.—A reference No.88/ITC(2000) dated 29th October, 2014 received from CGIT, Asansol(WB) correcting the Award passed by the Tribunal on 05-08-2014 in Ref. No. 88/2000 wich was notified by the Government of India on 12-09-2014, is annexed herewith.

[No. L-22012/88/2000-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

'kqf)&i=

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3119.—केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल (प. बंगाल) द्वारा पारित संदर्भ संख्या 129/2005, दिनांक 02.07.2013 का भारत सरकार द्वारा 13.08.2013 को अधिसूचित किए गए पंचाट को उक्त अधिकरण से प्राप्त संदर्भ संख्या 129/आई. टी. सी. (2005), दिनांक 02.09.2014 के शुद्धिपत्र के साथ संलग्न किया जाता है।

ANNEXURE

[सं. एल-22012/40/2005-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANYAPUR, ASANSOL CORRIGENDUM

Ref. No. 88/ITC(2000)

Date : the 29th October, 2014

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

Ref: Ministry's order No. L-22012/88/2000-IR(CM-II)

This office Ref. No. 88/2000 (a copy of award

enclosed)

S.O. 3119.—A reference No.129/ITC(2005) dated 2nd September, 2014 received from CGIT, Asansol(WB) correcting the Award passed by the Tribunal on 02-07-2013 in Ref. No. 129/2005 wich was notified by the Government of India on 13-08-2013, is annexed herewith.

SCHEDULE

[No. L-22012/40/2005-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Ramchandra Mallah, U.G.L. from service is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

CORRIGENDUM

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Ref. No. 129/ITC(2005)

2nd para of Page No. 4 contain some typographical errors, just and proper typed as just improper, concerned becomes concern and set-a-side becomes sat aside which is now rectified.

Date : the 2nd September, 2014

Now the 2nd para of last page of the award will be

read as :—

Ref: Ministry's order No. L-22012/40/2005-IR(CM-II)

This office Ref. No. 129/2005 (a copy of award

enclosed)

SCHEDULE

However I am of the considered view, that the punishment of dismissal of an unauthorized absence is harsh punishment, which is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. In this view of matter I think it just and proper to modify and substitute the punishment exercising the law u/s. 11(a) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and "Whether the action of the management of B.M.P. Group of Mines of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Dilip Bouri, Rail Mazdoor from services w.e.f. 27-12-97 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7601

CORRIGENDUM

In Line No. 2 of Page No. 3 the name of the workman may be read as "Dilip Bouri" instead of "Lala Bouri"

Employers in relation to the Management of Central Institute For Research on Cotton Technology

(Indian Council of Agricultural Research)

Now the last page of the award will be read as :—

Accordingly the Order of dismissal is hereby se-a- side. The management is directed to allow the workman Dilip Bouri to join in the service with 75 percentage of back wages within three months from the date of Notification.

The Director Central Institute for Research on Cotton Technology (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) Adenwala Road, Matunga Mumbai-400 019.

AND

ORDER

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

THEIR WORKMAN

Shri Girish M. Shinde 107, SL-4, Kalpatary Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Gawan Pada V.B. Phadeke Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai 400 081.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. Suresh Kumar,

Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. M. B. Anchan,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 7th October, 2014

AWARD

dk-vk- 3120.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कपास प्रौद्योगिकी पर अनुसंधान के लिए सेंट्रल इंस्टीट्‌यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/25 ऑफ 2011) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-12-2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/302/2010-आईआर(डीयू)]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3120.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. CGIT- 2/25 of 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2 Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Central Institute for Research on Cotton Technology and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01/12/2014.

[No. L-42012/302/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-42012 / 302 /2010-IR (DU), dated 11.05.2011 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 Director-in-charge, Central Institute for Research on Cotton Technology, Mumbai in terminating the service of Shri Girish M. Shinde, Office Assistant w.e.f. 6/8/2010 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer 2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both parties. In response to the notice, second party workman appeared before this Tribunal and filed his statement of claim at Ex-6. According to the workman as per the advertisement of the first party in Times of India and daily Lokmat, dated 5/1/2009 he applied for the post of Office Assistant. After the interview he was selected and appointed by the management of first party w.e.f. 27/01/2009 only monthly pay of Rs.8000/- p.m. for the project called Zonal Technology Manager and BPD Unit under NAIP functioning at CIRCOT Matunga, Mumbai. Since then the workman was working honestly and sincerely. The project was to continue till 30/6/2012 and REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/25 of 20117602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

Issue No. 1 :

subsequently it was extended till 2014. The workman had worked continuously for more than 240 days. His work was satisfactory. All of a sudden the management terminated his services w.e.f. 6/8/2010. Neither he was served with show cause notice nor with any charge sheet. The management terminated his services illegally and without assigning any reason. Since then the workman is unemployed and suffered great hardship. Therefore workman has raised the dispute before ALC (C). As conciliation failed, on the report of ALC (C), the Central Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal. The workman prays that the action of management terminating his service be declared illegal and not justified and he be reinstated in the service with full back wages and continuity of service.

3. The first party management resisted the statement of claim vide their written statement Ex-8. According to them the reference is not maintainable. The second party workman was engaged only for the project purpose and his engagement was purely contractual. Therefore termination of his service was as per the terms of the engagement. He was engaged for the period 24/01/2009 to 31/07/2009. His discontinuation was in accordance with the letter of appointment. They denied that the project was extended upto 30/6/2014. They denied all the contents in the statement of claim. According to them after discontinuation of service, one Mrs. Pradhnya Sawant was engaged therein the only vacancy. She is working in place of the workman. Therefore she is necessary party to this reference. According to them the provisions of Section 25 F of I.D. Act of 1947 is not applicable to the persons engaged in the project as it is for a specific period. There is also no concept of deemed continuation in such service. The allegations made in the statement of claim are false. The workman could have applied again for the said post. However he did not apply. The claim of the workman is devoid of merit. Therefore they pray that the reference be rejected.

4. Workman filed his rejoinder at Ex-9. He denied the contents in the written statement and reiterated the points in his statement of claim.

5. Following are the issues for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

Findings Sr. Issues No.

1. Whether the action of first party in No

terminating the services of the second party is legal and proper?

2. If not, whether the second No

party is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages?

3. What relief the workman is Compensation entitled to? of Rs. 96,000 6. In this respect the fact is not disputed that workman was appointed by first party on their project as Office Assistant w.e.f. 27/01/2009 on monthly salary of Rs.8000/-. The fact is also not disputed that the services of the workman were terminated on 6/8/2010. The letter of appointment is at Ex-13 and office order terminating the services of workman is at Ex-14. In this case fact is also not disputed that the termination of services is not for any misconduct of misbehavior or wrong on the part of the workman.Therefore question of issuing any show- cause notice or serving any charge-sheet does not arise. According to the first party his appointment was for a specific period upto 31/7/2009. Therefore they discontinued his service since 6/8/2010. In this respect I would like to point out that the workman has worked continuously for 240 days. His services were not discontinued on 31/7/2009. On the other hand he worked for more than a year thereafter. In this back drop it cannot be said that his service was for a fixed period till 31/7/2009. He was allowed to continue till 6/8/2010. As he has worked for more than 240 days he was well entitled to the protection under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The fact is also not disputed that the first party has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F. Neither workman was served with notice nor notice pay and one month's wages and retrenchment compensation was paid to him.

7. In this respect M.P. High Court ruling can be resorted to in M.P. Road Transport Corporation Indore V/s. Anil 2009 (122) FLR 369 MP Indore Bench wherein a badli employee who has rendered continuous service of more than 240 days during a calendar year before termination, the Hon'ble Court held that, even such employee is entitled to the protection under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and termination of his service without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F is illegal.

8. On the point Apex Court ruling also can be resorted to in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited V/s. A.Sankaralingam, (2008) 10 SCC 698, the Apex Court has considered the question of part- time employment and held that the person employed on part-time basis under the control and supervision of an employer is a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 and is entitled to claim the protection of Section 25-F thereof. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that a workman working even on part-time basis would be entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act.In the circumstances, I hold that termination or discontinuation of services of the workman is not legal. Accordingly I decide this issue No.1 in the negative.

Issue Nos. 2 & 3 :

9. The termination of services of the second party was found illegal. In this respect it was pointed out by[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7603 the Id. Adv. for the first party that after discontinuation of services of the second party, the said post was filled up by appointing Smt. Pradhnya Sawant. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the said workman Smt. Sawant is necessary party to this reference. According to the first party now there is no vacancy for reinstatement. Furthermore it was also pointed out that the second party workman was appointed for a fixed period and thereafter another fixed term workman was appointed. In this respect I would like to point out that if termination is illegal due to violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, and when there is no vacancy in the circumstances instead of reinstatement compensation can be awarded to the workman. On the point Apex Court ruling can be resorted to in U.P. State Electricity Board V/s. Laxmikant Gupta 2009 I LLJ 593 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court on the point observed that;

"There is no such principle that for an illegal termination of service, the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages, instead the Labour Court can award compensation."

सुरक्षा परिषद्‌ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/55 ऑफ 2010) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/54/2010-आईआर(डीयू)]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/55 of 2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the National Safety Council and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01/12/2014.

[No. L-42012/54/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/55 of 2010

10. In this backdrop I think it proper, instead of reinstatement, compensation can be awarded to the workman. While determining the compensation I would like to take into consideration the following facts; (1) workman was not paid notice pay. (2) He was also not paid wages of one month and (3) They have also not paid retrenchment compensation to the workman. The workman till this date is unemployed and was required to fight this legal battle since last 3 - 4 years. The pay of the workman was Rs. 8000/- p.m. In the circumstances looking into the rate of inflation I think it proper to award pay of one year as compensation. It comes to Rs.96,000/-. Accordingly I decide this issue no.2 in the negative and issue no.3 in the affirmative that workman is entitled to the adequate compensation for his illegal termination. Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

ORDER

(1) The reference is partly allowed with no order as

to cost.

(2) The termination of services of workman is hereby

declared illegal.

(3) Instead of reinstatement and back-wages, the first party is directed to pay one years' pay (i.e. Rs.96,000/-) to the workman as compensation within two months from the date of communication of this award.

Date : 07/10/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

The Director National Safety Council Plot No.98-A, Institution Area Sector-15, CBD Belapur PO Konkan Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400 614.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Shri Darshan Pandurang Sakpal At Post Pangari Taluka Dapoli Ratnagiri-415 711

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. M. I. Ali, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 20th October, 2014

AWARD PART-II

dk-vk- 3121.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार राष्ट्रीय The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L-42012/54/2010-IR (DU),7604 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dated 31.05.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. National Safety Council in terminating the services of Shri Darshan Pandurang Sakpal w.e.f. 22/08/2005 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The workman herein was charge-sheeted for abusing his senior official under influence of liquor. The Inquiry officer conducted the inquiry and found the charge-sheeted employee guilty of misconduct. On his report the disciplinary authority has terminated the services of the workman. His appeal was also dismissed. The workman raised industrial dispute. As conciliation failed, on report of ALC (C) the Central Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal.

3. In Award Part-I the inquiry was found fair and proper and the findings of the Inquiry Officer were also declared as not perverse. Notices were issued to both the parties to lead their evidence or submit their arguments on the point, as to whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct? Both the parties have filed their respective arguments at Ex-39 & Ex-41.

4. In this Part-II award following are the issues for my determination.I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:-

Sl. Issues Findings No.

3. Whether the punishment of

termination of services of the workman is shockingly dispro- portionate to the proved Yes. misconduct?

4. What order? As per order

below.

CLR 1074 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point of discipline at work place observed that;

"Discipline at the work place in an organization like the employer herein is the sine qua non for the efficient working of the organization. When an employee breaches such a discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to take the view that punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. Obedience to the authority in the work place is not slavery."

6. In this respect the Id. Adv. for the second party has pointed out that, in the above cited case incident had taken place when the workman therein was on duty in drunken condition and had not only abused but also assaulted his superior and inflicted injury with screw driver. Whereas in the case at hand incident had taken place on holiday and workman was not given overtime. On the other he was called from his home for cutting some trees. Neither he was on duty when found under the influence of liquor nor had assaulted anybody or his superior as in the case cited herein above. Therefore the ratio laid down therein is not applicable to the case at hand.

7. The Ld. Adv. for the first party further submitted that Section 11 of the Act does not confer any arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal to interfere in the punishment. He further submitted that the Industrial Tribunal can interfere therein under Section 11 only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the decree of guilt of the workman. The ratio to that effect is laid down by Apex Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals V/s. M. Chandrashekhar Reddy &Ors. 2005 I CLR 959(SC) wherein Labour Court has reduced the punishment without giving findings that there was no loss of confidence or the quantum of punishment is shockingly disproportionate. In the circumstances the Hon'ble Court in that case observed that;

REASONS

Issue No. 3

5. In the case at hand the workman was charge- sheeted for abusing his coworkers in drunken condition. In Part-I award the inquiry was fair and proper and findings of the Inquiry Officer are held not perverse. On the point of punishment, the ld. adv. for the first party has submitted that the discipline in the organization is an important factor and as the workman has abused his senior colleagues including the Administrative Officer the said misconduct deserves major punishment like termination. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board V/s. Jagdish Chandra Sharma 2005 I "Labour Court wrongly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to alter or reduce the punishment in view of the findings recorded by it that the domestic inquiry was fair and good, that misconduct was held proved and that management has lost confidence in the respondent."

8. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the first party further submitted that punishment of dismissal for using abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate. Ratio to that effect is laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. V/.s N.B. Nalawade 2005 I CLR 803. In that case workman therein was dismissed from service as he was held guilty for misconduct for using abusive and filthy language against his superior in presence of sub-ordinates not only once but twice. Labour Court held that punishment was harsh and directed[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7605 reinstatement with 2/3rd back-wages. Writ Petition of employer was dismissed by High Court. The matter was taken before Hon'ble Apex Court. While allowing the appeal and restoring the order of dismissal Hon'ble Apex Court observed that :

"It is held that language used by respondent workman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilized society and the use of such abusive language against a superior officer in the presence of sub-ordinate cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in the absence of extenuating factors."

9. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that disorderly behavior under the influence of liquor at the workplace is treated to be a major misconduct for which punishment of termination of services can be imposed and no leniency can be shown to such employee. In support of his argument the ld. adv. resorted to Bombay High Court ruling in Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital V/s. Shankar Ramchandra Mali 1003 I LLJ 785.The workman therein was found drunk while on duty. The Labour Court has shown leniency. On the point in para 6 of the judgement Hon'ble High Court observed that :

"Past record of the workman as disclosed is too bad to deal with him leniently. He was repeatedly warned for disorderly behavior under the influence of liquor. On one occasion he was suspended for two days."

10. The Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that the workman herein was also found under influence of liquor earlier and was given oral warning. In-spite of that there was no improvement in the behavior of the workman. Therefore the punishment of dismissal cannot be said shockingly disproportionate.

penalty unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shocks the consciousness of the High Court/Tribunal."

13. In this respect I would like to point out that, the incident in the case at hand had taken place on holiday when the workman was called for some work. He was also not called for any overtime work. The workman was not on duty when the alleged incident had taken place.It was also not in presence of number of other employees. The fact is not disputed that, on holiday, the workman was called from his residence for some work. Neither he had gone there at his own nor was on duty. From the evidence on record it is clear that the workman who had drunk at his residence seems to have been called by the co-workers and it seems that, in the state of drunken condition the workman seems to have abused the co- worker when they were not on duty.

14. In the circumstances in the case at hand, the question of discipline at work place or mischief while on duty does not arise, as it was in the cases referred herein above. Therefore I come to the conclusion that the punishment of termination of services of the workman which is the source of livelihood of the workman and his family is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved mischief. He was not found drunk during working hours or when he was on duty. It is an important factor required to be taken in to account while awarding the punishment. In this respect, submission of the Ld. Adv. of the first party is also required to be given due consideration that, the management has lost confidence in the workman. In this backdrop to meet the end of justice, I think it proper to replace the punishment of termination of services by compulsory retirement so that workman will be no more in the service of the management and would also get the pension and other retirement benefits as per the rules. Accordingly I decide this issue no.3 in the affirmative and think it proper to modify the punishment of termination of services of the workman by compulsory retirement with all retirement benefits as per the rules. Thus the order:

ORDER

11. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that there is no evidence about any such past incidence. He further pointed out that, in the cases cited herein above the workmen therein had abused their superior officers under influence of liquor at the work place while on duty. However the facts in the case at hand are different. Workman herein was not on duty when the alleged incident had taken place. Admittedly it was holiday and workman was not on duty. Furthermore the abuses or filthy word are also not on record as it was pointed out in one of the above cited cases. Therefore ratio in the above referred cases not applicable to the case at hand.

12. On the point Ld. Adv. for the first party also resorted to another Apex Court ruling in B.C. Chaturvedi V/s. Union of India 1996 I CLR 389 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that :

"The High Court/Tribunal while exercising power of judicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other (i) The reference is partly allowed with no order as

to cost.

(ii) The punishment of termination of services of the workman is replaced by Compulsory retirement with all pensionary and retirement benefits as per the rules.

Date: 20/10/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3122.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कपास प्रौद्योगिकी पर अनुसंधान के लिए सेंट्रल इंस्टीट्‌यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र7606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. M. B. Anchan,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 7th October, 2014.

AWARD

के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/29 ऑफ 2011) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/301/2010-आईआर(डीयू)]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I. D No. Ref No. CGIT-2/29 of 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Central Institute for Research on Cotton Technology and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01/12/2014.

[No. L-42012/301/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L-42012 / 301 /2010-IR (DU), dated 23.05.2011 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 Director-in-charge, Central Institute for Research on Cotton Technology, Mumbai in terminating the service of Smt. Madhuri G. Shinde, Office Assistant w.e.f. 6/8/2010 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/29 of 2011

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON COTTON TECHNOLOGY

(Indian Council of Agricultural Research)

The Director Central Institute for Research on Cotton Technology (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) Adenwala Road, Matunga Mumbai-400 019.

AND

Their Workman

Smt. Madhuri Girish Shinde 107, SL-4, Kalpatary Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Gawan Pada V.B. Phadeke Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai-400 081

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both parties. In response to the notice, second party workman appeared before this Tribunal and filed his statement of claim at Ex-6. According to the workman as per the advertisement of the first party in Times of India and daily Lokmat, dated 20/4/2009 she applied for the post of Office Assistant. After the interview she was selected and appointed by the management of first party w.e.f. 20/04/2009 only monthly pay of Rs. 8000/- p.m. for the project called Value Chain for Cotton Fibre under NAIP functioning at CIRCOT Matunga, Mumbai. Since then the workman was working honestly and sincerely. The project was to continue till 30/6/2012 and subsequently it was extended till 2014. The workman had worked continuously for more than 240 days. Her work was satisfactory. All of a sudden the management terminated his services w.e.f. 6/8/2010. Neither she was served with show cause notice nor with any charge sheet. The management terminated his services illegally and without assigning any reason. Since then the workman is unemployed and suffered great hardship. Therefore workman has raised the dispute before ALC (C). As conciliation failed, on the report of ALC (C), the Central Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal. The workman prays that the action of management terminating his service be declared illegal and not justified and she be reinstated in the service with full backwages and continuity of service.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. Suresh Kumar,

Advocate

3. The first party management resisted the statement of claim vide their written statement Ex-8. According to them the reference is not maintainable. The second party workman was engaged only for the project purpose and her engagement was purely contractual. Therefore termination of her service was as per the terms of the engagement. She was engaged for the period 30/10/2009. Her discontinuation was in accordance with the letter of appointment. They denied that the project was extended upto 30/6/2014. They denied all the contents in the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7607 statement of claim. According to them after discontinuation of service, another workman was engaged and there is only one vacancy. Therefore the said workman is necessary party to this reference. According to them the provisions of Section 25 F of I.D. Act of 1947 is not applicable to the persons engaged in the project as it is for a specific period. There is also no concept of deemed continuation in such service. The allegations made in the statement of claim are false. The workman could have applied again for the said post. However she did not apply. The claim of the workman is devoid of merit. Therefore they pray that the reference be rejected.

4. Workman filed his rejoinder at Ex-9. She denied the contents in the written statement and reiterated the points in his statement of claim.

5. Following are the issues for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

Sr. Issues Findings No.

1. Whether the action of first party in terminating the services of the second party is legal and proper? No

2. If not, whether the second

party is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages? No

3. What relief the workman is Compensation entitled to? of Rs. 96,000 Neither workman was served with notice nor notice pay and one month's wages and retrenchment compensation was paid to her.

8. On the point Apex Court ruling also can be resorted to in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited V/s. A.Sankaralingam, (2008) 10 SCC 698, the Apex Court has considered the question of part- time employment and held that the person employed on part-time basis under the control and supervision of an employer is a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 and is entitled to claim the protection of Section 25-F thereof. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that a workman working even on part-time basis would be entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act. In the circumstances, I hold that termination or discontinuation of services of the workman is not legal. Accordingly I decide this Issue No.1 in the negative.

Issue Nos. 2 & 3 :

REASONS

Issue No.1 :-

6. In this respect the fact is not disputed that workman was appointed by first party on their project as Office Assistant w.e.f. 20/04/2009 on monthly salary of Rs. 8000/-. The fact is also not disputed that the services of the workman were terminated on 6/8/2010. The letter of appointment is at Ex-13 and office order terminating the services of workman is at Ex-14. In this case fact is also not disputed that the termination of services is not for any misconduct of misbehavior or wrong on the part of the workman. Therefore question of issuing any show- cause notice or serving any charge-sheet does not arise. According to the first party her appointment was for a specific period upto 30/09/2009. Therefore they discontinued her service since 6/8/2010. In this respect I would like to point out that the workman has worked continuously for 240 days. Her services were not discontinued on 30/9/2009. On the other hand she worked for more than a year thereafter. In this back drop it cannot be said that her service was for a fixed period till 31/7/2009. She was allowed to continue till 6/8/2010. As she has worked for more than 240 days she was well entitled to the protection under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The fact is also not disputed that the first party has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 25 F. 9. The termination of services of the second party was found illegal. In this respect it was pointed out by the Ld. Adv. for the first party that after discontinuation of services of the second party, the said post was filled up by appointing Smt. Pradhnya Sawant. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the said workman Smt. Sawant is necessary party to this reference. According to the first party now there is no vacancy for reinstatement. Furthermore it was also pointed out that the second party workman was appointed for a fixed period and thereafter another fixed term workman was appointed. In this respect I would like to point out that if termination is illegal due to violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, and when there is no vacancy in the circumstances instead of reinstatement compensation can be awarded to the workman. On the point Apex Court ruling can be resorted to in U.P. State Electricity Board V/s. Laxmikant Gupta 2009 I LLJ 593 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court on the point observed that:

"There is no such principle that for an illegal termination of service, the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages, instead the Labour Court can award compensation."

7608 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Presiding Officer

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 26/2007

Date of Passing Award - 7th day of November, 2014

Between:

(1) workman was not paid notice pay; (2) She was also not paid wages of one month; and (3) They have also not paid retrenchment compensation to the workman. The workman till this date is unemployed and was required to fight this legal battle since last 3-4 years. The pay of the workman was Rs. 8000/- p.m. In the circumstances looking into the rate of inflation I think it proper to award pay of one year as compensation. It comes to Rs. 96,000/-. Accordingly I decide this Issue No. 2 in the negative and Issue No.3 in the affirmative that workman is entitled to the adequate compensation for her illegal termination. Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

1. The Asstt. Commissioner,

ORDER

(1) The reference is partly allowed with no order as

to cost.

(2) The termination of services of workman is hereby

declared illegal.

(3) Instead of reinstatement and back-wages, the first party is directed to pay one years' pay (i.e. Rs. 96,000/-) to the workman as compensation within two months from the date of communication of this award.

Date : 07/10/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

Kendriya Vidyalan Sangathan, Regional Office, Pragati Vihar Colony, PO-Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar-751 017, Odisha

2. The Principal,

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, PO-Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar-751 017, Odisha …1st Party-Management

3. The Managing Director,

M/s. Industrial Security Agency, Prachi Vihar, Palasuni, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010, Odisha

(And)

Shri Khageswar Singh, C/o-Shri Balaram Singh, At-Sialimala, PO-Sunger, Rayagada, Odisha …2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

dk-vk- 3123.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय विद्याालय संगठन और दूसरों के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 26/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/37/2007-आईआर(डीयू)]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014 1. Shri D. Purohit : For the 1st Party-

Principal (Kendriya Management No. 1 & 2 Vidyalaya No. 3)

2. For the 1st Party- : None

Management No. 3

3. For the 2nd Party- : Shri Khageswar Singh

Workman (self)

AWARD

S.O. 3123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I. D. No. 26/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27/11/2014.

[No. L-42012/37/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No.3, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, the Managing Director, M/s. Industrial Secutiry Agency, Bhubaneswar and their workman Shri Khageswar Singh in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide their Letter[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7609 No. L-42012/37/2007-IR (DU), dated 21.08.2007 to this Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute as referred to has been mentioned under the schedule of the letter of reference which is quoted below.

"Whether the action of the Management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of their workman Shri Khageswar Singh w.e.f. 28.04.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The disputant workman has filed his Statement of Claim in which he has stated that he was engaged by the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar with effect from 16.05.2002 and performing his duies as a Casual Worker for various posts meant for the Group 'D' employees since then. He was being paid an amount of Rs. 700/- per month for the duties performed by him and the remuneration was increased to Rs. 1350/- per month owing to his good performance. The monthly remuneration was being paid to him by the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, Bhubaneswar in the shape of cheque drawn from the account of Vidyalaya Vikash Nidhi maintained in the Indian Overseas Bank, Chandrasekharpur Branch, Bhubaneswar which is credited to his Savings Bank Account bearing Account No. 14110 of the same bank. He was provided with a Government Accommodation in the vidyalaya campus as he was working under the direct control of the vidyalaya management. The monthly remuneration of the workman was suddenly stopped with effect from 22.09.2004 and he was advised by Management No. 2 to draw his salary from a contractor. Upon aggrieved with this he approached the Principal as well as the Asstt. Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. On failure to get any relief he raised the matter before the Assistant Lablour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar for the redressal of his grievances.

During conciliation on 20.12.2004, a settlement in Form-H under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was executed between the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3 (Management No. 2) and the workman Shri Khageswar Singh in the presence of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. The management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3 had to regularize the services of Shri Singh while filling up the vacant posts of Group'D' as per the terms of settlement. But, the management breached the settlement and did not give regular appointment to him against the vacancy of regular Group 'D' posts and engaged some other candidates with a malafide intention.

The workman also pleaded that he has worked for more than 240 days in each year of his service with effect from 16.05.2002 till the illegal termination of his services by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Management on 28.04.2006. The mamangement of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3 had assured him of regular appointment as per the settlement workedout on 20.12.2004 between them. He has filed Photostat copies of certain documents in support of his claim. He has claimed his reinstatement with full back wages.

The 1st Party Management on the other hand has filed his Written Statement and stated that the 2nd party workman was receiving his wages from M/s. Industrial Security Agency (Management No.3). There was no employer and employee relationship between the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and their workman Shri Khageswar Singh. The job of Shri Singh came to an end with the expiry of the contract on 15.04.2006 with M/s. Industrial Security Agency. A new contractor M/s Wellmen Services, Bhubaneswar has been provided with the contract with effect from 15.04.2006. Shri Khageswar Singh was not given engagement by the new contractor and the Kendriya Vidyalaya Management did not compel M/s. Wellmen Services to engage Shri Singh as per the settlement.

The Kendriya Vidyalaya Management further stated that there was no vacancy of Group 'D' under the management. They have also raised certain allegations against Shri Singh for his not being sincere and well behaved. Since, there was no employer - employee relationship between the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Shri Khageswar Singh, the termination of services of Shri Singh with effect from 28.04.2006 by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Management does not arise Accordingly, he is not entitled for any relief.

The Management No. 3, M/s. Industrial Security Agency has stated in it's written statement that the workman Shri Khageswar Singh was initially engaged by the Management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3 as a Conservency employee. The vidyalaya management wrote M/s. Industrial Security Agency to keep Shri Khageswar Singh, the 2nd party workman in their (M/s. Industrial Security Agency) pay roll and to make monthly payments to Shri Singh on pro-rata basis with effect from 01.10.2004. Being dissatisfied with this, Shri Singh approached the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3 as well as the Asstt. Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bhubaneswar on many occasions. Being aggrieved by the Management No. 1 and 2, the disputant workman raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar on 07.12.2004 and the matter was ended on 20.12.2004 after a tripartite memorandum of settlement arrieved at between the parties under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The 1st Party Management No. 3 has paid all the dues of Shri Singh till 15.04.2006, that is till the contract period existed with the vidyalaya management. After that, Shri Singh has no relationship/responsibility with M/s. Industrial Security Agency as per Clause -I of the memorandum of settlement. In view of the above, the Management No. 3 (Contractor) prayed for exempting him from the dispute.

7610 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No. 2

On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed.

(1) "Whether the reference is maintainable?

(2) Whether the disputant Shri Khageswar Singh was engaged by the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, Bhubaneswar (Management No. 2) and if so, whether the said disputant was terminated from service without adhering to the principles of Natural Justice and in vioplation of the provisions of the ID Act?

(3) If so, to what relief the disputant is entitled

to?

The case was proceeded ex-parte against the 1st party Management No. 3 (Contractor) on 03.06.2008. Though the Management No. 3 was appeared subsequently on many dates, yet it did not take any step to set aside the exparte order passed against him.

The 2nd party workman has adduced his evidence as workman witness No. 1 and subsequently cross examined by the Management No. 1 and 2. Since the management No. 3 was absent, his cross examination is recorded as nil. The 2nd party workman has marked certain documents as exhibits from Ext. 1 to Ext. 9.

The 1st Party Management No.1 & 2 have adduced the evidence of Smt. Biraja Mishra, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3 as Management No. 1 & 2 witness No. 1 and the same remained un-completed. Certain documents filed by the Management No. 1 & 2 have been marked as exhibits from Ext. A to Ext. C/2.

No evidence was adduced on behalf of the 1st

Party Management No. 3 (contractor).

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

The 2nd Party Workman Shri Khageswar Singh in his evidence stated that he was engaged by the Management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, Bhubaneswar and discharges his duties at par with other Group 'D' employees continiously with effect from 22.01.2003 till 21.09.2004 and on 22.09.2004 Principal of the above vidyalaya advised him to draw his salary from M/s. Industrial Security Agency (Contractor) as pleaded by him in his statement of claim and the evidence adduced. The Management No. 3 M/s. Industrial Security Agency also in his written statement stated that Shri Khageswar Singh was in the roll of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3 prior to his engagement in the agency on 01.10.2004. But, no where the Management No. 1 & 2 have stated or whispered any thing about the period of engagement of Shri Singh during 2002 to 21.09.2004. Moreover, the management No. 2 (Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3) has worked out the settlement in Form - H under the ID Act, 1947. As per the terms of the settlement the management No. 2 will continue Shri Khageswar Singh in his previous job as before through any agency/contractor contracted between the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3 and will continue even if a new contract is awarded to a different contractor. It was also settled that Shri Singh would discharge his duty with all sincerity and obey the controlling authority (management of Kendriya Vidyaklaya No. 3) failing which disciplinary action would be inbitiated against Shri Singh as per the rules. It was also further settled that in the case of any future regular vacancy in the Kendriya Vidyalayas under the control of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bhubaneswar, the case of Shri Singh would be given priority alongwith age relaxation as he was rendering services to the organization (Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3) since long.. Exhibit No. 1 (Terms of Settlement), Exhibit No. 3 Series (Copies of peon books), Exhibit No. 4 series (copies of school attendance register), Exhibit No. 5 (copy of school garden maintenance register), Exhibit No. 6 (copy of sports certificate issued by the school to Shri Singh), Exhibit No. 7 (copy of the duty chart of Shri Singh in the school), Exhibit No. 8 (copy of the examination duty card issued to Shri Singh for school examination) all filed by the disputant workman Shri Khageswar Singh and Exhibits B & B/1 to B/16 as filed by the Management No. 2 clearly shows that Shri Khageswar Singh was working under the direct control of the School management. Exhibits B, B/1 to B/ 16 also speaks about direct payment of wages by the school management to Shri Singh.

The 1st Party Management No. 1 & 2 challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal through their additional written statement on the issue of maintainability of the reference. There is no record in the order sheet about filing of such additional written statement. It also appears that, the 2nd party workman was not given any chance to file his counter if any against the additional written statement of the Management No. 1 & 2. A copy of the same has not been served on the 2nd party workman which is violative of the principles of Natural Justice. As per the additional written statement an award was passed on 25.05.2010 advising there with the 2nd party workman to raise the matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal to redress his grievances. But, the same was subsequently set-aside by the Hon'ble Odisha High Court in W.P. (C) No. 18042 of 2010 with the remarks that the 2nd party workman is justified in raising the matter before the conciliation authority which resulted in the reference of the matter to the CGIT. Hence the reference is maiantainable as this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. Thus, issue No. 1 is answered in favour of the 2nd Party Workman.

In the case of [ (1994) 5 SCC304 = JT1004 (4) SC 151 = (1994) 2 Scale 910] R.K. PANDA VS.STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA the Hon'ble apex court held that where the contractors used to be changed, but the incoming contractors employ the workers of the outgoing contractors, in such event inspsite of the replacement and change of the contractors, the workers should be[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7611 absorbed by the principal employer as their regular employees.

In the case of [AIR 2003 SC 3024 = (2003) 6 SCC 528 = JT 2003 (6) SC 14] M/S. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED VS.STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS the Hon'ble apex court observed that workmen engaged even through contractors to produce goods or services for other/principal employer , they are employees of the principal employer.

Further in the case of [AIR 1978 SC 1410 = (1978) 4 SCC 257 = 1978 (3)SCR 1073] HUSSAINBHAI VS. ALATH FACTORYTEZHILALI UNION AND OTHERS the Hon'ble apex court have ordered that " where a worker or group of workers, labour to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is in fact the employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill and continued employment.

In view of the above remarks, it is ascertained that the workman Shri Singh was engaged by the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3 and was working under their direct control.

Bhubaneswar) should reinstate the disputant workman Shri Khageswar Singh in their regular pay roll or in the regular pay roll of other Kendriya Vidyalayas in Odisha region as per the terms of settlement and pay him his full back wages within a period of three months from the date of publication of this award in the Gazette of India failing which the Management No.2 shall pay the penal interest @ 12 percentum per annum in cumulative interest. No order as to cost.

The reference is answered accordingly in favour of

Shri Khageswar Singh, the 2nd party workman.

Dictated and corrected by me.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3124.—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/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 58 का 2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/115/2007-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/ 2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/115/2007-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1), DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act., 1974

Ref. No. 58 of 2007

The Management No. 2 (Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3) did not take any step for the engagement of Shri Singh after 28.04.2006 as per the terms of settlement dated 20.12.2004. The office order dated 06.02.2006 issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bhubaneswar region clearly shows that there were Group 'D' vacancies in Odisha region schools during 2006 and as per the terms of settlement the school management should have considered the case of Shri Khageswar Singh for his regular employment/ permanent absorption against the vacant Group 'D' posts. The stand taken by the school management in their written statement that there were surplus staff members seems to be incorrect. Rather, the Management No. 2 did not adhere to the terms of settlement and breached the same. Since, the Management No. 3 (M/s. Industrial Security Agency, Bhubaneswar) was a contractor under the school management till the date of expiry of contract, that is 15.04.2006 and as because the disputant workman Shri Singh was working under him as per the advise of the school management and he has no claim against the contractor, the management No. 3 is accordingly not liable for the disengagement of Shri Singh. Hence, Shri Khageswar Singh, the disputant workman was disengaged by the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, Bhubaneswar (Management No.2) and the management had terminated his services without adhering to the principles of Natural Justice and in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the management No. 2 (Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, Bhubaneswar) is not justified in terminating the services of the disputant workman.

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Issue No. 3.

In view of the above remarks, it is ordered that the Management No. 2 (Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer7612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri U. N. Lall, Advocate BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, 10th November, 2014 In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 115 of 1992

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/115/2007-.IR (C-I) dt. 16/11/2007, 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 :

Employer in relation to the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

SCHEDULE

APPEARANCES :

"Whether the action of the management of Basuriya Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the service of late Shri Rasik Marandi M/Loader w.e.f. 17.03.2004 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the dependent family of the concerned workman entitled and from what date?"

For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, 10th November, 2014

AWARD

2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed. Through they took steps for certain dates, subsequently did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is presumed that the disputes between parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No dispute Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer By Order No. L-20012/342/1991-IR (C-I) dt. 25/09/1992, 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:

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3125.—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/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 115 का 1992) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/342/1991-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 115/ 1992) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/342/1991- IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the action of the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denying employment to Shri Sukar Karmakar (Sukar Kumar) son of Smt. Kari Kamin, Shale Picker under V.R.S. is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3126.—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 नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 102 का 1992) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/1/1992-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7613 New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 102/ 1992 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/1/1992- IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3127.—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/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 30 का 2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/130/2011-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

ANNEXURE

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014 BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 102 of 1992

Employer in relation to the management of Chapapur Colliery, M/s. ECL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

S.O. 3127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 30/ 2012 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/130/2011-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

APPEARANCES :

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD

For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 30 of 2012

Dated 13th November, 2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/1/1992-IR (C-I) dt. 15/09/1992, 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:

Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Chapapur Colliery of Nirsa Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfield Ltd. in Superannuating Shri Chun Chun Singh w.e.f. 21.07.90 is justified? If not. to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?" For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman : Shri S. C. Gour, Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 5th November, 2014

AWARD

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer By Order No. L-20012/130/2011-IR (CM-I) dt. 21/03/2012, 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 :

7614 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Govindpur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in allegedly superannuating Sh. Durga Manjhi Ex-UG Drilier w.e.f. 01.06.2010 on the basis of date of Birth of 16.05.1950 assessed by the Apex Medical Board of the management is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 92/ 1992 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014

[No. L-20012/348/1991-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 09.04.2012. After notice both parties appeared, the workman files their written statement on 20.04.2012. Thereafter the managemant files their written statement- cum-rejoinder on 08.11.2012. One witness each examined by both side. Workman's document marked as W-1 to W-4 but the management's document marked as M-1.

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 92 of 1992

3. It is a claim that the workman was superannuated prematurely though according the Form-"B" register Date of Birth, he had many years left ot be superannuated. On the other hand the management submitted that, the workman's date of Birth written in different place differently for which he was sent to medical Board, and after medical board, age determination he was superannuated.

Employer in relation to the management of Angarpathra Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

4. There is no illegality found from the submission of management and belated claim regarding date of Birth is not also accepted.

For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 12th November, 2014

AWARD

5. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Govindpur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in allegedly superannuating Sh. Durga Manjhi Ex-UG Drilier w.e.f. 01.06.2010 on the basis of date of Birth of 16.05.1950 assessed by the Apex Medical Board of the management is fair and justified. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

By Order No. L-20012/348/1991-.IR (C-I) dt. 31/08/1992, 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:

SCHEDULE

dk-vk- 3128.—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/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 92 का 1992) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/348/1991-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central "Whether the action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited in deleting the name of Smt. Rukminia Beldarin from the roll w.e.f. November, 1982 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7615

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3129.—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/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 86 का 1992) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/336/1991-आई. आर. (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 86/ 1992 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/336/1991-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the action of the management of Patherdih Colliery under Sudamdih Area of M/s. BCCI Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Suraj Kanto Bouri, T/Mistry from service vide their letter No. BCCL/ PEH/PERS/87/837 dated 27/28.10.87 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed. Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is presumed that the disputes between parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No dispute Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3130.—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/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 161 का 1990) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/334/1989-आईआर (सी-I)]

ANNEXURE

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

Ref. No. 86 of 1992

Employer in relation to the management of Patherdih Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

S.O. .3130 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 161/1990 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/334/1989-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri U. N. Lall, Advocate BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 12th November, 2014 In the matter of a reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Ref. No. 161 of 1990

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/336/1991-IR (C-I) dt. 27/08/1992, 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:

Employer in relation to the management of Rajapur OCP, Kustore Area No. 8, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer7616 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman :Shri K.N. Singh, Rep.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 22nd October, 2014 के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 97 का 1992) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/360/1991-आईआर (सी-I)]

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/334/1989-IR (C-I) dt. 11/07/1990, 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:

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Rajapur Open Cast Project of M/s BCCL (Area No. VIII), in not regularising Shri Sakaldip Singh as Foreman w.e.f. 25.06.85 is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman is entitled?"

S.O. 3131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 97/ 1992 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/360/1991-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 97 of 1992

2. The Case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 16.07.1990. After hearing in length the case was disposed and Award passed on 02.01.1997. The reference answered in favour of the workman, was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and ultimately the case is remanded to this Tribunal for decision a fresh.

3. After receipt of the case though both parties asked to adduce evidence on their behalf, they submitted to argue on the basis of the material on record and not adduce any evidence.

Employer in relation to the management of Nirsa Area, M/s. ECL,\

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

4. The Short point to be decided in the reference as to whether the workman is entitled to be regularised in the post of Excavation foreman or not. On the other hand the management in his written statement submitted to be a foreman one must be diploma engineer and he must have 3 years experience in the post of excavation supervisor Grade B.

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 7th November, 2014

AWARD

5. It is the admitted fact that the workman is in excavation supervisor Grade B but no evidence adduced to the effect that whether the workman is a Diploma holder or not. Those evidence was not brought before us by the workman. This being the situation the workman cannot be regularised in the post of excavation foreman, in view of his present experience and qualification.

By Order No. L-20012/360/1991-IR (C-I) dt. 15/09/1992, 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:

SCHEDULE

6. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Rajapur Open Cast Project of M/s BCCL (Area No. VIII) in not regularising Shri Sakaldip Singh as Foreman w.e.f. 25.06.85 is justified. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3131.—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 "Whether the action of the management M/s. Eastern Coalfield Ltd. Nirsa Area in denying promotion to Shri M.G. Mishra, Accounts Clerk Special Grade to the post of Accountant in Technical & Supervisory Grade "A" w.e.f. July 1987 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed, though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7617

SCHEDULE

presumed that the disputes between parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence, No dispute Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3132.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) 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/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 225 का 1994) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/188/1994-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 225/ 1994 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/188/1994-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the action of the management of Karo Special Project/Kendra A.A of M/s CCL in terminating the service of Shri Jago Mahto w.ef.. 29.09.83 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3133.—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 नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 98 का 1992) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/414/1991-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No.1), AT DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

S.O. 3133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 98/1992 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/414/1991-IR(C-I)] Ref. No. 225 of 1994

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

Employer in relation to the management of Karo Project, M/s. CCL,

AND

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD

Their workmen

PRESENT : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 98 of 1992

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : None

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 5th November, 2014 Employer in relation to the management of Bodjna Calliery, M/s. ECL,

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

AWARD

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

By Order No. L-20012/188/1994-.IR (C-I) dt. 31/08/1994, 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:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : None

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 5th November, 20147618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

By Order No. L-20012/414/1991-.IR (C-I) dt. 15/09/1992, 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:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

SCHEDULE

For the workman :Shri R.R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 24th October, 2014

AWARD

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfield Ltd. Nirsa Area in relation to their Badjna Colliery is not regularising the service of S/Shri Shyamapado Rewani and Haru Gorai is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman are entitled?"

By Order No. L-20012/29/2011-.IR (CM-I) dt. 12/09/2011, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3134.—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/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 49 का 2011) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/29/2011-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 49/ 2011 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/29/2011-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the action of the management of Bassuria Colliery of M/s BCCL in not correcting the date of Birth of Smt. Kunti Devi, Lorry Cleaner Mazdoor as 14.06.1956 is justified? To what the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. The Case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 14.11.2011. After notice both parties appeared, the Sponsoring Union/workman files their written statement on 23.11.2011. Thereafter the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 7.12.2012. Only one witness adduce on behalf of the workman as WW-1. Document of the management marked as Ext. M-1 to M-5.

3. The short point is involved in this case is that the date of Birth of the workman is 14.06.53 is correct or not.

4. The claim of the applicant was that her date of Birth is 14.06.1956, which is not accepted by the management. Management in his counter submitted that at the time of appointment the workman did not submit any age proof, therefore the medical board is formed.

5. The medical board assessed her age 41 years as on 14.06.1994 and that is there in her service record. That being the position, belated claim of the workman to correct her Date of Birth does not arise at all.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Bassuria Colliery of M/S BCCL in not correcting the date of Birth of Smt. Kunti Devi, Lorry Cleaner Mazdoor as 14.06.1956 is justified. Hence she is not entitled to get any relief. Claim refused.

Ref. No. 49 of 2011

Employer in relation to the management of Bassuria Calliery Kusunda Area, M/s. BCCL This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7619 नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

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:

SCHEDULE

dk-vk- 3135.—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/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 15 का 2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/93/2006-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3135.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 15/ 2007 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/93/2006-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the action of the management of Murlidih 20/21 pits Colliery of M/s BCCL in not regularizing Smt. Rajo Bhuini, Smt. Lakhi Bourin, Smt. Musri Devi and Smt. Bijala Bala Devi as Security Guards and also in not providing them uniform/washing allowance since 11.06.94, 27.07.94 and 05.08.94 respectively is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned workers entitled and from what date?"

2. The Case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 01.05.2007. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. The sponsoring Union files their written statement on 21.12.2009. Thereafter the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 09.06.2010. Rejoinder and document also filed by the parties. The Sponsoring Union adduced Three witness as W-1 to W-3, But the management only marked the document as M-1 to M-8.

3. The point involved in the reference is that whether the four lady workman will be regularize in the post of Security Guard or not as they were sent for training as Security Guard.

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

4. The workman named above claimed to be absorbed as Security Guard, as they were under went training by the management. On the other hand the management submitted that the workman concerned did not have the minimum qualification i.e. 8th class pass, to be observed as security Guard.

Ref. No. 15 of 2007

Employer in relation to the management of W.J. Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

5. The witness W-1 to W-3 all are concerned workman submits in their evidence that we are illiterate. The evidence of the workman as below:-

"We are illiterate. I cannot say whether I have qualification to be appointed as security Guard. Now we are in category III."

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : Shri D. Kumar, Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 27th October, 2014 6. This be the situation the workman cannot be absorbed as security Guard. Moreover the Management should not send persons to training without verifying their educational qualification, to avoid litigations and controversy.

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/93/2006-.IR (CM-I) dt. 14/02/2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by 7. Considering the fact and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Murlidih 20/21 pits Colliery of M/s BCCL in not regularizing Smt. Rajo Bhuini, Smt. Lakhi Bourin, Smt. Musri Devi and Smt. Bijala Bala Devi as Security Gurads and also in not providing them uniform/washing allowance since 11.06.94, 27.07.94 and 05.08.94 respectively is legal and justified. Hence they are not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer7620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

Employer in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

का.आ. 3136.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 38/1992द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/258/1989-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी For the Employers : Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman : Sri D.Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 3/11/2014

AWARD

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

By order No. L-20012/258/ 1989 /IR (CM-1)) dated 12/05/1992, 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 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

S.O. 3136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 38/1992) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/258/1989-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

Reference: No. 38/1992

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

"Whether shri Modi Bhuia and 465 other wagon Loader/Truck Loaders/Tractor Loaders stated to be emplyed by the management of Bastacolla Area No.IX of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through a Labour Cooperative, namly Coalfield Shrmik Sahayog Samiti ,Chandmari were to be treated as workmen of the said management ? And whether the damand of that those persons be regularized in the service of the said management is justified? If so , to what relief are the concerned persons are entitled?"

Annexure

List of workmen

Sl.   Name                       S/O                      Village                Post               P.s              Dist
No.
1         2                          3                      4                      5                 6                 7
1     Sri  Modi  Bhuiya          Late  Latlu  Bhuiya      Kharsari               Shivsona           Jamui            Munger
2     Sri  Nivash  Ray;          Shri  Muktinay  Ray      Housing  colony  Hirapur Dhanbad          Dhanbad          Dhanbad
3     Sri  Chhtri  Yadav         Riphan  Yadav            Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya           Giridih
4     Sri  Shiv  Narayan Yadav   Tilu  Yadav              Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya           Giridih
5     Prem  Yadav                Tilu  Yadav              Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya           Giridih
6     Sri  Panchu Yadav          Balo Yadav               Lakdahi                Padvara            Guruaa           Gaya
7     Sri  Ram  Prasad  Ravani   Domdi  Rawani            Makhdumpur  (Darar)    Navinagar  Road    Navinagar        Aurangabad
8     Sri  Muni  Ravani          Domdi  Rawani            Makhdumpur  (Darar)    Navinagar  Road    Navinagar        Aurangabad
9     Sri  Shumbhu  Thakur       Harkheet  Thakur         Maneedhar              Dhanbad            Dhanbad          Dhanbad
1 0   Govind  Hemram             Ishvar  Hemram           Kohagora               Bhendara           Navadeeh         Girideh
1 1   Smt  Chameli  Kamin        Kishor  Bhuiya           Ganeshdih              Kusunda            Kenduadih        Dhanbad
1 2   Sri Ashray Ansari          Usak Ansar               Aina  Colliery          Dhansar           Jhariya          Dhanbad

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7621

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 3   Sri Ashphak Ansari        Usak Ansar               Aina  colliery          Dhansar           Jhariya          Dhanbad
1 4   Sri  Yogendra  Ram        Gulab Ram                Piro  Vigha            Sikandarpur        Jhahanabad       Gaya
1 5   Sri  Shiv  Narayan  Ravidash Madho  Ravidash       Sherpur                Guruaa             Guruaa           Gaya
1 6   Sri  Nandu  Vishkarma     Karu  Mistri             Kaura                   Kaura             Partapur         Hazaribag.
1 7   Sri  Ragnath  Vishkarma   Rambaran  Mistri         Jamuara                Bake  Bazar        Bake  Bazar      Gaya
1 8   Smt  Tule  Devi           Banshi  Chauhan          Matapa                 Matapa             Kutumba          Aurangabad
1 9   Sri  Vrijnandan  Prasad   Tiloki  Ram              Pipra                  Sighrava           Chaupas          Hajaribag
2 0   Sri  Kailash  Paswan      Sarguy  Paswan           Nauna                  Nalanda            Nalanda          Nalanda
2 1   Sri  Kamti  Kamin         Bhagwat  Nanniya         Simrdhamni             Chanpur            Mali,            Aurangabad
2 2   Shantu  Kamin             Ram  Prasad  Chauhan     Barba                   Kari  Mandih      Sd-              Plamu
2 3   Shresh  Pasvan            Kamaldev  Pasvan         Sherpur                Sherpur            Gurua            Gaya
2 4   Ydu Saw                   Bhuneshwar Saw           Gerud                  Gurua              Gurua            Gaya
2 5   Indrav  Saw               Prameshwar  Saw          Kasim                  Kasim              Raphigang        Aurangabad
2 6   Sahadev Saw               Rameshwar. Saw           Phatehpur              Jmuaa  Kla         Jmuaa  Kla       Gaya
2 7   Bhulendra  Paswan         Shibu Paswan             Brare                  Mananpur           Lkhisray         Munger
2 8   Praja  Paswan             Karu  Paswan             Yanaradh               Chanan             Bela             Gaya
2 9   Bijay  Paswan             Masudi  Paswan           Sankurha               Amarth             Jmui             Munger
3 0   Md.  Liyakt               Md.  Rahmali             Pakrikla               Dhashrathpur       Surynama         Varansi
3 1   Kari  Kamin               Lakhpti  Bhuiya          Brarikop               Kendua             Kedua            Dhanbad
3 2   Viphan Yadav              Ajit  Madav              Mayapur                Navadih            Hantergang       Hajaribag
3 3   'Kripan  Prasad           Jhagnu  Prajapat         Navadih                Tilaiya            Aamas            Gaya
3 4   Shri  Dharmdev  Prasad.   Koim Yadav               Lakradho               Paduhara           Gurua            Gaya
3 5   Shri  Rajkumar  Prajapti  Jsheshwar  Prajapti      Sherpur                Gurua              Gurua            Gaya
3 6   Kameshwari  Kamin         Ramchandra  Chauhan      Budhan  Bihga          Aamas              Aamas            Aurangabad
3 7   Dineshwar  Mahato         Mahendra  Mahato         Bhuli  Basti           Bhuli              Bankmor          Dhanbad
3 8   Karu  Mahato              Dular  Mahato            Sherpur                Gurua              Gurua            Gaya
3 9   Lal bag Ram               Dhwarika  Ram            Balba                  Karai              Sarmera          Nalanda
4 0   Indradev  Ram             Ganesh  Ram              Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya           Giridih
4 1   Keshwar.  Ram             Sudheshwar Ram           Lahari                 Makhra             Barun            Aurangabad
4 2   Yashoda  Kamin            Nakul  Nonida            Barma                  Barma              Prariya          Gaya
4 3   Raju  Bhuiya              Tulsi  Bhuiya            Agahra                 Agahra             Jamui            Munger
4 4   Rajendra  Ram             Ishwar.  Prasad.         Sherpur                Gurua              Gurua            Gaya
4 5   Mansur Ansari             Karim  Mastan            Pratappur              Jamui              Jamui            Munger
4 6   Nasir Ansari              Mo  Gulam  Raghul         Mungo                 Gunardih           Gunardih         Navadih
4 7   Tiveni  Paswan            Raghu  Nandan  Padwanb   Magrama                Baliya             Baliya           Gaya
4 8   Kendu  Prasad             Ramlal  Prasad           Thakur  Bari           Sariya             Sariya           Griridih
4 9   Sakhichand  Chaudhri      Bhdhu  Chaudhri          Mamapur                Navadihpnari       Hantergang.      Hazanbagh
5 0   Rampati  Chaudhri         Budhu Chaudhri           Pirma                  Baliya             Gurua            Gaya
5 1   Guru  Charan  Chaudhri    Sarena  Chaudhri         Parsama                Parsama            Bake  Bazar      Gaya
5 2   Gulab  Chand  Chaudhri    Phovari  Choudhri        Ghira                  Ghira              Halsi            Munger
5 3   Suneshwar  Chaudhri       Doman  Chaudhri          Kusbha  Basdiha        Pariya             Kuvumba          Aurangabad
5 4   Daroga  Bhuiya            Mithu  Bhuiya            Chandmari  Colliery    Dhansar            Dhansar          Dhansar
5 5   Haso  Paswan              Sukhdev  Paswan          Chandmari  Colliery    Dhansar            Dhansar          Dhansar
5 6   Ghanshyam  Ram            Baijnath  Ram            Nasib Bigra            Kasibpur           Barun            Aurangabad
5 7   Shambu  Prasad.           Birbal  Prasad.          Jhikriya               Madanpur           Madanpur         Aurangabad
5 8   Priya  Prasad.            Saphora  Prasad.         Naisb Bigra            Kasipur            Barun            Aurangabad

7622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1         2                          3                      4                     5                  6                7
5 9   Debmuni  Prasad  Rawani    Sarphra  Prasad  Ravani Nsib Bigha              Kasipur            Barun           Aurangabad
6 0   Gauri  Shankar  Prasad     Phirangi  Prasad        Nasib Bigha             Kasipur            Barun           Aurangabad
6 1   Dhuarika  Prasad  yadav    Pokhan  Yadav           Chotki  Sriya           Sriya              Sriya           Griridih
6 2   Ganesh  Prasad  Rawani     Domari  Prasad  Rawani  Makhdumpur              Nvinagar  Road.    Nvinagar        Aurangabad
6 3   Ram  Bijay  Kumar.         Nageshwar.  Prasad.     Samsher  Nagar          Samsher  Nagar     Dheu  Nagar     Aurangabad
6 4   Indrajeet  Singh           Jaynath  Singh          Samsher  Nagar          Smsher  Nagar      Daud  Nagar     Aurangabad
6 5   Surendra Singh             Ram  Prasad  Singh      Hasanpur                Sd-                Aobra           Aurangabad
6 6   Shivnarayan  Singh         Bisheshwar.  Singh      Hasanpur                Sonwarsa           Aobra           Aurangabad
6 7   Ramshish  Kumar            Jaydish  Mahato         Chan  Mruni             Sariya             Sariya          Giridhih
6 8   Surendra Singh             Balgovind  Singh        Sam  sair  Nagar        Sariya             Aobra           Aurangabad
6 9   Braj  Prasad  Malakar      Motialal  Malalkar      Chand  Mourni           Sariya             Sariya          Giridhih
7 0   Shankar  Prasad  Malakar   Motialal  Malalkar      Chand  Mourni           Sariya             Sariya          Giridhih
7 1   Buneshwar  Noniya          Ramdev  Noniya          Chaunokhar              Bara               Navinagar       Aurangabad
7 2   Kuldeep  Noniya            Ramvilas    Noniya      Sd-                     Balai              Navinagar       Aurangabad
7 3   Jeetendra  Chauhan         Ramkhelavan  Chauhan    Barki  Bodhai           Phokhraha          Aurangabad.     Aurangabad
7 4   Tpeshwar  Beldar           Mandal  Beldar          Ratnuaa                 Phopra  Bgahi      Kutumba         Aurangabad
7 5   Phagu  Noniya              Nageshwar  Noniya       Leduka                  Kutma              Sd-             Plamu
7 6   Tetri  Beldaron            Ramji  Beldar           Godhar                  Kusunda            Kusssunda       Dhanbad
7 7   Baleshwar    Chauhan       Ram  Bilat  Chauhan     Kharonda                Belhari            Majhiyama       Plamu
7 8   Rajendra  Noniya           Jagdeesh  Noniya        Kasturi  Chanokar       Poldih             Japla           Plamu
7 9   Raj  Kumar  Chauhan        Bilash  Chauchan        Sd-                     Prairiya           Sd-             Aurangabad
8 0   Indradev  Ram              Chaman  Ram             Makhadumpur             Navinagar  Road    Navinagar  Road Aurangabad
8 1   Mahendra  Naniya           Jaymangal  Noniya       Prajpur                 Baliya             Kutumba         Aurangabad
8 2   Tpeshwar.  Chauhan         RamdasChauhan           Makdupur  Braj          Nvinagar           Nvinagar        Aurangabad
8 3   Ramchandra  chauhan        Ramlita  Chauhan        Simridhmni              Chainpur           Mali            Aurangabad
8 4   Raj  kumar.  Noniya        Jaymangal  Noniya       Poraspur                Baliya             Kutumba         Aurangabad
8 5   Kanti  Kamin               Devent  Naniya          Simridhomni             Chainpur           Mali            Aurangabad
8 6   Jay  Prakash  Kumar        Shri  Ramavtar  Kumar   Sonvarsha               Sonvarsha          Bihpur          Bhagalpur
8 7   Sunil  Kumar.              Shri  Ramavtar  Kumar   Sonvarsha               Sonvarsha          Bihpur          Bhagalpur
8 8   Bipin  Kumar.              Shri Ramdev Saw         Barajiktika             Primari            Karpit          Gaya
8 9   Ram  Prakash  Ray          Kamdev  Ram             Sd-                     Sd-                Sd-             Sd-
9 0   Suresh  Prasad.            Madho  Prasad  Ravidas  Sherpur                 Gurua              Gurua           Gaya
9 1   Nvin  Kumar                Shri  Ram  Lakhan  Kumar. Sonvarsha             Sonversha          Bihpur          Bhagalpur
9 2   Sakil Ahmad                Sd-                     Sd-                     Sd-                Sd-             Dhanbad
9 3   Ram  Prevesh  Dusad.       Lochi  Dusad            Drar                    Navinagar          Navinagar       Aurangabad
9 4    Barti  Beldarin           Mhendra  Beldarin       Noniya  Bigha  Drua     Sd-                Japla           Plamu
9 5   Laldev  Chauhan            Mahavir  Chauhan        Bilaspur                Tarva              Navinagar       Aurgabad
9 6   Lakhan  Chauhan            Ramchandra  Chauhan     Knouda                  Haidharnagar       Haidharnagar    Palmu
9 7   Ramjeet  Chauhan           Besar  Chaudhri         Ghira                   Ghira              Sd-             Sd-
9 8   Naresh  Chauhan            Ramkaran  Chauhan       Chamlpur                Phag               Gauh            Aurangabad
9 9   Sikendra  Dadhi            Kririt  Dadhi            Bholva                 Barki  Bholba      Sarmera         Nalanda
100   Bihari  Beldar             Bukhun  Beldar          Chunhata                Chunhata           Sd-             Rohtas
101   Shiv  Narayan              Rampati  Chauhan        Simri  Dhari            Chainpur           Mali            Aurangabad
102   Anish  Noniya              Dharika  Noniya         Noniya  Bigha  Daura    Dauna              Japla           Plamu
103   Kapish  Thakur             Budhan  Thakur          Joni  Bigha Vara        Jani  Bigha        Bodh  Gya       Gaya
104   Rajendra  Ravani           Ram Gulab Ram           Madho  Rvap             Bhorba             Madanpur        Aurangabad

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7623

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

105   Sampat  Biskarma          Mahabir  Bishvkarma     Itar                  Timura             Raphigamg       Aurangabad
106   Ramchandar  Prasad        Shiv  Prasad.           Dhanbad.              Dhanbad            Dhanbad         Dhanbad
107   Sahadev  Biskarma         Sanichar  Bishkarma     Agni                  Chevari            Dhaudnagar      Aurangabad
108   Chinta  Kamin             Shiv  Chauhan           Agniya                Ishat              Barun           Aurangabad
109   Ganga  Prasad.            Ravi  Prasad.           Sd-                   Dhansar            Dhansar         Dhanbad
110   Krishna  Mahato           Devnath  Mahato         Jabalpur              Shamve             Barsligang      Navada
111   Lakshaman  Buiya          Klesar  Buiya           Bramchak              Aamas              Aamas           Gaya
112   Darvari  Prasad           Raghunath  Prasad.      Manitad               Dhanbad.           Dhanbad         Dhanbad.
113   Lakhaminiya  Kamin        Mahendra  Noniya        Pirajpur              Baliya             Kutumba         Aurangabad
114   Kedar  Bhuiya             Chanarik  Bhuiya        Tamruya               Gurua              Gurua           Gaya
115   Jalim  Bhuiya             Manlu  Bhuiya           Bramchak              Aams               Aams            Gaya
116   Sundri  Kamin             Lalan  Chauhan          Batrwa                Karimandih         Mohangang       Plamu
117   Binod  Chauhan            Chanari  Chauhan        Chain  Bigta          Rnor               Aurangabad      Aurangabad
118   Munna  Prasad  Chauhan    Domi  Beldar            Baswan Bigha          Pen                Silav           Nalamda
119   Ramkhelawan  Beldar-      Basudev Bddar           Makhdumpur            Navingagar         Nvinagar        Aurangabad
120   Birendra  Chauhan         Kailas  Chauhan         Batauta               Karimandih         Mohangang       Plamu
121   Pipriya  Kamin            Balak  Shankar  Noniya   Kusmalsdiha          Parriya            Simra           Aurangabad
122   Rajendra  Ram             Ishwar.  Prasad         Serpur                Gurua              Gurua           Gaya
123   Dharmraj  Ram             Ganpat  Ram             Sherpur               Gurua              Gurua           Gaya
124   Damadhar  Ram             Tilu  Ram               Sd-                   Aamas              Aamas           Gaya
125   Reshmi  Kamin             Ramchandra  Chauchan    Kandi                 Kandi              Sd-             Plamu
126   Kunti  Kamin              Munilal  Chauhan        Chamlpur              Phag               Goh             Aurangabad
127   Ramrup  Noniya            Ram  Sevak  Naniya      Simiri  Dhamni        Chainpur           Navinagar       Aurangabad
128   Adhesh  Prasad.           Sd-                     Kharvana              Navadih            Sd-             Haribhag
129   Matilal  Mandal           Kamal  Mandal           Chotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
130   Harihar  Mandal           Ramlal  Mandal          Thakur  Tala          Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
131   Ram  Kishun  Mandal       Gopnath  Mandal         Kushari               Kusavari           Sariya          Giridih
132   Umesh  Mandal             Jaynath  Mandal         Keswori               Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
 133  Shri  Sahadev  Mandal     Lochand                 Chotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
134   Sri Akhilesh  Kumar  Singh Ram  Prasad  Singh     Hasanpura             Sonvarsa           Sonvarsa        Aurangabad
135   Shri  Devnandan  Rajak    Bhanu  Rajak            Makhdum               Janibigha          Ramdihra        Rohtash
136   Shri  Lakhan  Rawani      Aitwari  Rawani         Rophath               Rophta             Ramdihra        Rohtash
137   Laldhri  Mandal           Shukar  Mandal          Chotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
138   Shri  Bijay  Mandal       Shukar  Mandal          Chotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
139   Maldev    Turi            Madhu  Turi             Chandanan  Colliery   Dhansar            Dhansar         Dhanbad
140   Shri  Somar  Paswan       Lakhan  Paswan          Chandmari  Colliery   Dhansar            Dhansar         Dhanbad
141   Shri Gurupad. Rawani      Mdhu  Rawani            Chandmanri  Colliery  Dhansar            Dhansar         Dhambad
142   Shri  Dhanu  Turi         Rama  Turi              Chandmari  Colliery   Dhansar            Dhansar         Dhanbad
143   Shri  Ranchu  Yadav       Mukund Yadav            Chandmari  Colliery   Dhansar            Dhansar         Dhanbad
144   Shri  Sipahi  Singh Yadav Bangali  Singh Yadav    Dhanbad               Dhanbad            Dhanbad         Dhanbad
145   Shri  Suresh  Mandal      China  Mandal           Patam  Braichak       Patam              Muffasil        Munger
146   Shri  Pramod  Kr.  chourasia Arjun  Mandal        Baraichak             Patam              Muffasil        Munger
147   Shri  Chatar  Dhari  Bhuiya Lakhan  Bhuiya        Ghira                 Ghira              Halsi           Munger
148   Shri  Mangal  Bhuiya      Mohan  Bhuiya           Ghira                 Ghira              Halsi           Munger
149   Aanand  Hajra             Madan  Hajra            Sd-                   Dhanbad.           Dhanbad.        Dhanbad.
150   Shri  Tulsi  Umar         Nathun  Ravidas         Bhudhal               Bhudhal            Rphigang        Aurangabad

7624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1         2                         3                      4                     5                 6                7
151   Champa  Devi              Churka  Bhuiya          Kusunda  Colliery      Kusunda           Kusunda          Dhanbad.
152   Shri  Batsava  Devi       Kishun  Bhuiya          Khadsari               Shivsona          Jmui             Munger
153   Shri Suraj Bhuiya         Tulsi  Bhuiya           Sonakhap               Shergdhati        Jmui             Gaya
154   Visheshwar  Turi          Dhnishwar  Turi         Chand  Mari  Colliery  Dhansar           Dhansar          Dhanbad
155   Shri  Kuldeep  Singh      Munarika  Singh         Nadho                  Agi Aav-  Bajar   Agi Aav-  Bajar  Bhojpur
                                                                                                                  (Aara)
156   Shri  Ram  Bilash  Pasvan Janko    Pasvan         Chhoti  Mayapur        Navadeehu  Pnadi  Pnadi            Hajaribag
157   Girja  pasvan             Birju  Pasvan           Madhuvan               Phulvatad         Phulvatad        Dhanbad
158   Shri  Lakshman  Singh     Chabu Singh             Dhanbad                Dhanbad           Dhanbad          Dhnabad
159   Shri  Bihari  Pasvan      Ramlal  Pasvan          Chhotki  Mayapur       Nabadeeh          Panari           Hajaribag
160   Shri  Mithu Yadav         Mahavir  Yadav          Sarebad                Aghra             Jamui            Munger
161   Shri  Kuldeep  Prasad     Chhotan  Bhuiya         Khdsari                Shivsona          Jamui            Munger
162   Shri  Rajendra  Ram       Raja  Ram               Kasimpur               Abjuganj          Sultanjang       Bhalgalpur
163   Shri  Kanahi  Prasad  Ravani Dukhee  Prasad  Rawani Bes  Basiya          Kachra  Kamdarpur Japla            Plamu
      Rawani
164   Shri  Ramanand  Prasad    Munshi  Prasad  Rawani  Nanmateeya             Nanmateeya        Madanpur         Aurangabad
165   Satnarayan  Pd.  Rawani   Sita  ram  Pd.  Rawani  Surjan Vigadh          Nanmateeya        Navinagar        Aurangabad
166   Shri  Prabhu  Bhuiya      Mangar  Bhuiya          Banda                  Phetahpur         Phetahpur        Gaya
167   Shri  Ramdev  Pd.         Ramprasad               Kandeeh-4              Bas  jora         Loyabad          Dhanbad
168   Tilak  Pd.                Munarik  Noniya         Kandeeh                Kandeeh           Sd-              Palamu
169   Dhwarika  Singh           Bhuledhar  Singh        Hajaribag  Road  Station Sariya          Sariya           Giridih
170   Ramjatan  Chaudhri        Sardar  Chaudhri        Kusbhabasdeeha         Pariya            Kutumba          Aurangabad
171   Puni  pasi                Jagdhri  Pasi           Gira                   Gira              Halsi            Munger
172   Ramphal  Pasi             Bandhu  Pasi            Kharauna               Navadih  Pnari    Hantar  Gang     Hazaribag
173   Anwar Ansari              Gulam Ansari            An  colliery           Bhagat  Dih       Jhriya           Dhanbad
174   Rampukar  Pasvan          Kamdev  Pasvan          Bariya                 Bariya            Mali             Aurangabad
175   Indradev  Ram             Ramchndra  Ram           Dulra                 Dulra             Dulra            Gaya
176   Ramkrit  Mahto            Jageshwar  Mahto        Dhobra                 Aamas             Simra            Aurangabad
177   Raj  Kumar.  Mahto        Muneshwar  Mahto        Dhobra                 Aamas             Simra            Aurangabad
178   Ramadhar  Pr.  Rawani     Jagdeesh  Pd.  Rawani   Sd-                    Ramdihsh          Rohtash          Rohtash
179   Ramdukar  Prasad.         Kamdev  Pd.             Bariya                 Bariya            Mali             Aurangabad
180   Upendra  Ram              Ramprasad.  Ram         Karmari                Gosaidih          Nvinagar         Aurangabad
181   Shankar  Mandal           Ramlal  Mandal          Thakur  Bari           Sanya             Sanya            Giridih
182   Koshal  Kishor  Ray       Maksudan  Ray            Balvakabhari          Baskupi           Madhupur         Dumka
183   Ram  Naresh  Bhagat       Mahavir  Bhagat         Bairiya                Bairiya           Mali             Aurangabad
184   Dev  Kumar                Kamdev  Kumar           Bairiya                Bairiya           Mali             Aurangabad
185   Ramadhar  Ram             Shivnarayan             Sairpur                Gurua             Gurua            Gaya
186   Mulendar  Pd.             Modho  Pd.              Dhambad                Dhanbad           Dhanbad          Dhanbad
187   Sahdev  Paswan            Doman  Paswan           Pathra                 Sd-                Makhdumpur      Jhanabad
188   Karu  Mahto                Modho  Mahto            Dhanbad               Dhanbad           Dhanbad          Dhanbad
189   Nepali  Ram               Sakhora  Ram            Kanchan  pur           Kashipur          Barum            Aurangabad
190   Dharmraj  Ram             Shiv  Narayan  Ram      Shairpur               Gura              Gura             Gaya
191   Sushila  Devi             Sudama  Chauhan         Kastunri  Chankar      Poldih            Japla            Plamu
192   Umesh  Hansda             Hemraj  Hasda           Bhuli  Basti           Bhuli  Basti      Bankmor          Dhanbad
195   Laldev  Ram               Chaman  Ram             Makhdumpur             Navin  Nagar      Navin  Nagar     Aurangabad
196   Mandeep  Prasad           IndradevGurua           Dagbar                 Dagbar            Kutumba          Aurangabad

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7625

1         2                        3                      4                    5                 6                7
197   Sarita  Devi              Indrav  Nonia          KusumaBasdiha          Badriya           Kutumba         Aurangabad
198   Viphan  Noniya            Bigan  Noniya          Victry  Colliery       Dhansar           Dhansar         Dhanbad
199   Savitri  Devi             Prakash  Chauhan       Sd-                    Sd-               Kutumba         Aurangabad
200   Surendra  Prasad          Ram  Swarup  Paswan    Raunagad               Chakan            Sd-             Gaya
201   Karu  Bhuiya              Kesho  Bhuiya          Dharhara               Dhmel             Pakri  Barma    Navada
202   Umesh  Lal                Harinarayan            Sd-                    Turarhi           Turarhi         Sd-
203   Sundri  Kamin             Ramjeet  Noniya        Simri  Dhami           Chainpur           Mali           Aurangabad
204   N.  Prasad                Jairam  Ram            Mohanpur               Sd.-              Sd-             Rohtas.
205   Gangiya  Kamin            Rajkumar  Chauhan      Sd-                    Prariya           Kutumba         Aurangabad
206   Gunja  Bhuiya             Makra  Bhuiya          Bramchak               Aamas             Aamas           Gaya
207   Khopri  Bhuiya            Chalitru  Bhuiya       Bichvaiy               Bichvaiy          Lakkhisray      Munger
208   Ramni  Kamin              Kali  Charan  Chauchan Simri  Dhamni          Chanpur           Mali            Aurangabad
209   Ramlal  Bhuiya            Murat  Bhuiya          Nathubigha             Khiryama          Madanpur        Aurangabad
210   Saryug Bhuiya             Manki  Bhuiya          Vakilganj              Purnadih          Madanpur        Aurangabad
211   Saman  Bhuiya             Hari  Bhuiya           Vakilganj              Purnadih          Madanpur        Aurangabad
212   Chando  Bhuiya            Rekha  Bhuiya          Bania                  Madanpur          Madanpur        Aurangabad
213   Virya  kamin              Malick  Chand  Chauhan Kusuma  Badiha         Prariya           Kutumba         Aurangabad
214   Ramashish  Buiya          Bajju  Bhuiya          Khadsharee             Shibshona         Jamui           Munger
215   Kari  Kamin               Narayan  Thakur        Jainagar               Jainagar          Jainagar        Hazaribagh
216   Rambali  Prasad           Ganesh  Pd.  Dash      Chandukhra             Nagvangad         Gurua           Gaya
217   Ramsawrup  Bhuiya         Ramesh  Bhuiya         Sav                    Aams              Aamas           Gaya
218   Kameshwar  Bhuiya         Chnari  Bhuiya         Sahukarma              Raphi  Gang.      Raphi  Gang.    Aurangabad
219   Tpeshwar  Bhuiya          Mna  Bhuiya            Dhakhil                Dhakhil           Bribhay         Munger
220   Jitan  Prasad             Maru  Prajapat         Navadeeh               Tileshya          Aamas           Gaya
221   Rajkumar  Bhuiya          Sd-                    Khad  Sari             Shivsana          Jamui           Munger
222   Chandra  Bhuiya           Baiju  Bhuiya          Katauna                Katauna           Katauna         Munger
223   Baleshwar  Bhuiya         Lat  Bhuiya            Khadsar                Shivsona          Jamui           Munger
224   Rajendra  Bhaiya          Karu  Bhaiya           Gushan Gang            Serghati          Serghati        Gaya
225   Doman  Mahto              Ramsagar  Mahto        Chapra  Sahlan  pur    Javnapur          Samstipur       Samastipur
226   Kishun  Mahto             Kanhai  Mahto          Pochagora              Bhendra           Navadih         Giridih
227   Murat  Gop                Lakhkhi  Gop           Dhayari                Bhendra           Navadih         Giridih
228   Basudev Kisku             Kishun  Kisku          Pochagoda              Bhendra           Navadih         Giridih
229   Rajkumar  Viskarma        Moti  Viskarma         Uchak                  Uchak             Uchak           Hazaribagh
230   Kalaicharan  Chauhan      Balkeshwar  Noniya     Simri  Dhamni          Chainpur          Mali            Aurangabad
231   Dev  Noniya               Chalita  Noniya        Simri  Dhamni          Chainpur          Mali            Aurangabad
232   Kailu  Paswan             Govind  Paswan         Panch  Bigha           Hisuva            Hisuva          Navada
233   Bhuneshwar  Kumar         Dhashai  Ram           Atithi                 Atithi            Sd-             Rohtash
234   Rampti  Chauchan          Dukhan  Chauchan       Chunahata              Chunahata         Nauiata         Rohtash
235   Bhulel  Chauchan          Vukhan  Chauhan        Chunahata              Chunahata         Nauiata         Rohtash
236   Rajendra  varma           Bodhan  Barma          Khadsuri               Shivsona          Jamui           Munger
237   Shambhu  Prasad           Dhanan  Prasad         Hathagdhi              Multana           Kamsandi        Hajaribag
238   Boleshwar Saw             Saryu Saw              Sd-                    Karma             Dev             Aurangabad
239   Rajkumar  Noniya          Late  Vrikh  Noniya    Budhva                 Balugany          Balugany        Aurangabad
240   Jaykant  Prasad           Kardhani  Mandal       Kusumdiha              Prariya           Simra           Aurangabad
241   Saryug Beldar             Charitri  Beldar       Dhanbad                Dhanbad.          Dhanbad         Dhanbad
242   Shyam  Sundar  Paswan     Modi  Paswan           Dhanbad                Dhanbad           Dhanbad         Dhanbad

7626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1         2                        3                      4                     5                 6               7
243   Kailash  Paswan           Lakhan  Paswan          Dhanbad.              Dhanbad           Dhanbad          Dhanbad
244   Shiv  Kumar  Paswan       Sd-                     Dhanbad.              Dhanbad           Dhanbad          Dhanbad
245   Raja  Beldar              Bhagal  Beldar          Pirajaypur            Bliya             Kutumba          Aurangabad
246   Tulsi  Paswan             Karu  Paswan            Pasta  Kola           Dhanbad           Jhariya          Dhanbad
247   Kameshwar  Bhagat         Rameshwar  Bhagat       Dhanbad               Dhanbad           Dhanbad          Dhanbad
248   Raj  Balav  Chauhan       Dev  Narayan  Chauhan   Moheyda               Kala  Phar  Tendua Kutumba         Aurangabad
249   Raga  Ram  Beldar         Ramkishun  Beldar       Karriya               Krimandih         Sd-              Plamu
250   Minti  Devi               Rampti  Chauhan         Chunhata              Chunhta           Nauhta           Rohtash
251   Umesh  Ram                Modho  Ram              Sherpur               Gurua             Gurua            Gaya
252   Ajay  Ram                 Ram  Pravesh  Ram       Chauram               Dhaunagar         Dhaunagar        Aurangabad
253   Bijay  Prasad.            Titai  Prasad           Maryanri(Mokhra)       Maryanri(mokhra) Barun            Aurangabad
254   Doman  Bouri              Modhubauri              Dhanbad               Dhanbad           Dhanbad          Dhanbad
255   Suresh  Mandal            Nirmal  Mandal          Chtki  Sariya         Sariya            Sariya           Giridih
256   Saryug  Mhato             Prameshwar  Mahto       Manitad               Dhanbad           Dhanbad          Giridih
257   Laljeet  Paswan           Videshi Paswan          Dhansar               Hisua             Hisua            Navada
258   Amir  Paswan              Bideshi  Paswan         Dhansar               Hisua             Hisua            Navada
259   Munilal  Chauhan          Ramwat  Chauhan         Chamalpura            Phay              Ghoh             Aurangabad
260   Bhagwati  Rajvansi        Bijay Rajwansi          Sd.                   Dhanbad           Dhanbad          Dhanbad
261   Rambali  Prasad           Judagir  Prasad         Tara                  Tara              Dhaudnagar       Aurangabad
262   Mahendra  Kr.  Saw        Baijnath  Saw           Kalhua                Bandri  Bagar     Sd-              Sd-
263   Bhagwan  Thakur,          Gomni  Thakur           Sjajan                Beni              Japla            Plamu
264   Bnarso  Prasad.           Jamuna  Ray.            Chapra  Shalanpur     Sd-               Samastipur       Samastipur
265   Shri  Rameshwar.  Prasad  Dhudheshwar  Prasad.    Mahuyri               Makhra             Barun           Aurangabad
266   Glushi Beldar             Dhukan  Beldar          Raghubigha            Simra             Mali             Aurangabad
267   Bhuneshwar  Prasad        Bansi  Prasad           Chandmari  Colliery   Dhansar           Dhansar          Dhanbad
268   Mithilesh  Kumar          Radheshyam              Mhuyari               Makhra            Barun            Aurangabad
269   Sohan Saw                 Jhodhan  Saw            Kaladara              Uchak             Uchak            Aurangabad
270   Ashok  Kumar              Damodar  Dash           Aagra                 Devkuli           Uchak            Hajaribhag
271   Arbind  Kumar             Shri Ram dev Saw        Bara  Jhiktiya         Primari          Karpi            Sd-
272   Devant  Noniya            Chlitra  Noniya         Dhamnisimri           Chainpur           Mali            Aurangabad
273   Shankar Saw               Sukhu Saw               Slamatpur             Tejibajar         Mahrajgang       Jainpur
274   Dhiran  Prasad            Bhugeshwar  Prajpati    Bandhu  Bihha         Sd-               Bairya           Gaya
275   Sidheshwar  Prasad        Karu  Paswan            Basta  Kola           Dhansar           Jhariya          Dhanbad
276   Kaleshwar  Paswan         Ramvrikh  Paswan        Simri  Damni          Chainpur          Mali             Aurangabad
277   Jagdeesh Yadav            Bhaso  Yadav            Chandmari             Dhansar           Dhansar          Dhanbad.
278   Sarjug  Noniya            Guruyan  Noniya         Raghu Bighha          Simra             Nvinagar         Aurangabad
279   Panchu  Saw               Saryu Saw               Sd-                   Sd-               Dev              Aurangabad
280   Munarik  Saw              Harihar  Saw            Sd-                   Kusunda           Kenduadih        Dhanbad
281   Bangali  Singh            Banbari  Singh          Chhotki  Sariya       Sariya            Sariya           Giridih
282   Aanand  Singh             Bhagirath  Singh        Khaira  Mnoram        Chiraila           Kasma           Aurangabad
283   Bhismbhar  Bhagat         Bhimal  Bhagat          Chandmari  Colliery    Dhansar          Dhansar          Dhanbad
284   Bijay  Paswan             Devi  Paswan            Chandmari  Colliery    Dhansar          Dhansar          Dhanbad
285   Ramjanm  Ram              Chandra  Ram            Jain  Bihga           Rona              Rophigang        Aurangabad
286   Ravindra  Yadav           Bhagwat Yadav           Jhajha                 Jhajha            Jhaja           Munger
287   Anurdh  Noniya            Modi  Noniya            Akbarpur               Akbarpur          Bad             Sd-
288   Munna  Khaira

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7627

1         2                        3                      4                    5                 6                7
289   Lakhan  Noniya            Nankuh  Noniya          Devipur               Bailiya            Chunhora       Sd-
290   Ramshiv  Pasi             Ramkhelawan  Pasi      Gaura                  Gaura             Bigna           Sd-
291   Rasulal Gaudh             Ramchapit  Godh        Kusunda                Kusunda            Kenduadih      Dhanbad
292   Dhaneshwar  Noniya        Kodil  Noniya          Kusma  Basliha         Prariya            Simra          Aurangabad
293   Munna  Noniya             Sundar  Noniya          Sona                  Haidarnagar        Haidarnagar    Plamu
294   Surendra  Mahto           Kishun  Mahto          Manitand               Dhanbad            Dhanbad        Dhanbad
295   Kpil  Noniya              Magru  Noniya           Kusma Basdiha         Prariya            Kutumba        Aurangabad
296   Kabutri  Devi             Nashiv  Chauhan        Kanauda                Haidarnagar       Haidarnagar     Plamu
297   Pravesh  Ram              Mahjar  Ram            Khori                  Kasmo             Kasmo           Aurangabad
298   Bhola  Rajak              Budhan  Rajak          Gaushala  More         Dhansar           Jharia          Dhanbad
299   Dharika  Noniya           Ramchand  Noniya       Simro  Dhamki          Chainpur          Mali            Aurangabad
300   Birju  Noniya             Shri  Ram  Prasad  Chauhan Rajku  Kumhra      Husainabad        Japla           Plamu
301    Sahdev  Chauhan          Devnarayan  Chauhan    Monhida                Kalaphar  Tendua  Kutumba         Aurangabad
302   Lalan  Chauhan            Kailash  Chauhan       Batov  a               Karimandih        Mohmmadganj     Plamu
303   Krishna  Chauhan          Rambilash  Chauhan     Braicha  Dhanbad       Chunhtta          Nauhtta         Rohtash
304   Smt.  Keshri  Devi        Chauhan                Mojhida                Kala  Phar  Tendua Kutumba        Aurangabad
305   Shivdant  Chauhan         Ramjeet  Chauhan       Sataiya  Karma         Virota             Nvinagar        Aurangabad
306   Sahdev  Mahto             Suresh  Mahto          Dhanbad                Dhanbad           Dhanbad         Dhanbad
307   Suresh  Pasvan            Jutos  Pasvan          Banipadih              Sherghati          Shergati       Gaya
308   Bnaras  Mahto             Devnath  Mahto         Jalalpur               Save              Barsliganj      Navada
309   Madhu  Mahto              Hira  Mahto            Jalalpur               Save              Barsliganj      Navada
310   Saryug  Mahto             Brahadev  Mahto        Jalalpur               Save              Barsliganj      Navada
311   Bhikhari  Yadav           Ramdhani  Yadav        Barkidhari             Kudamluva         Roh             Navada
312   Indradev  Bhuiya          Bhugeshwar  Bhuiya     Subai                  Shyamnagar  nima  Amas            Gaya
313   Sadhu Bhuiya              Jageshwar  Bhuiya      Nadhu  Bigha           Khiryaya          Madanpur         Aurangabad
314   Sadi Bhuiya               Kanu  Bhuiya           Brachak                Aamas             Aamas           Gaya
315   Badudev  Prasad           Sd-                    Khadsari               Shivsona          Jamui            Munger
316   Mahesh  Prasad            Jagdeesh  Pr.  Chaurasya Gopalpur             Khaipur           Jamui            Munger
317   Nathu  Chauhan            Ramkisun  Chauhan      Katriya                Karimandih        Mohmdadganj     Plamu
318   Shiv  Chauhan             Doman  Chauhan         Sd-                    Raphiganj         Mohmdadganj      Aurangabad
319   Ramji  Prasad.            Basudev  Prasad.       Abuiya  Tand.          Sariya            Sariya          Giridih
320   Ukran  Bhat               Shabudhin  Bhat        Sd-                    Simra  Bajar      Gopalpur        Gopalganj
321   Aanandi Yadav             Munarik Yadav          Sd-                    Udhampur          Kasma            Aurangabad
322   Shankar  Ram              Kpil  Ram              Sherpur                Gurua             Gura            Gaya
323   Nepali  Ram               Majhar  Ram            Khalari                Kasma             Kasma           Aurangabad
324   R.B.  Rajak               Prameshwar.  Rojak     Gobindpur              Kasma             Kasma            Dhanbad
325   Koshari  Paswan
326   Dhanpad  Pandit           Shalik  Pandit         Arnabhashak            Khalari           Khaira           Munger
327   Prasad  Dhobi             Digambar               Khadsari               Shivsona          Jamui            Munger
328   Baleshwar  Yadav          Shanichar Yadav        Chanvara               Shivsona          Jamui            Munger
329   Tulsi  Mahto              Masudan  Mahto         Chanvara               Shivshona         Jamui            Munger
330   Naranyan  Yadav           Tulsi  Yadav           Chanvara               Shivshona         Jamui            Munger
331   Shivbalak  Chauhan        Rampati  Chauhan       Simri  Dhavni          Chainpur          Mali            Aurangabad
332   Koshila  Davi             Ramayan  Noniya        Lakshaman  Bigha       Kataiya           Kutuma          Aurangabad
333   Arjun  Chauhan            Atwari  Chauhan        Akdailpar              Gurunagar  Pur    Silaw           Nalanda
334   Basanti  Devi             Rajkumar  Noniya       Budhva  Baryama        Bulugang          Bulugang        Aurangabad

7628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

335   Prakash  Chauhan         Late  Vriksh  Chauhan   Budhva  Baryama       Bulugang           Bulugang        Aurangabad
336   Bimal  Paswan            Roshan  Paswan          Dhugua                Mojak              Dhanurava       Patna
337   Madan Saw                Dhashrath  Saw          Phatahpur             Jamuaarabag        Amas            Gaya
338   Brijanandan  Beldar      Shiv  Nandan  Beldar    Sd-                   Dhansar            Dhansar         Dhanbad
339   Krishna  Prasad          Mathura  Prasad         Navadih               Tileshar  Bade  Bajar Amas         Gaya
340   Chuharmar  Prasad        Ram  Gahan  Ram         Dihra                 Muji               Karakat         Rohtash
341   Suresh  Prasad           Gaunori  Prasad         Makhdum  Pur          Navinagar          Navinagar       Aurangabad
342   Mithitesh  Kumar  Singh  Dharam  Singh           Chotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
343   Ramanandan  Chauhan      Baijnath  Chauhan       Letuka                Kutuma             Bisrampur       Plamu
344   Rajdev Yadav             Ramdhani  Yadav         Badak  Dari           Sd-                Roh             Navada
345   Dineshwar  Chauhan       Bilal  Chauhan          Kaladar               Chaunhata          Nahata          Rohtash
346   Rupali Yadav             Dukhan                  Dadav                 Uchak              Uchak           Hazaribagh
347   Kova  Chauhan            Munarik  Chauhan        Kandi                 Kandi              Sd-             Plamu
348   Sambhu  Chauhan          Baijnath  Chauhan       Letaka                Kutuma             Bisrampur       Plamu
349   Kamleshwar  Noniya       Darika  Noniya          Noniya  Biha  Dura     Durua             Japla           Plamu
350   Chandbatiya  Kamin       W/o  Bijay  Chauhan     Budhwa  Baryama       Balugang           Balugang        Aurangabad
351   Chhotan  Yadav           Maheshwar Yadav         Mahadev  Bigha        Odo                Hajua           Navada
352   Chandra  Prasad          Late  Chamuru  Pandit   Arnma  Vak            Khalsi             Khaira          Munger
353   Harichandra  Prasad      Kismatram               Dhobi                 Dhurgadih          Bikramgang      Rohtash
354   Badan  Yadav             Ramdhani  Yadav         Badki Sari            Kunda  Bhulva      Roh             Navada
355   Uday  Thakur             Phakur  Thakur          Sd-                   Kako               Jaynagar        Hajaribag
356   Prakash  Mahato          Surendra  Mahto         Dhanbad               Dhanbad            Dhanbad         Dhanbad
357   Raja  Ram  Chauhan       Mukhdev  Chauhan        Lakshaman  Bigha      Kataiya            Kutumba         Aurangabad
358   Sota  Chauhan            Rampati  Chauhan        Simridhamni           Chainpur           Mali            Aurangabad
359   Ramshukar  Paswan        Keshwar  Paswan         Taradih               Purnadih           Madanpur        Aurangabad
360   Chandan  Chauhan         Ram  Kishun  Chauhan    Niv  Govind  ki       Sonadih            Baghmara        Dhanbad
361   Bal  Chauhan             Sada  bih  Chauhan      Kalabudhan  Bigha     Aonra              Aonra           Aurangabad
362   Israr Aalam              Mo  Rahuk Aalam         Kachanpur             Jagdhishpur        Barun           Aurangabad
363   Mo  Kamal  Miya          Sd-                     Sd-                   Sd-                Sd-             Sd-
364   Yogeshwar Yadav          Ramkeshwar Yadav        Barvadih              Karimdih           Mohammadgang Plamu
365   Maheshwar  Prasad        Kishmat  Ram            Ghana                 Dhurgadih          Bikramgang      Rahtash
366   Bajnath  Noniya          Shukar  Noniya          Narola                Bal                Ubra            Aurangabad
367   Anga  Bhuiya             Ramdev  Bhuiya          Baniya                Madanpur           Madanpur        Aurangabad
368   Madan  Paswan            Kamaldev  Paswan        Sherpur               Gurua              Gurua           Gaya
369   Laldev  Khaira
370   Ramkhelawan  Prasad      Bhudhan  Prasad         Parsabad              Bardi              Bardi           Hajaribag
371   Balkishun  Pashwan       Kameshwar  Pashwan      Khankhna              Karma  Pandi       Raphigang       Aurangabad
372   Sahdev  Sav              Sukhi Sav               Lakhi  Saray          Lakhi  Saray       Lakhi  Saray    Munger
373   Brijnandan  Prasad       Jnani  Ran              Sd-                   Sanjhauli          Sanjhauli       Rohtash
374   Bimlesh  Prasad          Radheshyam  Prasad      Mahuyari              Makhra             Barun           Aurangabad
375   Ramadhesh  Prasad        Tilu  Tyare  Prasad     Gamhariya             Amash              Amash           Gaya
376   Rasba  Yadav             Budhan Yadav            Kala  Dhar            Uchak              Uchak           Hajaribag
377   Banli Yadav              Nathu Yadav             Toiya                 Salhara            Choparan        Hajaribag
378   Naresh  Prasad  Khaira   Surenda  Prasad         Dhanbad               Dhanbad            Dhanbad         Dhanbad
379   Budheshwar  Prasad       Ramdin  Prasad          Badki  Ganv           Sundragang         Baurn           Aurangabad
380   Rajendra  Prasad         Chaube  Prasad          Badka  Ganv           Sundragang         Baurn           Aurangabad

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7629

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

381   Ganori  Prasad            Kailuray                Chapra  Sahalanpur    Sd-                Samastipur      Samastipur
382   Ramchandra  Chauhan       Mangal  Chauhan         Kurma  Budhan  Bigha  Aobra              Aobra           Aurangabad
383   Arjun Rabidas             Bhunesvi  Rabidas       Janghira              Barachato          Barachato       Gaya
384   Savili  Kamin             Rameshwar  Beldar       Sd-                   Kusunda            Kendua Area     Dhanbad
385   Kripali  Kumar            Basdev  Chaurasya       Dhanbad               Dhanbad            Dhanbad         Dhanbad
386   Raghunandan  Ram          Samir  Ram              Digghi  Bola  gang    Buraru Digghi      Koch            Gaya
387   Jangi  vishvkarma         Ramyad  vishvkarma      Kanchanpur            Kashipur           Barun           Aurangabad
388   Bhopali  Singh            Chhorika  Singh         Nado                  Aagiaan  Bajar     Aagiaan  Bajar  Bhojpur
389   Ramanand  Paswan          Madhraj  Paswan         Sd-                   Jamua              Sangrampur      Munger
390   Rambalak  Dhadi           Krit  dhadi             Maliva                Badki  Molva       Sarvra          Sd-
391   Ramlal  Mahto             Ram  Dhati  Mahto       Manjhauli  Khaira     Udham  Pur         Kasma           Aurangabad
392   Bigul  Mahto              Ramdhani  Mahto         Manjhauli  Khaira     Udham  Pur         Kasma           Aurangabad
393   Bajrangi  Mahto           Jageshwar  Mahto        Manjhauli  Khaira     Udham  Pur         Kasma           Aurangabad
394   Bahadur  Bhuiya           Saryug Bhuiya           Dhira                 Dhira              Halsi           Munger
395   Saman  Bhuiya             Jethu  Bhuiya           Dhira                 Dhira              Halsi           Munger
396   Kelu  Dhadi               Kailash  Dhadi          Ankarpur              Dokesb             Sepur           Munger
397   Lakhan  Prasad            Gobind  Prasad          Nagar  Keskari        Keshwari           Sariya          Giridih
398   Devchandra  Chaudhari     Ramda  Chaudhari        Kharauna              Nagdih  Pnari      Hantar  Gang    Hajaribag
399   Ramjeet  Rajvanshi
400   Mahendra  Prasad          Chamal  Mandal          Chhotki  Sariya       Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
401   Arjun  Paswan             Somaru  Paswan          Kharvada              Kunda              Aurangabad      Aurangabad
402   Ajeet  Baai
403   Devnandan  Noniya         Ramchandra  Noniya      Kanoda                Haidarnagar        Haidarnager     Plamu
404   Ajay  Prasad              Dhashrath  Prasad       Bumer                 Barachati          Barachati       Gaya
405   Baban  Prasad             Jagdeesh  Prasad        Thakur  Bari  Tola    Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
406   Manikchandra  Chauhan     Rambilash  Chauhan      Kusma  Basdiha        Prariya            Kutumba         Aurangabad
407   Naranyan  Chauhan         Saheram  Chauhan        Lomolap  Gamhriya     Navinagar          Navinagar       Aurangabad
408   Ramjit  Prasad            Jawahar  Prasad         Khairamanorath        Khairamanorath     Chirala         Kasama
709   Ramdhani  Yadav           Sd-                     Mopavpur              Sd-                Lalgang         Baliya
410   Abdhesh Yadav             Kailash Yadav           Badki                 Kunda  Bhaluv      Roh             Navada
411   Prameshwar  Prasad        Jnani  Ram              Bagaiya               Sanjholi           Sanjholi        Rohtash
412   Sadhu  Chauhan            Rajkumar  Chauhan       Kanauda               Haidarnagar        Haidarnagar     Plamu
413   Suthir  Kumar             Narayan  Das
414   Laldev  Yadav             Rampati  Yadav          Sd-                   Sd-                Sd-             Giridih
415   Nidev  Kumar              Gobind Sav              Lakhisaray            Lakhisaray         Lakhisaray      Munger
416   Pravesh  Prasad           Chitamani  Mandan       Chhotki  Sariya       Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
417   Paniaayar  Thakur         Devnarayan  Chauhan     Mojheeda              Sd-                Kutumba         Aurangabad
418   Kalicharan  Thakur        Ram  Dev  Thakur        Kanki  No-4           Basjora            Loyabad         Dhanbad
419   Ramashankar  Prasad       Laghu  Mandal           Chhotki  Sariya       Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
420   Mahabir  Yadav            Chanarik  Yadav         Sd-                   Udhampur           Kasma           Aurangabad
421   Shyam  Pyare              Shri  Tilu  Pyare       Gamyriya              Aamas              Aamas           Gaya
422   Ramdhni  Sav              Jodhan  Sav             Kaladar               Uchak              Uchak           Hajaribag
423   Naveli  Devi              Basant  Chauhan         Kandi                 Kandi              Kandi           Plamu
424   Tuntun  Kumar             Bisun  Mandal           Thakur  Bari          Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
425   Karu  Bhuiya              Mahabir  Bhuiya         Sahrashpura           Sahrashpura        Jamui           Munger
426   Ghan  Shyam  Bhuiya       Bishun  Bhuiya          Sahrashpura           Sahrashpura        Jamui           Munger

7630 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

427   Raman  Bhuiya             Moti  Bhuiya            Dima                   Jhajha             Jamui           Munger
428   Maherdra  Prasad          Prasadi  Mandal         Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
429   Surel  Prasad             Budhan  Mandal          Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
430   Ram  Prasad               Nirmal  Mandal          Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
431   Arjun  Kumar              Nirmal  Mandal          Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
432   Madan Yadav               Jitan Yadav             Manitad                Dhanbad            Dhanbad         Dhanbad
433   Visheshwar  Rawani        Saudagar Rawani         Khadsari               Shivshona          Jamui           Munger
434   Jagarnath  Prasad         Suchit  Mahto           Baryarpur              Bakhtiyarpur       Bakhtiyarpur    Patna
435   Arjun  Khaira             Ramchandra  Rawani      Daud  Nagar            Molabad            Daud  Nagar     Aurangabad
436   Madna Yadav               Shabbalak Yadad         Hirapur                Dhanbad            Dhanbad         Dhanbad
437   Gulel  Khaira
438   Amir  Chaudhari           Dhashrath  Chaudhari    Adhuri                 Shyamnagar         Aamas           Gaya
439   Suresh  Prasad            Bhupar  Mahto           Chandmari              Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
440   Bijay  Prasad             Sanichar  Prasad        Kapili                 Kaplili            Sariya          Giridih
441   Binay  Prasad             Koli  Prasad            Chandmari              Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
442   Mohan  Yadav              Satynarayan  Yadav      Baniyadih              Naniyadih          Giridih         Giridih
443   Birdha  Prasad.           Kamal  Mandal           Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
444   Devmuni  Prasad           Radheshyam  Prasad      Mahuyari               Makhra             Barun           Aurangabad
445   Rajedra  Kumar            Soban  Mandal           Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
446   Prabhu  Prasad            Babaji  Mahto           Chapra  Sharanpur      Javinapur          Samastipur      Samastipur
447   Rajdev Yadav              Late  Ramshrup Yadav    Kanki  No-4            Basjora            Loyabad         Dhanbad
448   Dineshwar  Chauhan        Rajkumar  Chauhan       Kanauda                Haidarnagarh       Haidarnagar     Plamu
449   Rupali Yadav              Ramshrup  Yadav         Manjhauli  Khaira      Udhampur           Kasma           Aurangabad
450   Kaila  Chauhan            Ramlal  Chauhan         Dhamni  Simri          Chainpur           Mali            Aurangabad
451   Chuharmal  Bishkarma      Sd-                     Kathbara               Madhauna           Gurua           Gaya
452   Suresh  Paswan            Khori  Paswan           Diha                   Diha               Pariya          Gaya
453   Mithilesh  Kr.  Singh     Bahapur  Singh          Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
454   Ramanand  Chauhan         Darika  Chauhan         Noniya  Bigha  Druka   Druka              Japla           Plamu
455   Jay  Chauhan              Basdev  Chauhan         Ubnagar                Posma              Aurangabad      Aurangabad
456   Biredra  Kr  Mista        Yadunandan  Mista       Sd-                    Baliya             Gurua           Gaya
457   Ram  Briksh  Ram          Yandan  Mishra          Serpur                 Gurua              Gurua           Gaya
458   Darika  Das               Ganpat  Das             Serpur                 Gurua              Gurua           Gaya
459   Kpil  Mistra              Jagdeesh  Mistra        Arur  Pirkha           Baliya             Gurua           Gaya
460   Bachchan  Das             Damodar  Das            Aara                   Devkuli            Uchak           Hajaribag
461   Shivnandan  Das           Budu Das                Itamakhari             Kasma              Bdarphigang     Aurangabad
462   Raj  Kumar  Prajapati     Udeshwar  Prajapati     Rajhara  Kothi         Rajha              Bishmdur        Plamu
463   Raj  Kumar  Sav           Rameshwar  Sav          Phatehpur              Jamuaarakala       Aamas           Gaya
464   Satedra  Prasad           Sita  Ram               Sadanandanpur          Bigha              Begusaray       Begusary
465   Khushi Yadav              Phitan  Yadav           Chhotki  Sariya        Sariya             Sariya          Giridih
466   Krishna  Yadav            —                       —                      —                  —               —

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7631

SCHEDULE

2. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. Ld. Counsel for the workman submits that workman is not interested. to contest the case. 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, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3137.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 13/2010द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/44/2007-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/ 2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/44/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the demand of Janta Mazdoor sangh from the management of mahuda Group under Western Jharia Area of M/s BCCL for Payments of (a) wages from 08.04.2004 to 20.10.2004, (b) illegal and premature period of retirement (C) Gratuity up to the date of normal retirement and (d) fringe benefits like Attendance Bonus etc is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 18.02.2010. After notice both parties appeared , the Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 01.11.2010. Thereafter the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 15.06.2011. Neither evidence nor any document marked by the parties.

3. The Short point to be decided in the reference, whether the workman was allowed to retire prematurely or not.

4. The workman submits that his date of Birth is 1948 but he was asked to the retire before 4 years. On the other hand the management submitted that the workman after rendering 42 years of service, he has been retired and all his dues are paid and his claim is vague. It is also submitted by the management that the workman though asked to appear before Apex Medical Board for determination of his age, he did not appear. Even he did not appear before the enquiry officer.

ANNEXURE

5. Though the management took the specific plea that the workman rendered 42 years of service, in the rejoinder filed by the workman , he without being denying the said plea, submits that he was working in the surface as office boy at the age 12.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 13 of 2010

Employers in relation to the management of W.J. Area M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer 6. It was not his plea anywhere prior to rejoinder that the workman rendered service at his 12th years of age. Hence the plea of the workman is not acceptable and he is rightly superannuated.

Appearances :

For the Employers : Shri. D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman : Shri D.Kumar, Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated : 27/10/2014

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh from the management of mahuda Group under Western Jharia Area of M/s BCCL for Payments of wages from 08.04.2004 to 20.10.2004, illegal and premature period of retirement , Gratuity up to the date of normal retirement and fringe benefits like Attendance Bonus etc is not justified and not legal, Accordingly he is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/44/2007-IR (CM-I), dated 05/02/2010, 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:

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3138.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 63/2005द्ध को7632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/19/2005-आईआर ;सी-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/ 2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/19/2005-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer 3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. But he has already out of service for 10 years. It is felt to give another chance to the workman to serve.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee. But the workman be kept under probation for the period two year and his performance report be given to the under signed. Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

का.आ. 3139.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 60/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Ref. No. 63 of 2005

Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer [सं. एल-20012/3/2005-आईआर ;सी-Iद्ध] एम. के. सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

Appearances :

For the Employers : Shri. D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman : Shri K. N. Singh, Rep.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated : 14/10/2014

S.O. 3139.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/ 2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/3/2005-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 60 of 2005

By order No.-L-20012/19/2005 IR-(C-I), dated. 19/07/ 2005 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub –Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

Employers in relation to the management of Joyrampur Colliery M/s. BCCL

SCHEDULE

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

"Whether the action of the management of Simlabahal Colliery of M/S BCCL in dismissing sri Muneshwar Bhuia M/Loader from the service of the company w.e.f 06.01.2004 is justified? If not, to what relif is the concerned workman entitled?" For the Employers : Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman : Sri Pintu Mondal

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated : 16/10/2014

AWARD

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 22.08.2005 After receipt of reference , both parties are noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 20.07.2006. The management files their written statement on 05.08.2010. The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his service on absenteeism.

By order No. L-20012/3/ 2005-IR (C-1) dated 19/07/2005, the central Government in the Ministry of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7633 Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

SCHEDULE

For the Employers   :  Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman     :  Sri N.G. Arun, Rep.
State : Jharkhand                       Industry : Coal

Dated : 17/10/2014

AWARD

"Whether the action of the management of BCCL, Joyrampur Colliery in dismissing Sh. Sudam Ravidas, Miner Loader from service w.e.f. 22/05/2002 is justified whereas he had already expired on 10/05/ 2001? If not, whether the demand of Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union that Smt Chapala Devi, widow of the deceased workman be given employment under the provisions of NCWA is justified? If so, what orders are necessary in this regard and to what other relief, if any, the workmen or his dependents is /are entitled ?"

By order No. L-20012/275/2004-IR (C-1) dated 02/06/2005, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on 22.08.2005. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. During the pendency of the case Sponsoring Union , praying that the workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved. Hence "No dispute" award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3140.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 46/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/275/2004-आईआर ;सी-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3140.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/ 2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/275/2004-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the action of the management of BCCL, PB Area to stop payment of 'Other Allowances' (for empty tub pushing loosemanship, Material lowering, Rope pulling and Tipper and Tipper Allowance) to the Trammers is justified in view of the duties of Trammers as prescribed by NCWA? If not, to what relief are the workmen entiled? What other orders, if any, are required in this regard?"

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on 18.07.2005. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. During the pendency of the case Sponsoring Union , praying that the workman is not interested to contest the case, It is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved. Hence "No dispute" award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3141.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 45/2011द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/23/2011-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

Ref. No. 46 of 2005

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Employers in relation to the management of P.B. Area M/s. BCCL

S.O. 3141.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/ 2011) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/23/2011-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer7634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

Ref. No. 45 of 2011

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, 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 01/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/205/2003-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

Employers in relation to the management of P.B. Area M/s. BCCL

AND

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 5 of 2004

Appearances :

For the Employers : Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated : 15/10/2014

Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Area M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

AWARD

Appearances :

By order No. L-20012/23/2011-IR (C-1) dated 02/09/2011, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

For the Employers : Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : Sri Manas Chatterjee, Rep.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated : 16/10/2014

AWARD

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of P. B. Area of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing Sri Jagmohan Rajak as Tyndel Jamadar is justified and fair? To, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?" By order No.-L-20012/205/2003 IR-(C-I), dated. 24/ 12/2003 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub –Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

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, 1 दिसम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3142.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 5/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/205/2003-आईआर ;सी-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

S.O. 3142.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/ " Whether the action of the management of BCCL, Kustore Area in terminating the Service of Sri Arjun Rajwar, Miner Loader w.e.f 13.8.97 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 02.01.2004 After receipt of reference , both parties are noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement . The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on absenteeism.

3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. But he has already out of service for 17 years. It is felt to give another chance to the workman to serve.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee. But the workman be kept under probation for a period one year and his performance report be given to the under signed. Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7635

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3143.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय असनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 15/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/414/2002-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2014

S.O. 3143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 15/ 2003 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Benjemehari Colliery, M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/414/2002 - IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the management of Benjemehari Colliery of ECL in not providing employment to Smt. Bechia Devi, W/o Late Lakhan Chouhan is legal and justified? If not, to what relief she entitled?"

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/414/2002- IR(CM-II) dated 10.07.2003 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 15 of 2003 was registered on 21.07.2003. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties

appeared in the Tribunal, through their representative.

The dependent of the workman has stated that in his written statement that Late Lakhan Chouhan was a permanent employee of Benjemehari Colliery under Salanpur Area of M/s. ECL designated as Tyndal. Sri Lakhan Chouhan died on 24.05.1995 while he was on

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

the role of the company. That as per provision of Wage Agreement / NCWA one dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to get the employment. Accordingly wife of Late Lakhan Chouhan applied for providing employment and submitted all required documents for providing employment. Management did not proceed the REFERENCE NO. 15 OF 2003

PARTIES: The management of

Benjemehari Colliery, ECL

Vs.

Smt. Bechia Devi

employment proposal on the plea that they had dismissed Late Lakhan Chouhan on the ground of absenteeism on 08.03.1996. During conciliation proceedings management stated that the name of Late Lakhan Chouhan was deleted from the roll of the company as he was absenting from 16.05.1995, so employment can not be given to the

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management : Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union : Sri Rakesh Kumar, General (Workman) Secretary, KMC

INDUSTRY: COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated - 07.08.2014 dependent. The management should produce the dismissal approval of the competent authority as per the statement of the management, the workman absented from duty w.e.f. 16.05.1995 but the workman Late Lakhan Chouhan died on 24.05.1995. Late Lakhan Chouhan died while he was in service/role of the company. If there was any

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/414/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 10.07.2003 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

dismissal order, then, it was after the death of Late Lakhan Chouhan. Therefore as per NCWA agreement one dependent of deceased employee was entitled for employment in the Colliery. Wife of Late Lakhan Chouhan along with children does not have any source of income. She is at the stage of starvation. She is entitled for

employment because Late Lakhan Chouhan died while he was in service, therefore as per wage agreement NCWA-V, the management is bound to provide employment to the dependent of the deceased. Smt. Bechia7636 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Devi is illiterate and ignorant of the rules and regulations of the company. She has claimed for employment in place of her husband but management not heard.

The management in spite of the opportunity given by

the tribunal has not filed written statement.

Smt. Bechia Devi has examined herself as witness. 12 Xerox copies of documents have been filed by the union. Management has not filed any documentary of oral evidence in their support.

I have heard the argument of Sri Rakesh Kumar on behalf of the union/workman and Sri P. K. Das Ld. Advocate on behalf of the management.

Sri P. K. Das argued that the reference is misconceived; union has not challenged the dismissal order. Dismissal order is correct. Therefore Smt. Bechia Devi wife of Late Lakhan Chouhan is not entitled for employment. On the other hand Rakesh Kumar had argued that deceased Lakhan Chouhan died on 24.05.1995, he was absent from 16.05.1995. Neither any enquiry has been conducted nor any copy of enquiry report or dismissal order furnished to the dependent of the deceased Lakhan Chouhan. If there had been an enquiry, the management would have given the copy of enquiry report and dismissal order. Late Lakhan Chouhan died while in service therefore as per NCWA agreement wife of deceased Smt. Bechia Devi entitled for employment in place of deceased Late Lakhan Chouhan.

It is not disputed that Late Lakhan Chouhan was a ex- permanent employee of Benjemehari Colliery. The death report of Late Lakhan Chouhan has been filed on record by the union. Dr. Masood Alam has certified on 24.05.1995 that Sri Lakhan Chouhan died at 07:00 a.m. Moreover death certificate of Late Lakhan Chouhan issued on 03.07.1997 has been filed on record. Death certificate has been issued by government department and certified that his death occurred on 25.05.1995.

It is unpleasant surprise that the Tribunal afforded several opportunities to the management for filing written statement from 10.11.2004 to 05.06.2013. Tribunal has afforded opportunities to the management on 30 dates. But in spite of that management did not care to tender their written statement. It is very shocking state of affair that the management has not filed the enquiry report and dismissal order of deceased Lakhan Chouhan, on basis of which the deceased employee was dismissed. The Xerox copy of the letter of Dy. CME of Benjemehari Colliery addressed to the ALC, Asansol dated 20.06.200 has been filed by the union. In that letter office of the management has narrated that the service of Late Lakhan Chouhan was terminated on and from 08.03.1996 on long absenteeism ground. If there was any dismissal order, then naturally before passing the dismissal order there ought to be had been a departmental enquiry against the deceased workman. It is evident from the record that the charge sheet was issued to Late Lakhan Chouhan on 16.06.1995 after his death, but there is no explanation of deceased workman by the management.

But why the enquiry report is not submitted on the file of the Tribunal, the reason is best known to the employer. Though Rakesh Kumar on behalf of the union/ workman had argued that in spite of request, management has not provided the enquiry report because no enquiry was held. No enquiry can be held against a dead person.

Domestic enquiry in Industrial Law has acquired great significance and Industrial adjudication attaches considerably importance to such enquiry. In number of cases, the hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an enquiry is not an empty formality, but an essential condition to the legality of the disciplinary order. In other words before the delinquent workmen can be dismissed for misconduct, the employer shall hold a fair and regular enquiry into the misconduct. Dismissal without holding a regular enquiry would be an illegality. It is well settled that disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry. It should be held according to principles of natural justice and Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicially into enquiry of misconduct. If charges of misconduct are proved, will result not only in deprivation of livelihood of the workman, but also attach stigma to his character. The disciplinary enquiry is only for the purpose of establishing the guilt of a particular workman. If the foundation has not been properly led, then edifice can't remain.

In order to able to take part in enquiry the charged workman must have notice of the date, time and place of enquiry. Even if the workman fails to submit his reply to the charge sheet the Enquiry Officer is not absorbed from his duty to send the notice to the delinquent workman informing him about the date, time and place of enquiry which would enable him to produce his witness and cross-examine the witness against him.

Industrial Employment (standing orders) Act, 1946, rule 17 (1) prescribes that if the workman is continuous absent without permission and without satisfactory cause for more than 10 days, disciplinary proceeding against act of misconduct can be held. Subsection 2 prescribes that unless workman concerned is informed of the alleged misconduct and opportunity is provided to the workman to explain the allegation, then only departmental enquiry can be held. The workman is absent from 16.05.1995 he died on 25.05.1995 his absence was only for 9 days i.e. less than 10 days. Therefore according to Industrial Employment (standing orders) Act, 1946, there was no[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7637 need to conduct the enquiry against the workman because the absence of the workman is less than 10 days. But even if any departmental enquiry was held, it ought to have been held following the rules of natural justice.

If before issuing the charge sheet the workman was no more alive then how it could have been possible to proceed with departmental enquiry. Enquiry Officer did not take care of serving the notice to the deceased workman. If the Enquiry Officer had taken care to serve the notice upon the delinquent deceased workman he surely would have known about the death of the delinquent workman. Due to this lacuna the enquiry report and dismissal order has not been filed before the Tribunal.

As per NCWA agreement the copy of which filed by the union there was memorandum of agreement between management and union. As per the para 9.3.0, 9.3.2 and 9.5.0 of the agreement the management has to provide to one dependent of the deceased workman. In case of female the age of female should be under 45 years.

अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय असनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 97/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/363/1998-आई आर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2014

S.O. 3144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No.97/1999 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of J.K. Ropeways of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/363/1998 - IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 97 OF 1999

The Xerox copy of service record of Late Lakhan Chouhan has been filed. As per record of ECL the date of birth of Late Lakhan Chouhan is 1937. He died in 1995 i.e. on the date of death his age was 58 years which is less than 60 years, before the date of superannuation. The copy of family composition of Smt. Bechia Devi date 31.03.1998 has been filed. The age of Smt. Bechia Devi as per his document is 40 years. She is less than 45 years. Therefore on the death of deceased workman his wife Smt. Bechia Devi was eligible for employment as per agreement of the management.

PARTIES: The management of J. K.

Ropeways of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Amla Zamadar

REPRESENTATIVES:

   In  view  of  this  matter  I  think  it  just  and  proper  to
modify and substitute the same by exercising the power
u/s  II  (a)  Industrial  Dispute Act  1947. The  order  of  the
dismissal of deceased workman Late Lakhan Chouhan is         For the management:        Sri. P.K. Das Ld. Adv.
hereby  set-a-side  and  it  is  hereby  directed  to  provide
employment to Smt. Bechia Devi widow of Late Lakhan          For  the  union            Rakesh Kumar, President of
Chouhan  in  place  of  Late  Lakhan  Chouhan  who  died     (Workman):                 the  union
while he was in service.                                     INDUSTRY: COAL             STATE: WEST BENGAL

ORDER

Dated - 10.09.14

AWARD

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर, 2014

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/363/98-IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

dk-vk- 3144.—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, "Whether the action of the management of General Manager, ECL, J. K. Ropeways, Po: Kajoragram,7638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Distt: Burdwan in denying reinstatement to Sh. Amla Zamadar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned entitled?" M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/374/1999 - 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. 30 OF 2000

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/363/ 98-IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 97 of 1999 was registered on 23.07.1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

The case was fixed for put up on 22.10.2014 but put up on 01.09.2014 on the basis of a petition filed by Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of the union.

PARTIES: The management of Parascole

Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Shri Bijan Kumar Bhattacharjee

REPRESENTATIVES:

In the petition Sri Rakesh Kumar prays to close the case and to pass a "No Dispute Award" as the workman is no more interested to proceed with the case further. Since the workman has no interest to proceed with the case further, I think it reasonable to close this old case. As such the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute Award" is hereby passed.

For the management: Sri. P.K. Das Ld. Adv.

For the union (Workman): None

INDUSTRY: COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated - 11.09.14

AWARD

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, 2 दिसम्बर, 2014

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/374/99-IR(CM-II) dated 29.02.2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

dk-vk- 3145.—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, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय असनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 30/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/374/1999-आई आर (सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2014

S.O. 3145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 30/ 2000 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Parascole Colliery, "Whether the action of the management of Parascole Colliery of M/s ECL in dismissing Sh. Bijan Kumar Bhattacharjee, Sr. overman from service is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/374/ 99-IR(CM-II) dated 29.02.2000 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 30 of 2000 was registered on 13.03.2000 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7639

On perusal of the case record, I find that my predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) of this Tribunal had reserved an award in this case because the workman neither appeared nor took any step since 2007. It seems that the workman is now no more interested to proceed with the case further. The case is also too old - in the year 2000. As such the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute Award" is hereby passed.

2. The Director Personnel,

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Jagruti Vihar, Burla, At./Po. Burla, Dist. Sambalpur ...1st Party-Managements

(And)

ORDER

Their workman represented through the Area Secretary, Ib Valley Area MCL, G.M. Complex, Orissa Collieries Mazdoor Sangh, At./Po. Brajrajnagar, Dist. Jharsuguda ...2nd PartyUnion

Appearances:

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer None : For the 1st Party-Managements.

None : For the 2nd Party-Unions.

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर, 2014

का.आ. 3146.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एमसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 34/2011द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-12-2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/94/2010-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2014

S.O. 3146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 34/ 2011 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Ib Valley Area MCL, PO Brajrajnagar and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/94/2010 - IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer This reference was received in this Tribunal on 11.7.2011. The 2nd party-Union was required to file the statement of claim in pursuance of the order of reference dated 23.06.2011 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order of reference. But on failure of the 2nd party- Union to file the statement of claim, a notice was issued to it on 04.08.2011 by ordinary post. When the 2nd Party- Union did not respond to the notice and filed no statement of claim by the date fixed, a second notice under registered post was issued to it on 07.10.2011 to appear and file the statement of claim at Sambalpur Camp Court. But despite receiving the two notices, the 2nd party-Union neither turned up in the Tribunal nor taken any step to file the statement of claim. In order to provide ample opportunity to the 2nd Party-Union to appear and to file statement of claim another three notices, one through ordinary post on 31.7.2014 and two through registered post i.e. on 8.2.2012 and 10.9.2014 were issued to him. But, till today the 2nd Party-Union has not filed any statement of claim. Therefore it appears that either the 2nd Party-Union has lost interest in prosecuting its case or might have settled the dispute with the Managements amicably out of the court. In absence of any pleadings raised by the 2nd Party-Union no adjudication of dispute can take place.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

2. Under the above circumstances this Tribunal is of the view that a no-dispute award is to be passed in the case. Accordingly a no-dispute award is passed.

3. The reference is answered in the above terms.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 34/2011 L-22012/94/2010-IR(CM-II), dated 23.06.2011 नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर, 2014

Date of Passing Award – 10th of November, 2014

Between:

1. The General Manager,

Ib Valley Area MCL, Po. Brajrajnagar, Dist. Jharsuguda,

का.आ. 3147.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग, बिलासपुर के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ7640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/37/00द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-12-2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/313/99-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2014

S.O. 3147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/ LC/R/37/00) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department, Bilaspur and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

02/12/2014.

[No. L-40012/313/99-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer was excellent. On 16-3-99, he was transferred to Korba. He expressed his inability to go to Korba. Thereon his services were orally terminated by IInd party without

notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Instead of regularization, his services after six months, he was kept temporarily for long period. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement denying workman was continuously working as Driver from 1-7-93. That appointment of casual labour are banned from 1985. Workman was never engaged by management. There was no question of transfer of workman to Korba. There was no question of regularization of his service. Workman was

not retrenched by IInd party. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

ANNEXURE

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/37/00

                                                            (i)  Whether the action of the           Termination of
                                                                 management of Telecom               service of
                                                                 District Manager, Telecom           workman by
                                                                 Department, Bilaspur in             IInd party is
Shri Nageshwar Rao,                                              terminating the services             not proved.
S/o Shri Sudha Rao Jadhav,                                       of Shri Nageshwar Rao,
Nr. Shiv Hanuman Mandir,                                         Driver w.e.f. 16-3-99 is
Tilaknagar, Bilaspur                        ...Workman           legal and justified?

Versus

Telecom District Manager, Telecom Department, Bilaspur

...Management (ii) If not, what relief the workman Workman is

is entitled to?" not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

AWARD

(Passed on this 10th day of November, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 27-1-2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/ 313/99-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

" Whether the action of the management of Telecom

District Manager, Telecom Department, Bilaspur in terminating the services of Shri Nageshwar Rao, Driver w.e.f. 16-3-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at page

3/1 to 3/2. Case of workman is that from 1-7-93, he was appointed as Driver with IInd party. His service record 5. Though workman is challenging termination of his service for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act, he has failed to participate in reference proceeding. IInd party filed affidavit of its witness Silbanus Xalxo supporting contentions in Written Statement of IInd party. His evidence remained unchallenged. Workman remained

absent and failed to cross-examine management's witness. I find no reason to discard evidence of management's witness. Workman failed to substantiate his contentions, termination of his services by management is not established. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

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

(1) The termination of services of workman by

management is not established.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7641

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3148.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आयल इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, गुवाहाटी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 09/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/22/98-आईआर (एम)] 1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial Dispute raised by General Secretary, Oil Man Management Drilling Workers' Union Duliajan, Assam against the management of Oil India Ltd, Duliajan, Digboi for regularistation the service of the workers engaged through Oil India Registered Contractors; which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, Assam vide Ministry's Order No. L-30012/22/98-IR(M), dated 08.06.1999 for adjudication. The schedule of this reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/ 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oil India Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-30012/22/98-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

"Whether the claim of the union (contractual workers' union) for regularisation of their service in Oil India Ltd. (contract workers engaged through Oil India Registered contractors) is justified? If not, to what relief these contractual workers are entitled?"

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

Present : Shri L.C.Dey, M.A., LL.B.

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 09 of 2014

(Arising out of Ref. Case No.15(c)/99 of Industrial Tribunal, Assam, Guwahati.)

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

The workmen represented by General Secretary, Oil Man Management Drilling Workers' Union, Duliajan, Assam

.…………Claimant/workman.

-Vrs-

The Management of Oil India Ltd. Duliajan, Assam & M/s. Delthech India (P) Ltd., Guwahati.

………..O.P./Management. 2. Accordingly the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, Assam registered reference case No.15(C)/1999 and issued notice upon both the parties. Both the parties submitted their respective written statement and the Additional W.S. along with the documents. The management along with their W.S. submitted petition for framing the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the instant reference. While the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati after hearing both the sides rejected the prayer for framing preliminary issue & decided to decide the reference on merit vide order dated 27.3.2000. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the order dt. 27.3.2000 the Management preferred a Writ Being W.P.(C) 5740/2000 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court which remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding preliminary issue vide order dt. 1.8.02. In the mean time a corrigendum was issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide their No. L-30012/22/1998-IR(M) dated 12.5.2003 amending the Schedule which reads as follows :

" Whether the claim of the Union for regularisation of workmen mentioned in the list attached in Oil India Ltd. is justified? If so, what relief those workmen are entitled to?"

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : None Appeared.

For the Management : Mr. S.N. Sarma,

Sr. Advocate. Mr. A.Jahid, Advocate The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, Assam upon hearing both the sides quashed the corrigendum on the ground that the corrigendum of the Schedule is completely different which superseded the first reference vide his order dated 10.6.2005 in reference case No. 15(C)/99. Upon hearing both the sides the learned Presiding Officer has framed the preliminary issue on the maintainability of the reference & examined one witness each from both the sides and on completion of hearing of both the parties passed an Award dated 26.9.2005 deciding the preliminary issue in negative.

3. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 26.9.2005 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal,7642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] assigned to the contractor. Since the operation of installation of rigs are directly supervised by the Technical experts like engineers and other persons of the Company and the contractor has noting to do with this job. It is also mentioned that similar type of job are also being performed by the regular employees of the company and at present there are about 12 Oil fields where the company is carrying out the job of exploration of crude oil by way of drilling as stated above. As such, it is a fit case where the engagement of contract labourers is prohibited. As the contract between the contractor and the company is an illusory contract, and all the contract labourers are to be selected by the principal employer. The sole purpose of the show of engagement of contract labourers is to deprive the contract labourers to have their regular scale of pay as being paid to the regular employees of the Company. The category of jobs performed by concerned workers are Assistant Driller, Electrician, Heavy Crane Operator, Pipeline Fitter, Rig Fitter, Welder, Pump Fitter etc.

Guwahati, Assam the union preferred Writ before the Hon'ble High Court being W.P.(C) No. 265/07. The Hon'ble High Court vide their order dated 29.5.2014 after hearing both the sides remanded the reference setting aside the Award dated 26.9.05 with direction to this Tribunal to hear the parties and to pass a judgment in accordance with the law on the basis of the materials on record within a period of 3 months from the date of the appearance of the parties. On receipt of the record along with the order of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court as mentioned above, notices were issued upon both the parties. The Management appeared through their learned Advocate Mr. S.N. Sarma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. A.Jahid while the Union did not appear and the notice issued upon the Union returned without service with the remarks of the Postal Authority as "non known". Thereafter notice was issued against the learned Advocate for the Union Mr. A. Dasgupt, learned Sr. Advocate, Guwahati who on receipt of the notice through his learned junior Advocate Mr. A. Kundu submitted petition stating that the Union have not engaged him. From the order of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court dated 29.5.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.265/07 it appears that Mr. A.Dasgupta, learned Sr. Advocate appeared on behalf of the Union and both the parties contested the case before the Hon'ble High Court. Considering the above circumstances and having regard to the order of the Hon'ble High Court with direction to dispose of the reference within 3 months from the date of appearance of the parties/their counsel; finding the Union/their learned Counsel not inclined to appear before this Tribunal, I have heard the management ex-parte and accordingly this reference is going to be disposed of in the light of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

Further contention of the Union is that the contract labourers deserve to be regularized in the service of the company by abolishing or prohibiting the engagement of contract labour system for which the Union approached before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) whereupon the conciliation proceeding took place but the company declined to consider these employees as their employees and accordingly an FOC was submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) before the Central Government with recommendation that the Central Government to take necessary step for abolishing of engagement of contract labourers in the jobs performed by the concerned workmen of this reference. Thereafter this reference was made by the appropriate government. It is mentioned that the workmen have been engaged for a period of 5 to 10 years continuously on being selected by the Company and the contractor have been shown to have changed from time to time but the contract laboures remain the same performing the same nature of job; and for all purpose these labourers are to be considered as the employees of the Company. The contractor has noting to do but they used to receive some commission for purported supply of contract labourers, notwithstanding the fact that these labourers are directly engage by the company. As such, the system adopted by the management is absolutely illegal, it should be discouraged and discontinued and all the employees involved in the jobs as stated above are to be considered as regular employees of the company. Hence, the Union prayed for passing award declaring that the workmen involved in this reference are regular employees of the Oil India Ltd. and they are entitled to have the regular scale of pay as being paid to the regular employees for these jobs from the date of their engagement.

4. The case of the Union as it reveals from the claim statement submitted by them, in brief, is that the workers Union namely Oil Man Management Drilling Workers Union which is registered under Trade Union Act having its registered office at Kumudnagar, Duliajan, District- Dibrugarh and there were 67 numbers of workers and all of them being contract labourers had been engaged in drilling operation of different Oil field of Oil India Ltd. In order to explore Oil the Company has to install rig in a particular oil field to extract crude oil and these rigs are to be installed by the workers involved in this reference, and the jobs performed by the concerned workers are of perennial in nature. After collection of the crude oil, the process of refining started in different oil refineries. The workers involved in this case are engaged for installation of rigs which is a specialized job and the persons who are engaged in this operation are to be selected by the Company which requires to hold an interview in this regard by the management if the company consider that these persons to be employed by the contractor are suitable for the job assigned to them they can be engaged by the contractor; and in fact, the contractor has no control to engaged any contract labourer for the job

5. The pleadings of the management of Oil India Ltd, in nutshell, is that the order of reference u/s 10 of the I.D. Act is illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction as[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7643 the contractor has no control to engage any contract labourer for the job assigned to them; that the contract labourer engaged by the contractor are selected by the company and that the contractor has noting to do with the job assigned to him and that the engagement of contractor in these type of job is only to have cheap labour. The management stated that as per agreement itself the contractor must deploy tool pusher, electrical engineer, driller, Asstt. Driller, etc. for performing the assignment given to the contractors who has to inform the progress of the work assigned to him to the Engineer of the Company and the contractor is liable to pay his labourer by him at the rate of wages not less than those paid for similar works in the locality/neighbourhood subject to the stipulation under the Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Wages Act and the Mines Act. Further contention of the management is that their being no prohibitory order prohibiting the engagement of contractual labourers, the instant order of reference is illegal and is not maintainable. Accordingly a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the reference may be framed and the same should be heard at first.

6. In view of the order dated 29.5.14 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 265/07 I have heard the learned Advocate for the management ex-parte since neither the Union nor their learned Advocate who was engaged earlier in the Hon'ble High Court by the Union did not turn up in spite of receiving notice as discussed above. I have also gone through the entire case record along with the documents and the evidence adduced by both the sides.

The preliminary objection raised by the management that whether the contract labourer can raised an Industrial Dispute for regularisation unless the notification u/s 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,70 has been issued by the appropriate government and whether the present reference made by the appropriate Government is maintainable. The Ministry of Labour vide their order No.L-30012/22/98/IR(M) dated 8.6.99 referred the dispute in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause(d) Sub-Section(1), Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947, for adjudication, stating the terms of reference as follows:

"Whether the claim of the Union (contractual workers' union) for regularisation of their service in Oil India Ltd. ( contract workers engaged through Oil India Registered contractors) is justified? If not, to what relief these contractual workers are entitled ?

there is no provision of referring any dispute under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 as the concerned workmen are employed by the contractor namely M/S Deltech(I) Pvt. Ltd. ; and hence, the question of regularisation of service of the said contractual labourers by the principal employer does not arise and as such, the impugned order of reference itself is bad and liable to be rejected as it is not maintainable. The service condition of the contractual labourers are covered by contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act,1970 and the rules framed there under, and there is no master servant relation between the concerned workmen and the management of the Oil India Ltd. as such, the question of regularisation by the management of Oil India Ltd. does not arise. It is also settled position of law that appointment of contract labourer can be prohibited only by the Appropriate Government by abolishing the contract labour system under Section 10 of the Act; and their being no such notification abolishing the contract labour system the present reference is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. The management also submitted that a preliminary point regarding the maintainability of the instant reference may be framed and the same should be decided first. However, if the said preliminary point is decided against the management the management may be allowed to file additional written statement and to decide the reference on merit. The management accordingly filed additional W.S. on two occasions on 13.12.99 and 25.9.03 stating, inter-alia that the dispute has been raised by the contractual workers Union and not by the Oil Man Management Drilling Workers Union and hence, the written statement filed by the Union can not be taken into consideration in the instant reference. The management denied the statement made in the written statement submitted by the workmen except those which are specifically admitted by them. The management contended that it is admitted by the Union that they are all contract labourers and the list of members which was once submitted to the management by the said union will also show that all these 67 contract workers are employees of M/S Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. which is a company registered under the Company's Act has got its separate identity. The exploration, drilling operation of oil wells are given in contract to various contractors, and if crude oil is found then the job of the contractor comes to an end. It is also mentioned that generally the contracts are made for a period of 2 years which may extend for further period of 1 year. However the management denied that the workmen involved in this reference engaged for installations of rigs and in fact the management has a contract with M/S Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. which was executed on 12.7.95 and the contract labourers involved in the instant case are the employees of the said Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. and has got no master servant relationship with the management of Oil India Ltd. The management denied the statement of the workman that they were selected by the Company; that involvement of the contract laboures are taken by the management; that

On perusal of the pleadings as well as the evidence adduced by both the sides it is found admitted that the workmen in respect of the instant reference were contract labouers engaged through the registered contractor namely M/S Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. but the bone of contention of this dispute is that the Union asserted that the contract between the management and M/S Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. was nothing but shame contract and a mere7644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] camouflage in order to deprive the workmen from the benefits extended to the other regular employees of the management.

7. The workmen witness No.1 Debabanda Tamuli in his evidence mentioned that he worked in S2 and S3 the Drilling operation places under Oil India where there was a Private Limited Company named M/S Deltech(I). He also said that there were altogether 67 numbers of labour under registered labour Union named Oil Man Management Drilling Workers Union in which he (W.W.1) was one of the executive member. He mentioned that they were engaged in the drilling works after holding interview by the Oil India Ltd. but their wages was paid by the Deltech(I) Pvt. Ltd. Company. They had to work for 12 hours every day and they availed rest for 15 days in a month. Their works in the drilling site was supervised by the Officer of Oil India who also issued certain instructions in discharging their duties. He added that out of total number of 12 drilling field under Oil India Ltd. in two drilling field the works were got done through the contractors and in remaining 10 numbers of Oil Field the workers of the Oil India Ltd. performed the work. The wages of the regular workers under the Oil India Ltd. was three times higher than that paid to the workmen involved in this reference but the nature of work of both the workers are same. He again mentioned that the Oil India Ltd. provide all instruments of works and they had to stay at the camp provided by the Oil India Ltd. He also stated that they has submitted many representation for abolishing the contract system and to regularize them. He has proved the approval letter in regard to the engagement of the workers in different jobs vide Exhibit- 1 to Exhibit-19 (the photo copies proved under objection). He had also produced certain documents regarding instruction of works marked as Exhibit-20 to Exhibit-29 (the photo copies proved in original).

During his cross-examination the workman witness No.1 categorically admitted that Deltech(I) Pvt. Ltd. Company is a contract Company and there was 67 number of workmen including himself under the said Company. He also admitted that the documents marked as Exhibit- 1 written to the Deltech(I) Pvt. Ltd. by the Oil India Ltd. in reply to Deltech (I) letter dated 14.3.97 and that Exhibit- 2, Exhibit-10, Exhibit-16 and Exhibit-19 are the letters issued by the Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. of the Oil India Ltd. He has also proved the agreement entered into between the management of Oil India Ltd. and M/S Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. marked as Exhibit-A. The workman witness No.1 further admitted that at the time of their engagement no appointment letter was issued by the Deltech(I) Pvt. Ltd. nor by the Oil India Ltd. The Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. obtained the receipt from them at the time of paying the wages. He categorically mentioned that he did not know the name of the officer concerned who hold the interview at the time of his engagement in the Oil India Ltd. but he could not produce any document before the Court in connection with holding interview by the Management. He again mentioned that the Deltech(I) Pvt. Ltd. got the works done through them and at the time of drilling works the engineers of Oil India Ltd. remained present at the drilling site and supervised the works as their machineries worth more than crores had been lying in the drilling site. He also admitted that in case of any mistake committed at the time of drilling works damage may cause to the drilling operation because these works are being done with sophisticated machineries. He also admitted that at the time of drilling works the Oil India Ltd. paid the money to the Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. according to the terms of agreement.

The management witness No.1 Mr. Malabhya Mohan Mazumder, the then Sr. Manger, IR, Oil India Ltd, Duliajan in his deposition mentioned that the workers involved in this reference are contract labourers and at the time of engagement of those workers the provision of contract labourer (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970 complied with and their company is registered under the said Act vide Exhibit-C. He also said that these workers worked under M/S Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. which entered into a contract agreement on 12.7.95 for man management contract for drilling operation vide Exhibit-A. He also added that all the terms and conditions regarding the compliance of laws, payment of wages, etc. of the contractor are mentioned in Exhibit-A and after submission of the license by the contractor, the contractor was allowed to work vide Exhibit-E.

During his cross-examination the management witness No.1 said that the present reference was made regarding job contract of drilling job and the said contract was given to the Deltech(I) Pvt. Ltd. Company. He also mentioned that the drilling site i.e. rigs were given by them and machineries were also supplied by them; and they also supervise the work after engagement of the labourer by the contractor so that the contractor engage experienced labourers. There is every chance of causing huge damage and occurrence of accident in case of engagement of inexperienced labourers for which they examined the bio data of the labourers. He categorically denied that the drilling operation is done by them and they supervised all the works of the labourers engaged in drilling operation. He also said that the drilling operation is being done in their company by their own workers and he categorically denied that they do not engage any contract labour in drilling works.

8. The evidence of both the sides as discussed above shows that it is well settled that the workmen were engaged by the contractor namely Deltech(I) Pvt. Ltd. and the wages were also paid to the workmen by the said contractor, although the works done by the workers in the rigs/oil fields under the supervision of the officer of the management. The management witness No.1 in course of his cross-examination mentioned that they supplied all the machineries of works in the drilling operation to the contract labourers and at the time of engagement of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7645 contract labourers they ensure that the experienced labourers are engaged since non-engagement of experienced labourer might cause a huge damage to the company as well as occurrence of accident for which they scrutiny the bio-data of the labourer at the time of their engagement. He also mentioned that the drilling In- charge of the drilling site supervises the work of the contractor. The workman witness No.1 also admitted that the document marked as Exhibit-1 written to the Deltech(I) Pvt. Ltd. by the Oil India Ltd. in reply to Deltech (I) letter dated 14.3.97. The Union also admitted that before the engagement of the labourers involved in this reference an agreement was executed between the contractor and the management of Oil India Ltd. vide Exhibit-A. The Union in their W.S. mentioned that it is a fit case where the engagement of contract labourer is prohibited as the concerned workmen were engaged in perennial nature of job. Hence, the contract between the contractor and the Oil India is an illusory contract. From the schedule of reference it is found that the workmen concerned are contract labourers and as such, their service condition is covered by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the rules framed there under but there is nothing to show on record that any notification u/s 10 (1) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970 issued by the appropriate Government prohibiting the management from engaging contract labourers. Thus it is clear that the workmen involved in this reference are not the direct appointee of the management but they are engaged by the contractor and hence, they are not the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.

The Contract Labour as defined in Section 2(i) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 as follows :

" (i) "workman" means any person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment to do any skilled, semi-skilled or un-skilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, but does not include any such person-

(A) who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity; or

(B) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature;

(C) who is an out-worker, that is to say, a person to whom any articles or materials are given out by or on behalf of the principal employer to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of the principal employer and the process is to be carried out either in the home of the out- worker or in some other premises, not being premises under the control and management of the principal employer."

The Ministry of Labour referred this dispute under Clause (d) of sub-section-1 and sub-section-2(A) of Section 10 of I.D. Act for adjudication. But the Union is found to have failed to establish that the workers involved in this reference had been working the job of perennial nature under the direct supervision and employment of the management and as such, they failed to establish the relationship between the workmen and the employer as defined in the I.D.Act, 1947.

During argument Mr. S.N.Sarma, learned Advocate for the management submitted that since there is no relationship of employer and employees between the Oil India Ltd. and the concerned labourers in the instant reference and the cause of contract not espoused by the direct employer of the principal employer and hence, the reference is not maintainable. In this connection Mr. Sarma relied upon the ratio of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.-vrs- Presiding Officer and Ors.. published in 1998 (2) GLT 67 wherein it was observed "that the purpose of reference was to ascertain from the tribunal whether the action of the Oil Corporation in not regularizing the services of 17 contractual workers is justified; the terms of reference itself shows that relationship of employer and employees does not exist between the Indian Oil Corporation and the contractual labouarers; the materials placed on record also show that the cause of the contractual labourers has been espoused by Mineral Workers Union, Digboi and not by the direct employees of the principal employer; as such, in the absence of a relationship of employers and employees, the dispute can not be brought within the fold of definition of "Industrial Dispute" as defined in Section-2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act."

In Gujrat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujrat-vrs--- Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Ors, reported in (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 27, wherein it was held as under:

" After the coming into operation of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act,the authority to abolish the contract labour is vested exclusively in the appropriate Government which has to take its decision in the matter in accordance with the provision of Section 10 of the Act. No Court including the industrial adjudicator has jurisdiction to do so. However, the authority to abolish the contract labour under Section 10 of the Act comes into play only where there exists a genuine contract. In other words, if there is no genuine contract and the so-called contract is a sham or a camouflage to hide the reality, the said provisions are inapplicable. When, in such circumstances, the workmen concerned raise an industrial dispute for relief that they should be deemed to be the employees of the principal employer, the court7646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] or the industrial adjudicator will have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and grant the necessary relief."

Mr. Sarma relied upon the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others -vrs-National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors. published in (2001) 7 SCC wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-125 (5) & (6) observed:

"(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.

(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employee regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualification other than technical qualifications."

Mr. Sarma, learned Advocate for the management submitted that in his evidence the workman witness No.1 admitted that they were engaged by the Deltech(I) Pvt. Ltd. which is a contractor and their salary was paid by the contractor, no appointment letter was issued by the management. Further there is no record to show that the management hold any interview before engaging the concerned workmen. The W.W.1 also mentioned that the machineries were supplied to them by the management and the Engineers of management supervise their works in the fieId. As such, mere supervision by the management through their officers will not amount to the direct supervision and control as well as any employment of the principal employer as such, the claim of the workmen that the contract between the management and the contractor is not a sham contract and camouflage to deprive the workmen from getting their benefits of regularisation. In this connection Mr. Sarma has drawn my attention to the ratio of the case International Airport Authority of India -vrs- International Air Cargo Workers' Union and Another reported in (2009) 13 SCC 374 wherein it was decided that "Whether Labour contract was genuine or sham, such a dispute is maintainable before the Industrial adjudicator, even if there is no notification for abolition of contract labour under Section 10(1) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act the Industrial adjudicator can declare that so called contract labour are in fact direct employees of the principal employer and contract is only a camouflage to deny employment benefits to employees; if however contract is genuine and there is also no notification abolishing contract labour under Section 10(1) of the Act principal employer can not be directed to absorb contract labour." It is also held "whether direction and control is with principal employer or with contractor, has to be determined with reference to factors like, who pays salary, who has power to initiate disciplinary action, to remove/dismiss employee from service, who can tell employee the way work should be done, etc; however where contract is merely to supply labour only, contract labour is bound to work under supervision of principal employer; and in such a situation, primary control still vests with contractor and not with principal employer".

9. From the above discussion and the submission of the learned Advocate for the management it is found that the workmen concerned are contract labourer engaged by the contractor M/S Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. and there was a genuine contract between the contractor namely M/S Deltech (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the principal employer for supplying the labour for the purpose of drilling operation of the management company, and as such, there is no employer employee relationship between the principal employer and the workmen. Section 2(k) of Industrial Dispute define the Industrial Dispute as under:

"(k) "industrial dispute" mean any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person;"

But in the instant case the union has failed to establish there exists a relationship of employer and employees between principal employer and the workmen respectively. As such, the instant dispute does not come within the purview of Section 2(k) of the I.D.Act.

10. In view of my foregoing discussion and the findings and having regard to the ratio of the cases mentioned above it is found well established that the dispute raised by the workmen being contract labourers is not maintainable in its present form and the reference made by the appropriate government is not within the ambit of Clause (d) of sub-section 1 and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947. Accordingly[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7647

APPEARANCES :

it can safely be held that the present reference is not maintainable and hence, the preliminary issue is answered in negative.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

19th day of November, 2014 at Guwahati.

Send the Award to the Ministry as per procedure.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer On behalf of the None workman/Union :

On behalf of the Mr. M.A.Khan Management : Ld. Advocate

State : Bihar

Industry : Insurance

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16th October, 2014

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

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-17011/ 8/2012-IR (M) dt.11.1.2013.

SCHEDULE

dk-vk- 3149.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ इन्शुरेन्स कॉरपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया 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 21/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17011/8/2012-आई आर (एम)]

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No.2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-17011/8/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation while conducting disciplinary action proceedings the principle of natural justice has not be applied by the Management of LIC? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. Neither the Representative for the Union concerned nor the workman concerned appeared but Mr. M. A. Khan, Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Management appeared and filed a Certified Copy of the Order dt. 22.7.14 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna, in CWJC No. 6307/ 2013, the L.I.C. Vs. Union of India through the Principal Secretary and 4 others, submitting that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna having heard both the parties have been pleased to quash the order of Reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour.

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.

On perusal of the case record, I find the reference made by the Order dt.11.1.2013 of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under the signature of the Under Secretary concerned related to the issue of not following the principle of natural justice by the LIC of India in the disciplinary action proceedings has been quashed and set aside by the Hon'ble Court. So there is no longer an Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal; accordingly an Order of' No Dispute' is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

REFERENCE NO. 21 OF 2013

PARTIES : Gen.Secy.

National Life Insurance Employees Assoc. (INTUC) PO; MIT, Muzaffarpur Vs. Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corp. of India, Jeeven Deep Building, Exhibition Rd., Patna.

Ministry's Order No. L-17011/8/2012- IR(M) dt.11.1.2013

dk-vk- 3150.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चंदा सीमेंट कंपनी लिमिटेड 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 37/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/102/2001-आई आर (एम)]

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव7648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

statement, in response to which, the workman, Shri Dashrath Champat Sidam, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of ACC Ltd., Chanda Cement Works, ("party no.1" in short) filed the written statement.

S.O. 3150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chanda Cement Company Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-29012/102/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/37/2002

Date: 13.10.2014.

Party No. 1 : Chanda Cement Co. Ltd.,

The Vice President, Post-Cementnagar, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Dashrat Champat Sidam, At- Sindola Tah- Wani, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 13th 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 Chanda Cement Co. Ltd., Chandrapur and their workman, Shri Dashrath C. Sidam, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-29012/102/2001-IR (M) dated 19.04.2002, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management in relation to Sindola Stone Mine of Chanda Cement Works of ACC Ltd., Post-Cementnagar. Dt. Chandrapur in dismissing Shri Dashrath C. Sidam, Mazdoor, Sindola Limestone Mine, ACC Chanda Cement Co. Ltd., vide order No. CL/62-HRD/1101 dated 01.04.1998 is legal and justified? If not, what is the relief to which is the workman is entitled?"

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was employed as a mazdoor w.e.f.13.03.1985 in Sindola Limestone Mines at Sindola, in the basic pay of Rs.1039.94 alongwith other allowances by party No.1 and he was a "workman", as per the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act and party No.1 is an "industry" as per Section 2(j) of the Act and party No.1 illegally terminated his services w.e.f. 01.04.1998, on false and fabricated grounds of unauthorized absenteeism and he was suffering from acute Bronchitis and was under medical treatment of various doctors and he had produced the medical certificates for the period of absenteeism and on 05.03.1997, he received a show cause notice from party No.1 for the alleged unauthorized absenteeism and on 09.03.1997, he produced the medical certificate in support of his illness for the period from 17.02.1997 to 09.03.1997, but inspite of production of the medical certificate in support of his illness, party No.1 issued an illegal charge sheet on 16.08.1997, asking him to submit his reply within 72 hours, from the date of receipt of the said charge sheet, but due to his serious illness, he sent a telegram to party No.1 on 20.08.1997 about the same, but he was shocked to receive another letter from party No.1 dated 30.08.1997, in which, it was informed that an enquiry has been proposed against him and that he should present himself on 11.09.1997 and that Dr. D.D. Sharma, the Manager Health Services, Sindola Mines has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer and due to his illness, he could not present himself on 11.09.1997 in the enquiry and due to illiteracy of his family members, they could not understand the meaning of the said letter, which was in English and after his recovery from illness, he obtained the fitness certificate and went to join duty on 09.09.1997, but he was not allowed to join duty and on the contrary, the Inquiry Officer advised him to see Dr. Wasalkar at Chandrapur and requested Dr. Wasalkar to admit him in the hospital at least for 10 to 15 days and accordingly, he was admitted in the hospital and on 28.02.1998, Dr. D.D. Sharma passed a remark that he is fit for joining duty from 01.03.1998 and thereafter, he joined duty and subsequently, he was informed that the charges labeled against him stood proved and that he was dismissed from services forthwith and the entire inquiry was an eye wash and the inquiry was not conducted in a free and fair manner and the same was conducted in his absence, due to his admission in the hospital of Dr. Wasalkar on 09.09.1997 at Chandrapur, as per the advice of the Inquiry Officer and the order of his dismissal is illegal.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages.

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7649 3. The party No.1 in the written statement, denying all the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim, has pleaded inter-alia that the workman worked as a mazdoor from 13.03.1985 in Sindola Limestone Mines and on 05.03.1997, a show-cause notice was sent to the workman alleging unauthorized absenteeism and the workman submitted a medical certificate issued by Dr. Nandakishore Tugnayat of Maregaon, in support of his illness for the period from 17.02.1997 to 09.03.1997 and the said medical certificate was accepted and the workman was marked sick for the said period, in order to afford opportunity to the workman to improve and be regular in time while attending duties and no further proceedings were held on the show-cause notice dated 05.03.1997 and the action of dismissal was not in pursuance to the said show-cause notice.

It is further pleaded by the party No.1 that the charge sheet issued against the workman dated 16.08.1997 was legal and the workman did not submit any explanation to the said charge sheet and accordingly, notice of enquiry to the workman was issued vide letter dated 30.08.1997 and the enquiry commenced on 11.09.1997 at 3 P.M., but the workman remained absent, so proceedings were recorded accordingly and the enquiry was scheduled on 18.09.1997 and intimation of the same was sent to the workman well in time, but on the said date also, the workman remained absent and on 16.09.1997, it had received a letter dated 10.09.1997, sent by the workman intimating his inability to attend the departmental enquiry on 11.09.1997, due to his sickness, but the said letter was not accompanied with any certificate about his sickness and subsequently on 14.10.1997, the workman submitted a sick certificate, which was accepted due to the assurance given by the union and the workman.

The further case of the party No.1 is that charge sheet-cum-notice of enquiry dated 13.02.1998 was given for absenteeism and the workman did not submit any reply to the charge sheet and as such, departmental enquiry was conducted and the workman admitted the charges in the enquiry and in view of the same, there was nothing left for the Enquiry Officer to make further inquiry in to the charges and accordingly, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and thereafter, a show-cause notice was given to the workman and the service record of the workman was examined and it was found that in a number of occasions for absenteeism, extremely lenient view had been taken by it and in an attempt for the improvement of the workman, he was given warnings and lesser punishments and it was also found that the workman was irresponsible and reckless in attendance of his duty and considering the relevant entries in the past service records of the workman and considering the aggravating extenuating circumstances, the competent Authority decided to dismiss the workman and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any illegality in the dismissal of the workman from service and the enquiry held against the workman is fair and proper and there is inordinate delay in raising the dispute by the workman and therefore, the reference is liable to be answered in the negative and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In the rejoinder, the workman has reiterated the facts already mentioned in the statement of claim.

5. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from services, as a punishment in the departmental inquiry conducted against him, the fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue and by order dated 20.08.2014, the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was illegally terminated from service by the party no.1 w.e.f. 01.04.1998, on false and fabricated grounds of unauthorized absenteeism and during the period of absenteeism in question, the workman was suffering from acute bronchitis and was under medical treatment and the workman had produced the medical certificates in support of his illness and treatment during the period of absenteeism and in spite of the same, party No.1 illegally issued the charge sheet and conducted the inquiry and party no.1 appointed Dr. D.D.Sharma, the Manager Health Services, Sindola Mines as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against him and Dr. D.D.Sharma had himself advised the workman to consult Dr. Wasalkar at Chandrapur and Dr. Sharma had also requested Dr. Wasalkar to admit the workman in his hospital for at least 10 to 15 days and accordingly, the workman consulted Dr. Wasalkar and was admitted in his hospital and on 28.02.1998, the Enquiry Officer, Dr. D.D. Sharma had passed a remark on the medical certificate produced by the workman before him, stating that the workman was fit to join duty and in spite of knowing about his illness and treatment, Dr. Sharma as the Enquiry Officer held the charges levelled against the workman to have been proved and such findings of the Enquiry Officer are against the evidence on record and the findings are based on no evidence and are totally perverse and the entire enquiry was an eye wash and the punishment of dismissal imposed against the workman is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and as such, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party No.1 that the fairness of the enquiry was considered by this tribunal as a preliminary issue and by order dated 20.08.2014, the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the departmental enquiry against the workman was held in respect of the charges of frequent absence without leave and for absence without leave for three7650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] consecutive days and the workman appeared in the departmental enquiry and admitted the misconduct of absenteeism and in view of the admission of the charges by the workman, nothing was left for the Enquiry Officer to make further inquiry into the charges and basing on the admission of the workman, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse and the workman was issued with the second show cause notice and the past service record of the workman was examined and as it was found that on number of occasions, for absenteeism extremely lenient view was taken and that the workman was irresponsible and reckless in attendance of his duty and as such, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed against him and there is no illegality in dismissal of the workman from service and the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the grave misconduct proved against him and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. 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 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:-

"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 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 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 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 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 of judicial 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."

The case in hand is now to be considered with the touch stone of the settled principles as mentioned above.

9. On perusal of the record, it is found that charges under clauses 19 (xiv) and 19 (lv) of the Certified Standing Orders of party no.1 were levelled against the workman as per the charge sheet dated 13.02.1998, Ext. M-V.

"Clauses 19 (Xiv) and 19 (lv) of the Certified Standing

Orders reads as follows:-

(Xiv) - Frequent absence without leave or absence without leave or 3 consecutive days or more without explanation to the satisfaction of the management.

(lv) - Habitual or frequent breach of any Standing Order or any Rules or Regulations for time being in force or any law applicable to the establishment or any rule made there under.

On perusal of the material on record, it is found that before submission of the charge sheet, Ext. M-V, the workman was issued with a show cause notice dated 06.01.1998 as per Ext. M-I and the said notice was sent to him by registered post with acknowledgement due and the workman submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 16.01.1998 as per Ext. M-IV. The copy of the reply dated 16.01.1998, submitted by the workman has been admitted into evidence and marked as an Exhibit on admission by the workman. However, the workman did not submit any reply to the charge sheet.

It is also found from record that the workman attended the departmental enquiry on 02.03.1998 and admitted the charges levelled against him before the Enquiry Officer. It is well settled that in a case, where a delinquent admits the guilt, no further detailed enquiry is necessary. Even so, the Enquiry Officer received the medical certificate, Ext. M-IX produced by the workman. It is found further from the record of the departmental enquiry that the workman after producing the medical certificate disclosed before the Enquiry Officer that he was suffering from[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7651 Typhoid (and not acute Bronchitis as claimed in by the workman at present) and was admitted into the hospital during the period of illness. The workman did not produce any document regarding his admission in the hospital, discharge certificate, prescriptions and medicine bills in support of his claim. When the Enquiry Officer asked about such documents, the workman told that the said documents were in the hospital and he did not bring the same from the hospital and for that unable to produce the same. In view of the admission of the charges by the workman, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry on 02.03.1998 and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 06.03.1998.

It is also found from record that the workman was served with the second show cause notice with the copy of the enquiry report. In the second show cause notice, the details of the previous absence of the workman and punishment imposed were mentioned. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal of the workman.

10. According to the learned advocate for the workman, he was ill during the period in question and in spite of production of the medical certificate before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer held the charges to have been proved against him and such findings are perverse. However, the materials on record show that there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman.

same in the office for sanction of leave from 01.01.1998 to 08.01.1998. Ext. M-IX was sent by the workman on 16.01.1998 by registered post with acknowledgement due. Not a single word has been mentioned in Ext. M-IX by the workman about his illness and treatment from 01.01.1998 to 16.01.1998 i.e. the date of sending the reply. It is also found that the show cause notice dated 06.01.1998 was sent to the workman in his residential address at Sindola. The workman in Ext. M-IX has mentioned that the show cause notice was received by him on 14.01.1998. The said fact shows that the workman was at Sindhola on 14.01.1998 and he was not at Rajur. Admittedly, on Ext. M-IV, Dr. D.D. Sharma had endorsed that "Fit" for 01.03.1998. However, such endorsement by Dr. D.D. Sharma on Ext. M-IX does not prove that the workman was ill from 01.01.1998 to 21.02.1998. The materials on record cast doubt regarding the genuineness of the medical certificate Ext. M-IX produced by the workman. In view of the admission of the workman of the charges levelled against him and due to non-production of any other connected documents by the workman regarding his illness and treatment, the enquiry officer was right in not placing any reliance on Ext. M-IX and holding the charges to have been proved against the workman basing on his admission. Hence, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse.

11. So far the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, it is found that serious misconduct of habitual absenteeism from duty has been duly proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. The documents produced by party no.1 show that the disciplinary authority had considered the past service records of the workman and being satisfied about that the workman was a habitual absentee, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service against the workman. Hence, the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate, calling for any interference. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

It is to be mentioned here that neither in the statement of claim nor in the rejoinder, any specific pleadings has been made by the workman regarding the reason of his absence for the period from 27.12.1997 to 13.02.1998 i.e. the date of submission of the charge sheet. In his evidence also, the workman has not mentioned anything about the same. In the show cause, though it is claimed by the workman that during the period in question, he was ill and hospitalized, no document has been produced by him regarding his hospitalization. The medical certificate, Ext. M-IX produced by the workman appears to have been granted by Dr. N.D. Gedam of P.H.C. Rajur, but not by Dr. Wasalkar as claimed by him in the statement of claim. The said medical certificate shows that the workman was under the treatment of Dr. N.D. Gedam from 01.08.1998 till 21.02.1998. There is no explanation from the side of the workman regarding his absence from 27.12.1997 to 31.12.1997.

Ext. M-IV, the reply filed by the workman to the show cause notice fully demolishes the case of the workman.

In Ext. M-IX, it has been mentioned that his wife, who had gone to her brother's house at Rajur Lime Factory suddenly fell ill there and as soon as he received a message on 01.01.1998, he left for Rajur, handing over a leave application to one Ramesh Tekam with a direction to hand over the same to T.C. Jogi for handing over the The action of the management in relation to Sindola Stone Mine of Chanda Cement Works of ACC Ltd., Post- Cementnagar. Dt. Chandrapur in dismissing Shri Dashrath C. Sidam, Mazdoor, Sindola Limestone Mine, ACC Chanda Cement Co. Ltd., vide order No. CL/62-HRD/1101 dated 01.04.1998 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3151.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जी. सी. मोहन्ता कांट्रेक्टर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेस्वर के पंचाट7652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(संदर्भ संख्या 43/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/22/2013-आईआर (एम)]

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 43/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Shri G.C.Mohanta Contractor and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-29012/22/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

Case called out. Both the parties are absent. The 2nd Party-workman despite sending four notices on dated 29.8.2013, 12.12.2013 and 31.7.2014 by ordinary post and the other dated 20.11.2013 by regd. post has not filed any statement of claim. Ten dates have been fixed from the date of receipt of the reference on 29.8.2013. It seems that the 2nd Party-workman is either not interested in prosecuting his case or has settled the case amicably with the 1st Party-Management out of the court. Hence there is no use to keep the case pending indefinitely.

2. Under the above circumstances, a no-dispute award is to be passed in the case. Accordingly a no-dispute award is passed.

3. The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri Pradeep Kumar, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

dk-vk- 3152.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जी. सी. मोहन्ता कांट्रेक्टर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुबनेस्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 46/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/21/2013-आई आर (एम)] INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 43/2013 L-29012/22/2013-IR(M), dated 14.06.2013

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014 Date of Passing Award - 18th September, 2014 Between:

Shri G.C. Mohanta, Loading/ Unloading Contractor, At. Sukinda Chromite Mines, TISCO, Po. Kalarangiatta, Dist. Jajpur, Pin - 755 028, Odisha.

…1st Party-Management.

(And)

S.O. 3152—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Shri G.C.Mohanta Contractor and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-29012/21/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

Their workman Shri Bipin Bihari Mallick, S/o. Shri Damodar Mallick, At./Po. Ampoloba, P.S. - Sukinda, Dist. Jajpur - 755 028 Odisha.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

…2nd Party-Workman.

Present:

Appearances:

None … For the 1st Party-

Management.

Shri Pradeep Kumar, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 46/2013

None … For the 2nd Party-

Workman.

L-29012/21/2013-IR(M), dated 18.06.2013[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7653

Date of Passing Award - 20th October, 2014

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

Between:

Shri G.C. Mohanta, Loading/ Unloading Contractor, At. Sukinda Chromite Mines, TISCO, Po. Kalarangiatta, Dist. Jajpur, Pin - 755 028, Odisha.

… 1st Party-Management.

(And)

Their workman Shri Deepak Kumar Mallick, S/o. Shri Gadadhar Mallick, At./Po. Ampoloba, P.S. - Sukinda, Dist. Jajpur - 755 028 Odisha.

S.O. 3153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/ 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Mohanty Associates/Dungri Limestone Quarry of BCW of ACC Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-29011/16/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

… 2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

None … For the 1st Party-Management.

Present:

None … For the 2nd Party-Workman.

AWARD

Shri Pradeep Kumar, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 72/2012 L-29011/16/2012 -IR(M), dated 18.07.2012

Date of Passing Award - 10th of November, 2014

Between:

Case called out. Both the parties are absent. The 2nd Party-workman despite sending two notices on dated 29.7.2013 by ordinary post and the other dated 19.09.2014 by regd. post has not filed any statement of claim. The 2nd Party-workman only appeared on 11.9.2013 and moved a petition for one month's time to file statement of claim and his prayer was allowed, but till date he has not filed his statement of claim. Ten dates have been fixed from the date of receipt of the reference on 28.6.2013. It seems that the 2nd Party-workman is either not interested in prosecuting his case or has settled the case amicably with the 1st Party-Management out of the court. Hence there is no use to keep the case pending indefinitely.

2. Under the above circumstances, a no-dispute award is to be passed in the case. Accordingly a no-dispute award is passed.

3. The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer 1. M/s. Mohanty Associates, Transport Contractor, Dungri Lime Stone Quarry of BCW of ACC Ltd., At/PO-Dungri, Dist-Bargarh, Odisha

2. The Director (plant),

Dungri Limestone Quarry of BCW of ACC Ltd., At/PO-Dungri, Dist-Bargarh, Odisha

… 1st Party-Managements.

(And)

Their workman represented through The President, Dungri Mines Labour Union, At/PO-Dungri, Dist-Bargarh, Odisha.

… 2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014 dk-vk- 3153.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मोहंती एसोसिएट/डुंगरी लाइमस्टोन कुआरी ऑफ बी.सी.डब्ल्यू. ऑफ ए.सी. सी. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेस्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 72/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29011/16/2012-आईआर (एम)]

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव 1. M. M. Rout … For the 1st Party-

Management No. 1

2. S. K. Rout … For the 1st Party-

Management No. 2

3. K. C. Devsharma … For the 2nd Party-

Union.

7654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

AWARD

After receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry the case was registered and necessary judicial proceedings were carried out in accordance with law. The 2nd party union has filed his Statement of Claim. The 1st party Management No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statements.

S.O. 3154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/ 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. S.E. Enterprises and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-26012/2/2014-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

2. In the mean time the contract of the 1st party management No. 1 expired with the 1st party management No. 2. Therefore, to avoid any future problem the parties to the dispute negotiated among themselves out of the court and as per the outcome of the negotiation the workmen concerned under the dispute were paid the negotiated amount of money towards the full and final settlement of their claim satisfactorily as submitted by the President of the 2nd party union along with certain workmen.

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri Pradeep Kumar, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 31/2014

Date of Passing Award - 27th August, 2014

Between:

3. Accordingly, the 2nd party union has moved a memo to withdraw the dispute raised by them as they have settled the dispute out of the court in consideration of money. The authorized representative appeared on behalf of the 1st party management No. 1 (M/s. Mohanty Associates) has expressed his concurrence by appending his signature on the memo filed by the 2nd party union. The authorized representative appearing on behalf of the 1st Party Management No. 2 ( ACC Ltd.) has raised no objection to the memo.

4. Therefore it appears that since the matter is already resolved among the parties to the dispute and since the 2nd party union has stated that they have no further claim in this dispute against the 1st party managements, there is no necessity of further adjudication of the dispute.

5. Under the above circumstances this Tribunal is of the view that a no-dispute award is to be passed in the case. Accordingly, a no-dispute award is passed.

6. The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

M/s. S.E. Enterprises, Raising Contractor, Balda Block Iron Mines, Po. Balda, Via. Joda, Dist. Keonjhar.

… 1st Party-Management.

(And)

Shri Yudhisthira Patra, At. Kalimati, Po. Sijoda, Via. Joda, Dist. Keonjhar.

… 2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer             Shri Bijay Kumar Giri. … For  the  1st
नई  दिल्ली,  3  दिसम्बर,  2014               Authorized                     Party-
                                             Representative.                Management.

Shri Yudhisthira Patra. … For himself, the

2nd Party- Workman.

AWARD

dk-vk- 3154.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस.ई. इंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेस्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 31/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-26012/2/2014-आईआर (एम)]

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव Case taken up today. Authorized representative for the 1st Party-Management and the 2nd party-workman in person are present.

2. The parties present have entered into a settlement regarding the present dispute and a Memorandum of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7655 Settlement in Form-H has already been filed on record, which has been verified today by the parties present.

The Sr. Divisional Manager LIC of India, Mumbai Division-I Yogashema Jeevan Beema Marg Mumbai 400 021.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

3. The 2nd Party-workman states that he has now no grievance regarding the dispute with the Management as he has settled the dispute with the 1st Party-Management and received the amount agreed upon. A receipt of payment has also been filed. Therefore no dispute remains to be adjudicated upon.

4. Accordingly the reference is decided in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement which shall form part of the Award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

The General Secretary Rashtriya Bima Karmachari Union 98/1, Belgrami Road Kurla (W) Mumbai 400 070.

APPEARANCES:

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer
                                       FOR THE         :   Mr. H. K. Bhalerao,
नई  दिल्ली,  3  दिसम्बर,  2014         EMPLOYER            Advocate.
                                       FOR THE         :   Ms.  Kunda  Samant,
                                       WORKMEN             Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 5th September, 2014.

AWARD PART-I

dk-vk- 3155.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ इन्शुरेन्स कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 2, मुंबई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 35/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17011/11/2008-आईआर (एम)]

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/ 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-17011/11/2008-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-17011 / 11 /2008-IR (M), dated 23.03.2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, MDO-I, Mumbai by reducing the basic pay by five stages permanently in time scale in respect of Shri B.R.Pai is justified? What relief the workman Shri B.R. Pai is entitled to?"

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/35 of 2009

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA 2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, second party union has filed its statement of claim at Ex-3. According to the union, its member Shri Baba Ramchandra Pai was appointed as Typist in 1974. He served for more than 33 years and he is working as H.G.A. and was getting successive promotions throughout. His service was unblemished. One Shri Ajay Vaish a policy holder bearing no.73662727 has deposited a cheque of Rs. 3911/- by way of yearly instalment of his policy. The said cheque was adjusted against the policy of the workman bearing no.900196220 for his instalment of March 2001. Another cheque deposited by Mr. Ajay Vaish through his agent Mr. Mayur Kapadia of Rs. 4280/- for his policy. Instead of his policy it is alleged that the said cheque was adjusted against the LIC policy of wife of the workman. It is alleged that the workman has also claimed income tax deductions of the said amount for the respective years. Therefore the officials of the first party alleged that, the policy numbers written at the rear side of the cheques were forged and changed by the workman.

7656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Therefore the workman was charge-sheeted for the alleged fraud and forgery.

3. The first party appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The I.O. was bias. Mr. Vaish has deposited the two cheques against his policy through his agent Mr. Mayur Kapadia. They are relevant witnesses, however they were not examined in the inquiry proceeding. They were not made available for cross examination. No opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. The principles of natural justice were not followed in the inquiry proceeding. The Inquiry Officer held the workman guilty. The findings of the Inquiry officer are perverse. On the basis of inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of reduction in basic pay of the workman by five stages permanently. The disciplinary authority ignored the representation of the workman submitted to them. The appeal of the workman was also dismissed. Therefore the union has raised industrial dispute before the ALC (C). As conciliation failed, on the report of ALC (C), the Central Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal. The union therefore prays that the punishment be set aside and first party be directed to restore the basic pay with retrospective effect and consequential benefits and also prays for direction to pay arrears of the deducted amount with interest @ 18 % p. a. and also prays for order to pay compensation to the workman with heavy cost of the proceeding.

He conducted the inquiry. Full opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. He cross examined the witnesses of management. He was also given an opportunity to lead his own evidence.

5. After hearing both the parties, the Inquiry Officer held the workman guilty for the charges levelled against him. The inquiry was conducted after giving sufficient and fair opportunity to the workman to defend himself. He was also allowed to appoint defence representative. The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. As workman was held guilty for serious charges, the management instead of dismissing the workman from services took lenient view and reduced his pay by five stages permanently. The inquiry was fair and proper. Findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse. Therefore the first party prays that the reference deserves to be dismissed.

6. Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

Sr. Issues Findings No.

1. Whether the inquiry conducted

by the management of L.I.C. of India MDO-I Mumbai against its employee Shri B. R. Pai is fair and proper? Yes.

2. Whether the findings of I.O.

are perverse? No.

REASONS

Issue No.1 :-

4. The first party management resisted the statement of claim vide their written statement at Ex-6. According to them workman Shri Pai was working as H.G.A. in Branch 901 under Mumbai Division. His LIC policy was bearing no.900196620. The premium of Rs.3911/- was due and payable for the month March, 2001. A customer, Mr. Ajay Vaish had to pay his insurance premium of his policy no.73662727. Thus he had drawn a cheque bearing no.365593 dated 14/03/2001 on Punjab National Bank, Juhu Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai and sent the same to LIC branch No. 901, through his agent Shri. Mayur Kapadia. The policy no. was written on the reverse side of the cheque. However the number was changed from 73662727 to 900196620 which is pertaining to workman Mr. Pai. Workman Mr. Pai also claimed income tax rebate on the said fraudulent payments of renewal premium in the financial year 2000-2001. Similarly another cheque of Shri Vaish for an amount of Rs. 4168/- for premium due on August 1997 was found to have been adjusted towards the premium of policy no.900189392 which is the policy of Smt. Sunanda Pai, wife of the workman. The said cheque was deposited by Shri Ajay Vaish for his policy no.73662727 and the said number was written at the rear side of the cheque which was forged and changed to 900189392. The workman had forged the policy numbers on both the cheques and ultimately both these cheques were credited in the account of workman and his wife respectively. Therefore workman was charge-sheeted for the alleged misconduct. Inquiry Officer was appointed.

7. In respect of inquiry only two defects are pointed out. They are (1) Copies of all the documents demanded were not furnished or supplied to the workman. (2) The main witnesses Mr. Ajay Vaish and his Agent Mayur Kapadia were not examined who were most relevant and important witnesses. In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the workman that during the inquiry proceedings the second party workman had sought for some documents in respect of the policy of Mr. Vaish and policy of his wife. However they were not furnished. The status report of policy of Ajay Vaish and premium history of his policy were not called though workman has sought for the same.

8. In this respect the Id. adv. for the first party pointed out that the copies of documents used in the inquiry proceeding were supplied to the second party. However the documents which are neither referred nor relied upon were unnecessary. Therefore copies of such documents which are not part of inquiry proceeding were not called for to give to the second party. That does not create any hurdle in the inquiry proceeding. On the point Apex[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7657 Court ruling can be relied on in Pandit D. Aher V/s. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC 445 in para 10 of the judgement the Hon'ble Court on the point observed that;

"A copy of document which has not been relied upon, is not required to be supplied to a delinquent officer. The documents which are required to be supplied are only those where upon reliance has been placed by the department."

9. It is not the case of the workman that he did not receive the copies of the documents referred and used in the inquiry proceeding. In the light of above ruling it is clear that, non-supply of copies of documents neither referred nor relied upon does not create defect in the inquiry proceeding. Therefore this defect pointed out on behalf of the second party does not stand to reasons.

10. In respect of non-examining witness, Mr. Ajay Vaish and Mayur Kapadia, the Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that they were relevant and concerned witnesses. The management did not examine them and they were not made available for cross examination. Therefore the inquiry cannot be called fair and proper. In support of her argument the Ld. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Hardwarilal V/s. State of U.P. & Ors. 2000 (84) FLR 3 (SC). In that case, in the departmental inquiry a Police Personnel alleged to have hurled abuses under the influence of liquor in the Police Station at Constable Prakash Chandra Pandey. In the inquiry proceedings, the two important witnesses in whose presence the incident had taken place were not examined. In respect of non- examination of the complainant and the eye witness, Jagdish Ram the Tribunal in that case, was satisfied that examination of Virendra Singh was only formal to prove the report and no prejudice has been caused to the defence of the charge-sheeted employee. The Hon'ble High Court affirmed the said findings. The matter was taken to Supreme Court. On the point Hon'ble Apex Court observed that;

"We do not think that Tribunal and High Court were justified in thinking that non examination of these two persons could not be material. In these circumstances we are of the view that high Court and Tribunal erred in not attaching importance to this contention of the appellant."

11. In that case both the witnesses were eye witnesses to the incident that, the charge-sheeted employee hurdled abuses under influence of liquor. Such an incident can be proved only by examining the eye witnesses. They were not examined therein to prove the incident. However in the case at hand there was no such incident required to be narrated by oral evidence. On the other hand, the case at hand is totally based on documentary evidence and entries in the account books maintained during the course of business. Therefore the ratio laid down in the above ruling is not attracted to the set of facts of the present case.

12. In this respect it was pointed out on behalf of the first party that there are documents on record such as entries of cheques of Shri Vaish credited against the policies of workman and his wife respectively. Both the cheques were issued by Mr. Ajay Vaish drawn on his account maintained in Punjab National Bank. This documentary evidence on record suffice the purpose to show that the cheques of Mr. Vaish were credited against the life policies of workman and his wife. The policy numbers of life policy of Mr. Vaish were changed and numbers of policies of workman and his wife were written by forging the original numbers. In the circumstances Mr. Vaish or Mr. Kapadia the agent of Mr. Vaish were not necessary witnesses. On the other hand they have no knowledge about these facts. Furthermore it was also pointed out that the workman has admitted in his cross that he has availed the income tax rebate of the respective years in respect of the instalments credited in his policy and in the policy of his wife. It indicates that the workman was well aware that the instalments were deposited against their respective policies. All these documentary evidences suffice the purpose to show that the cheques of Mr. Vaish issued on the relevant dates were not credited towards the respective premiums of his policy. On the other hand they were credited against the policies of the workman and his wife for the respective years. Availing tax benefit by the workman further indicates that workman was well aware that instalments were credited against his Life Policy and the Life policy of his wife. As the documentary evidence was sufficient on record, it was not necessary to examine either Mr.Vaish or Mr.Kapadia. They would have not be able to give any details except the fact that Mr.Vaish had issued cheques towards the respective premiums of his policy and had written policy numbers at the rear side of the respective cheques. The said fact is not even disputed by the workman. Therefore these two witnesses were neither necessary nor material. Furthermore such companies as far as possible always avoid to examine customers of the company in such type of cases, as it causes harm to their reputation, which ultimately affects their business. In the circumstances conclusion can be arrived at that, non-examination of these witnesses did not cause any prejudice to the interest of the second party workman as entire case is based on the documentary evidence.

13. It was also submitted on behalf of the second party that, the inquiry officer did not send the concern cheques to handwriting expert to verify whether the numbers were forged by the workman or somebody else. In this respect I would like to point out that there is very little scope for the handwriting expert as only eight ten numbers were forged on the cheques. Furthermore the workman was working in the same branch and had ample opportunity to get the numbers forged by himself or through some other person. The fact is not disputed that the workman was working in the same branch No. 901 where the record of these three policies are maintained.

7658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17. In short, I come to the conclusion that the Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry as per the procedure and in a fair manner, sufficient opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. In this backdrop I come to the conclusion that, the inquiry was fair and proper. Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in the affirmative.

Issue No. 2 :-

The workman was HGA in the same branch. By forging and changing the numbers of life policies on the cheques and writing the number of life policy of workman and his wife ultimately the workman was the beneficiary of the mischief. The workman cannot say that somebody else had done it without his knowledge as he has availed the tax benefit of the relevant years in respect of the insurance premium of his wife in the year 1998 and insurance premium of his own policy for the year 2001. In the circumstances not sending the cheques to handwriting expert neither caused any prejudice to the workman nor create any defect in the inquiry.

14. The Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that domestic inquiry is not a sheer formality but the Inquiry Officer must follow the rule of natural justice. In support of her argument, the Ld. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Kumar Ram Nandan V/s. Fluid Power Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 1987 II LLN 748 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that;

"The cardinal principles of labour jurisprudence enjoin upon an employer to hold a domestic enquiry against a workman honestly and bona fide with care and caution that such an enquiry does not become an empty formality. It is an elementary principle of labour law that while holding domestic enquiry rules of natural justice must be faithfully followed and fair play strictly ensured."

15. In this respect as it is discussed above, the entire case of the alleged misconduct was based on documentary evidence such as the two cheques issued by Mr. Vaish. The numbers of policy were written at the rear side of both the cheques and the said numbers were changed by forgery and those cheques were credited in the policy accounts of the workman and his wife respectively. Under Section 34 of Evidence Act, the entries in the register or account books maintained during the course of business can be read in evidence. In such circumstances there was no scope for oral evidence and non-examination of Mr. Vaish and Mr. Kapadia cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the workman. Therefore non-examination of these witnesses cannot be said violation of principles of natural justice.

16. By way of conclusion I would like to point out that the charge-sheet was served on the workman. He gave his reply thereto. Copies of documents on record before the Inquiry Officer were given to the workman. He was given an opportunity to defend himself and to lead his evidence. It indicates that sufficient opportunity was given to the workman by the I.O. Question of biasness of I.O. does not arise. As there was sufficient documentary evidence and there was no scope for oral evidence. Thus the management has not examined the two witnesses. Therefore question of causing any prejudice to the workman dose not arise.

18. The Ld. Adv. for the second party in this respect submitted that the attitude of the Inquiry Officer was bias. Therefore without examining the complainant he reached to the conclusion that the workman was guilty of the alleged charges. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv. for the second party resorted to Apex Court ruling in State of West Bengal and Ors. V/s. Shivananda Pathak 1998 FLR (79) 684. Wherein in respect of bias state of mind the Hon'ble Court observed that;

"Bias, as pointed out earlier, is a condition of mind and, therefore, it may not always be possible to furnish actual proof of bias. But the courts for this reason, cannot be said to be in a crippled state. There are many ways to discover bias; for example by evaluating the facts and circumstances of the case or applying the tests of "real likelihood of bias" or "reasonable suspicion of bias".

19. In the case at hand without examining the original complainant, on the strength of documentary evidence the I.O. has rightly come to the conclusion that the workman was guilty for the alleged misconduct as documents and entries in the register and A/c book indicate that the cheques issued on two occasions by Mr. Ajay Vaish drawn on his account on Punjab National Bank were credited against the premium of the Policy of workman and his wife respectively. The numbers of policies on those cheques were found changed and instead of policy number of Shri. Vaish, the numbers of policies of workman and his wife were written at the rear side of the cheques. The defence of the workman does not stand to reasons that he has no knowledge as to who has forged the numbers of the policies written at the rear side of the respective cheques, for the simple reason that, the workman himself has availed the tax rebates / benefit for payment of insurance premium of the respective years. It clearly indicates that the workman was well aware that the cheques of Shri. Vaish were credited towards premium of his life policy and policy of his wife in the respective years. Workman was working in the same branch No.901 and had the opportunity to forge the numbers. Furthermore he himself has not paid those premiums, inspite of that, he has availed the income tax benefits. All these facts, documents, entries in the registers and account books indicate that, the mischief was committed by the workman. The findings of the inquiry officer are based on these facts and documents on record. Therefore the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be called bias or perverse. In the case at hand the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7659 documentary evidence on record is conclusive and more than the requirement of preponderance of probability.

Labour Court No.2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Oil Blending Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-30015/23/2004-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

Reference No.CGIT-2/15 of 2005

20. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that in departmental inquiry the management need not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt as required in a criminal trial. The standard of proof in domestic inquiry is altogether different and mere preponderance of probability suffices the purpose. In the case at hand the documentary evidence on record is conclusive. In support of his argument Ld. Adv. resorted to Bombay High Court ruling in Maharashtra State Co-op. Cotton Growers Marketing Federation & Anr Vs. Vasant Ambadas Deshpande 2014 (2) ALL MR 682. In para 23 of the judgement the Hon'ble Court cited the Apex Court ruling in Dy. Inspector General of Police V/s S. Samuthiram reported in 2013 (I) CLR 16 and observed that;

"The Apex Court has once again concluded that by the preponderance on the principle of probabilities one can come to a conclusion that the charges are proved against an employee."

21. The findings of Inquiry Officer are based on the cogent documentary evidence on record discussed hereinabove. Thus I found that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse. Accordingly I decide this issue no.2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order:

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

M/S. INDIAN OIL BLENDING LIMITED

The Plant Manager M/s. Indian Oil Blending Ltd. Trombay Mumbai 400 074.

AND

Their Workmen

ORDER

(i)    The  inquiry  is  held  fair  and  proper.
(ii)   Findings  of  Inquiry  Officer  are  not  perverse.
(iii)  Parties  to  lead  evidence/argument  on  the  point
       of  quantum  of  punishment.

Date: 05/09/2014

The Secretary General
Petroleum Employees Union
Tel  Rasayan  Bhavan
Tilak Road
Dadar
Mumbai-400 014

APPEARANCES:

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

For the : Mr. Anil Kumar, i/b Employer M/s. Negandhi Shah &

Himayatullah, Advocate

For the : Mr. R. D. Bhat, Workmen Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 24th September, 2014

AWARD

dk-vk- 3156.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ऑयल ब्लेंडिंग लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 2, मुंबई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 15/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30015/23/2004-आई आर (एम)]

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ The Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment by its Order No.L-30015/23/2004-IR (M), dated 16.12.2004 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:

"1. Whether the contract between the contractor and the management of Indian Oil Blending is sham and bogus and is a camouflage to deprive the workmen whose names are enlisted at Exhibit 'A'7660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

from the benefits available to permanent workers of          34.   Vishwas J. Shetty
the Indian Oil Blending?
                                                             35.   Kishor K. Kadam
   2.  Whether  the  workmen  whose  names  are
                                                             36.   Rajesh B. Poojari
enlisted at Ex-A should be declared as permanent
works  and  wages  and  consequential  benefits  be          37.   Pradeep  S.  Das
paid  to  concerned  workers?"

List of Workmen

1. S/Shri Yashwant Mane

2. Mahendra J. Batawale

3. Raju L. Salve

4. Dayashankar Mishra

5. Mohansingh Sonar

6. Santosh D. Kukamkar

7. Krishna N. Gowda

8. Santosh A. Ahwad

9. Ramdas B. Sangam

10. Kamalakar N. Jadhav

11. Yeshwant D. Shelar

12. Prabhakar D. Yashwant

13. Ravi Murlidhar Pawar

14. Anand V. Kamble

15. Ashok Shankar Pakre

16. Bhanudas D. Magar

17. Bhaskar Dasrath Bhongle

18. Krishan N. Gawde

19. Janardhan G. Patel

20. Vasudev T. Koli

21. Vijay R. Thandel

22. Arun R. Shelavale

23. Sopan B. More

24. Jaganath B. Mhatre

25. Madam K. Patel

26. Prashant M. Koli

27. Padmanabha Poojari

28. Bhikaji Mohite

29. Padmanabha R. Hegde

30. Jayakar D. Poojari

31. Harish S. Hegde

32. Shivappa B. Poojari

33. Mahesh O. Hegde

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice second party Union filed their statement of claim at Ex-9. According to the union, the workman under reference were employed by the first party as Sweeper /Cleaner for the work of cleaning control room, pump room, blending cattle area, lubrifying machine area, mezzanine floor area, basement floor area twice a day, collecting oil into drums and cleaning the area with sawdust, collection of deposit of other material like damaged cap seals, washers, wooden crates, empty gunny dumped in the area, cleaning all glass windows, panes, window palmettos, removing cobweb in the building, cleaning ventilations, cleaning tube lights and fittings, sweeping of terrace of canteen building and office building, cleaning septic tanks and drainage adjacent to boiler and WCR and all drainage inside the plant, cleaning of storm water, drainage, cleaning of jetty, cleaning of solar collectors and pipe lines, cleaning of valley gutters, eaves gutters of asbestos roof of the water house Railway Siding etc. Their work is of perennial nature and the workmen under reference are doing the same work day to day. Their service conditions are inferior and they are being given discriminatory treatment in respect of their service conditions. Their work is of hazardous nature and they are being paid poorly. Their work is being supervised directly by the officials of the company.

3. Till 1983 these works were being performed by regular permanent Sweepers. However since 1983 the regular Sweepers were transferred to some other technical department and the work is given to these workers. The union has filed a writ before Hon'ble High Court. After verifying the trouble of the workmen, the Hon'ble High Court granted interim relief. The workmen are attending the work of management. The officials of management are supervising their work. Since April, 1987 to February 1989 M/s. K.K. Enterprises was shown as contractor. Since 1989 M/s. A.A. Pradhan was shown as contractor. In 1998 M/s. Good housekeeping was shown as Contractor. From October 1999 to February 2002 M/s. A.A. Pradhan was shown contractor. From March 2002 to August 2002 M/s. Teknokem. From Sept 2003 till the date of reference M/s. Jyotsana Enterprises was shown as the contractor. The workers are the same and contractors were being changed. Only payments were made through contractor. The contract between contractors and the management are sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive these workmen from getting the benefits of permanency. These workmen are in direct service of the management as permanent workmen in the category of class-IV employees. The workmen have made[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7661 number of representations for paying them the wages at par with permanent/regular employees. However the management refused thereto. Therefore the workman have raised the dispute and prays for declaration that, contract arrangement between the contractor and the management be declared as sham, bogus, dubious and mere camouflage to deprive these workmen from getting benefit of permanent workmen. They also pray for declaration that they be declared as in direct service of the management as permanent Class-IV employees of the management. They also pray for all consequential benefits in the category of permanent Class IV employees.

6. Following are the issues framed by my Ld. Predecessor for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

Sr. Issues Findings No.

1. Whether contract between the contractor and management is sham and bogus as alleged by second party? Yes

2. Whether workmen involved in this reference as mentioned in annexure of the corrigendum require to be declared as permanent employees of first party? Yes

3. What order? As per

order below

REASONS

Issue no.1:-

4. The first party management resisted the Statement of Claim vide its Written Statement at Ex-18. According to the first party the reference is not maintainable. According to them the notification in respect of abolition of contractor labour in the process of sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned and occupied by establishment was quashed and set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India & Ors. Vs. National waterfront workers union & ors in the year 2001. Therefore the reference is not tenable. The present reference is misconceived in facts and bad in law and barred on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. The contractors, M/s. Pradhan and M/s. Jyotsana Enterprises are the necessary parties to this reference. The first party is not engaging 20 or more contract labourers on any day and thus Section 12 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 is not applicable to the contractors. As per the policy of the company, first party had awarded contracts against public tender from the licenced contractors. The contracts are legal and enforceable in the eye of law. The workmen are the employees of the contractor and not that of the company. They are engaged by the contractor and being paid by the contractor. All the statutory benefits like PF, ESI are being extended to them by these contractors. They are being paid by the contractor at par with the long term settlement as applicable to the regular employees of the first party company and in consonance with the report of Regional Labour Commissioner.

5. According to the first party company, no permanent employee of first party company is performing the same or similar work as performed by the contract labourers. The contract labourers are being engaged to do housekeeping work of the first party company. They are engaged through contractor. There is no employer- employee relationship between these workmen and the first party. Some of the workmen shown in the list are not attending the work since long and they are not entitled to any relief. These workmen are contract workers and not entitled for regularisation in the service of the first party. Therefore the workmen are not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim. The First party thus prays that the reference be dismissed with cost.

7. In the case at hand the workmen have claimed that they are working with the first party since more than last 20 years. Initially the company was paying them directly. Since 1987 the first party has started paying them through contractors. In this respect the fact is not disputed even by the first party that these workmen barring 2/3 are working continuously for more than 20 years as Sweeper/ Cleaner in the establishment of the first party. The officer of the first party Mrs. Soumya Babu, the Dy. Manager has admitted in her cross (Ex-33) that all these workmen were performing work as per the instructions given by the officers of the company. The fact is also not disputed that the workmen were working continuously since 1983 and 1987 and 1993 and contractors were kept on changing periodically.

8. The Ld. Adv. of the second party submitted that, the work of these workmen was being supervised directly by the officials of the company. It indicates that they are the employees of the first party. On the point the Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that, the workmen cannot become employee of the principal employer, merely as their officers have given some instructions to them in respect of the work. In respect of nature of contract, he argued that, there were valid contract of the company with registered contractors, who have supplied these labourers to the company. The labourers have to work as per the direction of the company. Merely giving some direction or supervising their work by officers of the company is not sufficient proof to show that the workmen are direct employees of the company. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in International Airport Authority of India V/s. International Air Cargo Workers Union & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 3063 wherein in para 28 of the judgement, the Hon'ble Court on the point observed that;

7662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Merely because the contract labour work is under the supervision of the officers of the principal employer, it cannot be taken as evidence of direct employment under the principal employer."

9. On the point Ld. Adv. for the first party also resorted to another Apex Court ruling in General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon V/s. Bharat Lal & Anr. 2011 (1) LLN 368 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Court held that merely because work instructions were issued by officers of principal employer does not make him his employer rather than contractor.

10. The Ld. Adv. for the first party further submitted that, admittedly the wages were being paid to these workmen by the respective contractors. Secondly the workmen were working under the supervision of supervisor of the contractor and not under the officers of the company. Therefore he submitted that there exists no employer-employee relationship with these workmen. In support of his argument he cited Apex Court ruling in General Manager (OSD) Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon V/s. Bharat Lal &Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 635. In para 10 of the judgement the Hon'ble Court on the point whether the contract is sham and bogus and contract labourers are direct employee of the principal employer, observed that;

"Two of the well-recognised tests to find out whether contract labourers are the direct employees of the principal employer are (i) whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor (ii) whether the principal employer control and supervise the work of the employee."

11. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that, the totality of facts and circumstances are required to be taken into account to determine the point and a single test be it control test or be it organisation or any other test is not sufficient to determine whether contract is sham and bogus. In support of his submission Ld. Adv. for the second party resorted to Apex Court ruling in Workmen of Nilgiris Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu in para 31 of the judgement the Hon'ble Court on the point observed that;

"Determination of vexed questions as to whether a contract is contract of service or contract for service and whether the concerned employees are the employees of the contractors, has never been an easy task. No decision of this court has laid down any hard and fast rule nor it is possible to do so. The question in each case has to be answered having regard to the fact involved therein. No single test -be it control test, be it organisation or any other test has been held to be the determinative factor for determining jural relationship of employer and employee."

12. In this respect the Ld. Advocates for the second party submitted that, till 1987 there was no contractor and the wages were being paid directly by the company and their work was also being supervised by the officials of the first party. Since 1987 onwards the company has inducted the contractors. The contractors were being changed periodically, and the same workers continued to work. They were working as per the instructions issued by the officials of the company. The Ld. Adv. for the second party further submitted that, the workmen are claiming contract are sham and bogus not merely on the ground that, they were working under direct control of the officers of the company. According to them there are number of other factors, indicating that these workmen are the employees of the first party and the contracts are sham, bogus and nominal. According to them, these workmen are working more than 20 years continuously when the contractors were keep on changing periodically. For the period 1983 to 1987 there was no contractor and they were paid by the Company and for all purposes they were the employees of the first party. Since 1987 onwards the company has inducted the contractors. They were engaged for one or two years and the same workers continued to work for more than 20 years. Furthermore from the nature of work it is clear that the work is of perennial nature. The long duration is also one of the circumstances indicating the regular need of work to the company. On the point Apex Court ruling can be resorted to in Workmen of Burkunda Colliery of Central Coal Fields Ltd. &Anr. V/s. Management of Burkunda Colliery of Central Coal Fields Ltd. &Anr 2006 I CLR 635 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Court on the point observed that;

"When temporary or ad-hoc appointments are continued for long, Courts presume that there is regular need for his services on regular post and considers case for regularisation."

13. In the case at hand the fact is not disputed that the same workmen are working for more than 20 years continuously. It indicates that the need of the employer is of perennial and regular nature and these services are required on regular basis. All these facts indicate that, the contracts are sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive the workmen from the benefits of permanent employees. It amount to exploitation of poor workmen as they are working on daily wages for more than 20 years continuously.

14. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that employee who has not come through Employment Exchange and not recruited by following the procedure prescribed therefor cannot be absorbed as permanent employee. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv. resorted to Bombay High Court ruling in Airport Authority of India, Mumbai V/s. Indian Airport Kamgar Union &Ors. 2010 III CLR 270 wherein the Hon'ble Court held that when the contract labourers do not come through Employment Exchange nor they have appeared for any written test and they have no complaint against the contractor who pays them their salaries and other benefits[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7663 and when no charge sheet are issued to them by the principal employer, despite its supervision and control, these are all the incidents of the contract between the labourers and contractors which contract cannot be termed as sham and bogus.

15. The Ld. Adv. for the first party further submitted that the abolition of contract labour cannot be directed by the Court or Tribunal. Only appropriate Government can take the action to that effect under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act. In support of his argument, the Ld. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Steel Authority of India Ltd. V/s. Union of India and Ors. 2006 III CLR 659 wherein the Hon'ble Court on the point observed that;

"It is not disputed before us that matter relating to abolition of Contract Labour being governed by the provisions of the 1970 Act, the Industrial Court will have no jurisdiction in relation thereto."

16. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that, the workmen herein are not praying for abolition of contract labour system. On the other hand they claim that the contracts are sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive them from getting the benefits of permanency. Therefore he rightly argued that, the ratio laid down in the above ruling is not attracted to the set of facts of the present case.

17. The Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that the union herein has prayed for declaration that, the contracts are sham and bogus. Therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the reference. On the point the Constitutional Bench, Apex Court ruling can be resorted to in R.K.Panda & Ors. V/s. Steel Authority of India & Ors. 1994 II CLR 402 wherein employees therein were serving for 10 to 20 years and have claimed that they became direct employees of the respondent and they have direct link with the principal employer eliminating the contractor from the scene. In that matter the Hon'ble Court held that, normally the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under the I. D. Act or under the Contract Labour Act are the competent fora to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them. Same ratio is reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its subsequent judgement in National Federation of Railway Porters and Vendors and Bearers V/s. Union of India &Ors.1995 II CLR 214 (SC).

18. The Ld. Adv. for the first party in this respect cited the Apex Court ruling in The Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Uma Devi & Ors. 2006 (3) L.L.N. 78 wherein, the Hon'ble Court held that, the services of contract workers, cannot be regularised as it would amount to back door entry in the service other than the recruitment process. In this respect I would like to point out that, the unions herein are not claiming regularisation or absorption in the service. On the other hand according to them the contracts are sham, bogus and nominal and the workers are in fact direct employees of the company. Therefore the ratio laid down in the above Apex Court ruling in the case of Uma Devi is also not attracted to the set of facts of the case at hand.

19. From the facts on record for the following reasons I found that the contracts are same, bogus and nominal, they are (1) Initially they were engaged directly by the first party in the year 1983. (2) Till 1987 their work was supervised and wages were paid by first party directly (3) contractors were inducted since 1987 (4) The contractors were kept on changing periodically when the workmen are same working continuously for more than 20 years. (5) The work is of perennial nature (6) Previously till 1983 the same work was being done by the regular employees of the first party and there were vacancies since 1983.

20. In addition to the above, the Ld. Adv. of the second party further pointed out that, the ability, competency and qualification etc. of these workmen was never questioned by the company for last number of years. Some of them are also doing jobs of technical nature i.e. collecting various oil samples etc. The period they have worked for is sufficient to show that, they were well trained and competent to do their respective jobs assigned to them. It is further pointed out that not only these workmen were working under direct supervision of the officers of the company but they were doing the work of perennial nature. They are doing the respective jobs continuously for years together without any interruptions whereas the contractors were kept on changing after gap of a year or two. All these facts indicate that the workmen herein were continuously working for the management for more than 20 years and the company was signing contracts periodically merely to deprive these workmen from getting the benefits of permanency. He further pointed out that these workmen are working for meagre amount of minimum wages. After such a long service of more than 20 years their monthly pay is Rs.5000/- to Rs.7000/- only whereas the permanent employees, performing the same work are getting much more pay, allowances, leave, medical leave facilities, canteen facilities, leave travel concession etc. According to the Ld. Adv. for the second party, the workmen herein are very poor and fighting to meet the two ends of their respective families. They hardly can spend any thing for the education and welfare of their children. By this type of policy of the company, poor are getting poorer. From these facts, picture is clear that all these workmen are very poor and therefore they have no other alternative but to work for such a meagre amount for number of years. Such type of exploitation needs to be checked. In this respect I would like to point out that there are number of labour welfare legislations enacted in order to protect the workmen. In spite of that, exploitation of the poor class is still going on under the garb of contract labourers or daily wagers etc.

7664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21. Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent ruling has taken note of such exploitations of the poor workmen in Bhilwara Dugdh Udpadak Sahakari S. Ltd. V/s. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. 2011 III CLR 386 (SC) wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of such exploitation in the name of so called contract labourers or daily wagers observed that;

23. These observations of Hon'ble Apex Court are eye opening and squarely applicable to the case at hand. The workmen herein are working since last more than 20 years continuously. They are doing the work of perennial nature. In spite of that the first party seems to have inducted some contractors and paying only minimum wages which is not sufficient in these days even to meet two ends of their families. It amounts to exploitation as has been observed in the above ruling. In the light of facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that that the contracts between the first party and the various contractors are found to be sham bogus and nominal. Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in the affirmative.

Issue no.2 :-

"This appeal reveals the unfortunate state of affairs prevailing in the field of labour relations in our country. In order to avoid their liability under various labour statute employers are every often resorting to subterfuge by trying to show that their employees are in fact the employees of a contractor. It is high time that this subterfuge must come to an end. Labour statutes were meant to protect the employees/workmen because it was realised that the employer and the employees are not on an equal bargaining position. Hence protection of employees was required so that they may not be exploited. However this new technique of subterfuge has been adopted by some employers in recent years in order to deny the rights of the workmen under various labour statutes by showing that the concerned workmen are not their employees but are the employees / workmen of a contractor or that they are merely daily wage or short term or casual employees when in fact they are doing the work of regular employees."

The Hon'ble Court further observed that;

24. In the light of discussions and finding of issue nos. 1 herein above it is clear that the contracts between the first party and the various contractors are found to be sham and bogus. The workmen under reference are working there since last more than 20 years continuously. They are doing the work of hazard and of perennial nature as has been discussed herein above. I therefore hold that these workmen are entitled to the declaration that they are employees of the first party. Thus they are also entitled to the pay, allowances and other benefits at par with the permanent employees on the basis of principle of 'equal work equal pay'. In this backdrop it needs no more discussion to arrive me at the conclusion that the workmen herein are the employees of the first party and there exists employer-employee relationship between them. Accordingly I decide this issue no.2 in the affirmative. Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

"This Court cannot countenance such practices anymore. Globalisation / liberalisation in the name of growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of workers."

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court has shown utmost sensitivity in respect of implementation of Labour Legislations in Harjinder Singh V/s. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation 2010 I CLR 884 wherein it is observed that;

"The Preamble and various Articles contained in part IV of the Constitution promote social justice so that life of every individual becomes meaningful and he is able to live with human dignity. The concept of social justice engrafted in the Constitution consists of diverse principles essentially for the orderly growth and development of personality of every citizen. Social justice is thus an integral part of justice in the generic sense, justice is the genus, of which social justice is one of its species. Social justice is a dynamic device to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak, dalits, tribals and deprived sections of the society and to elevate them to the level of equality to live a life with dignity of person."

(i) The reference is allowed with no order as to

cost.

(ii) The intermediate contracts of the first party with various contractors are hereby declared as sham, bogus and nominal.

(iii) The workmen under reference are declared as

employees of the first party.

(iv) The first party is directed to pay them the pay & allowances and give them status and all other facilities at par with the regular Class IV employees with effect from date of completion of two years of initial period of probation from the respective dates of their appointments.

(v) The first party is directed to pay all the arrears of the respective workmen within six months; 50% in cash and the rest of the amount be deposited in their respective Provident Fund Accounts.

Date: 24.09.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7665

Appearances:

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : M/s C. Niranjan Rao,

M. Subramanya Sastry & R. Trinath., Advocates

AWARD

dk-vk- 3157.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स शापूरजी एवं पल्लोंजी लिमिटेड 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 53/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/14/2013-आई आर (एम)]

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/14/2013-IR(M) dated 22.3.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

S.O. 3157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Shapoorji & Pallonji Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-29012/14/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

"Whether the demand of Shri Manto Kumar, Ex- Contract Workman for payment of notice pay, retrenchment compensation, leave salary, Bonus, etc., for the period from November 2010 to September, 2011 by the management of M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Ltd., (a sub-contractor of M.N. Dastur & Company in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, RINL), is legal and justified or not? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.

53/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of September, 2014 3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Once Petitioner received notice but failed to attend the court to make his claim. Later though notices were sent again and again, he failed to claim the same as per postal endorsement, which means knowing about the notice he failed to claim the same. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner has no interest in the proceedings and that he got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 53/2013

Between:

Shri Manto Kumar, C/o Peetambar Sahu, Islampeta Junction, 1st floor, Nanna Hotel, Visakhapatnam -530011.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 3rd day of September, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Shapoorji & Pallonji Ltd., A-9, 3rd floor, Street No.3, Indian Airlines Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 003.

….Respondent Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the Petitioner for the Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL7666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

For the Respondent : M/s C. Niranjan Rao,

M. Subramanya Sastry

& R. Trinath., Advocates

AWARD

dk-vk- 3158.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स शापूरजी एवं पल्लोंजी लिमिटेड 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 54/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/15/2013-आई आर (एम)] The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/15/2013-IR(M) dated 22.3.2013 referred

the following dispute between the management of M/s.

Shapoorji Pallonji Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Shapoorji & Pallonji Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-29012/15/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

"Whether the demand of Shri Peetamber Sahu, Ex- Contract Workman for payment of notice pay,

retrenchment compensation, leave salary, Bonus,

etc., for the period from November 2010 to September, 2011 by the management of M/s.

Shapoorji Pallonji Ltd., (a sub-contractor of M.N. Dastur & Company in the Visakhapatnam Steel

Plant, RINL), is legal and justified or not? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.

54/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement.

ANNEXURE

3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Once Petitioner received notice but failed

to attend the court to make his claim. Later though notices BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present:

Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer Dated the 3rd day of September, 2014

were sent again and again, he failed to claim the same as per postal endorsement, which means knowing about the

notice he failed to claim the same. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner has no interest in the proceedings

and that he got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is

passed.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 54/2013

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Between:

Shri Peetambar Sahu, C/o Peetambar Sahu, Islampeta Junction, 1st floor, Nanna Hotel, Visakhapatnam -530011.

….Petitioner Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 3rd day of

September, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Shapoorji & Pallonji Ltd., A-9, 3rd floor, Street No.3, Indian Airlines Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 003.

….Respondent Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the Petitioner for the Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : NIL

NIL[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7667 नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

For the Respondent : M/s C. Niranjan Rao,

M. Subramanya Sastry

& R. Trinath., Advocates

AWARD

dk-vk- 3159.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स शापूरजी एवं पल्लोंजी लिमिटेड 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 55/2013) प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/16/2013-आईआर (एम)] The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/16/2013-IR(M) dated 22.3.2013 referred

the following dispute between the management of M/s.

Shapoorji Pallonji Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Shapoorji & Pallonji Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-29012/16/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

"Whether the demand of Shri Sumanlal Sahu, Ex- Contract Workman for payment of notice pay,

retrenchment compensation, leave salary, Bonus,

etc., for the period from November 2010 to September, 2011 by the management of M/s.

Shapoorji Pallonji Ltd., (a sub-contractor of M.N. Dastur & Company in the Visakhapatnam Steel

Plant, RINL), is legal and justified or not? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.

55/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Once Petitioner received notice but failed

to attend the court to make his claim. Later though notices INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present:

Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of September, 2014 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 55/2013 were sent again and again, he failed to claim the same as per postal endorsement, which means knowing about the

notice he failed to claim the same. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner has no interest in the proceedings

and that he got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is

passed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Between:

Shri Chumanal Sahu, C/o Peetambar Sahu, Islampeta Junction, 1st floor, Nanna Hotel, Visakhapatnam -530011.

….Petitioner Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 3rd day of

September, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Shapoorji & Pallonji Ltd., A-9, 3rd floor, Street No.3, Indian Airlines Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 003.

….Respondent Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the Petitioner for the Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : NIL

NIL7668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : M/s C. Niranjan Rao,

M. Subramanya Sastry & R. Trinath., Advocates

AWARD

dk-vk- 3160.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स शापूरजी एवं पल्लोंजी लिमिटेड 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 56/2013) प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/17/2013-आई आर (एम)]

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/17/2013-IR(M) dated 22.3.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

S.O. 3160.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Shapoorji & Pallonji Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-29012/17/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

"Whether the demand of Shri Shambhu Sahni, Ex- Contract Workman for payment of notice pay, retrenchment compensation, leave salary, Bonus, etc., for the period from November 2010 to September, 2011 by the management of M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Ltd., (a sub-contractor of M.N. Dastur & Company in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, RINL), is legal and justified or not? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.

56/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 56/2013

Between:

Shri Sambhu Sahni, C/o Peetambar Sahu, Islampeta Junction, 1st floor, Nanna Hotel, Visakhapatnam -530011.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 3rd day of September, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Shapoorji & Pallonji Ltd., A-9, 3rd floor, Street No.3, Indian Airlines Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 003.

….Respondent Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the Petitioner for the Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7669

Appearances:

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

For the Petitioner : NIL

For the Respondent : M/s. C. Niranjan Rao,

M. Subramanya Sastry & R. Trinath., Advocates

AWARD

dk-vk- 3161.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स शापूरजी एवं पल्लोंजी लिमिटेड 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 57/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/11/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/18/2013-आईआर (एम)]

जोेहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/18/2013-IR(M) dated 22.3.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

S.O. 3161.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Shapoorji & Pallonji Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21/11/2014.

[No. L-29012/18/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

Whether the demand of Shri Md. Goush, Ex-Contract Workman for payment of notice pay, retrenchment compensation, leave salary, Bonus, etc., for the period from November 2010 to September, 2011 by the management of M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Ltd., (a sub-contractor of M.N. Dastur & Company in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, RINL), is legal and justified or not? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.

57/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 57/2013

Between:

Shri Md. Goush, C/o Peetambar Sahu, Islampeta Junction, 1st floor, Nanna Hotel, Visakhapatnam -530011.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 3rd day of September, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Shapoorji & Pallonji Ltd., A-9, 3rd floor, Street No.3, Indian Airlines Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 003.

….Respondent Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the Petitioner for the Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL7670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 562/2001-.IR (C-I) dt.1.3.2002.

SCHEDULE

dk-vk- 3162.—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/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 22/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल-20012/562/2001-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3162.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 22/2002 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/562/2001- IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the dismissal from service of Sri Ras Bihari Yadav by the Management of Govindpur Colliery Area -III of M/s BCCL is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No L-20012/562/2001-.IR. (C-I) dt.1.3.2002 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.22 of 2002 was registered on 01.04.2002 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

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.

Ref. No. 22 of 2002

PARTIES : The Vice President

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Head Office Refugee Market, Temple Road, Dhanbad.

Vs. The Project Officer, Govindpur Colliery of M/s. BCCL PO: Katrash, Dhanbad

Ministry's Order No. L-20012/562/2001-.IR (C-I) dt.1.3.2002.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union : Mr.B.B.Pandey,

Ld.Advocate

On behalf of the Management : Mr. D.K.Verma,

Ld.Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th October, 2014.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d) 2. The case of sponsoring Union for the workman is that workman Rash Bihari Yadav had been working as a permanent Miner Loader at Govindpur Colliery since long. But the anti labour Management malafide issued him the charge sheet dt.10/13.5.1994 for giving false information about the particulars for the purpose of employment or concealment of any fact under clause 26.1.12 of the Certified Standing order of the Company, as he is the son of Kishun Yadav who is brother of Fagu Ahir,but the workman had mentioned his father's name as Fagu Ahir in the Identification/Verification report and other papers. Though the workman submitted his satisfactory reply to it, the Management conducted an invalid and irregularly departmental enquiry through a biased Enquiry Officer. The workman was not given full opportunity for cross- examination of the Management witness or for defence ones. No Change was proved in the enquiry. The findings of the enquiry Officer were perverse, and baseless. The copies of the enquiry report, proceedings and second show- cause notice were not supplied prior to passing the dismissal order. The workman was dismissed on the basis of invalid and irregular enquiry. The dismissal letter as issued by an unauthorized person. Despite several times representations of the workman against the illegal and arbitrary dismissal order, the management took no cognizance of it.Lastly, the Union raised the Industrial Dispute before the ALC(C), Dhanbad, but failure in its conciliation due to the antilabour attitude of the Management resulted in the reference for an adjudication. The dismissal of the workman from service by the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7671 Management is neither legal nor justified. The action of the Management was illegal, unjustified, vindictive, against the principle of natural justice and the provision of the Certified Standing order of the Company. It was harsh and disproportionate to the alleged offence.

No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the workman.

3. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the reference, the contra case of the OP/Management with categorical denials is that workman Ras Bihari Yadav had entered into the service as M/Loader on 26.11.1992 under clause 09.4.0. of the NCW-IV against the medical unfit case of one Fagu Ahir,an Ex-employee of M/s. BCCL.The workman had submitted all his papers, claiming to be son of Sri Fagu Ahir.One police verification, it was found that he was factually the son of Kishun Yadav,the brother of Sri Fagu Ahir.The above act committed by the workman constituted a serious misconduct, so the charge sheet was issued to him on 13.5.1994.The workman submitted his reply to the chargesheet,denying the allegation levelled against him. On consideration of his reply, the Management found it unsatisfactory. The Management appointed Sri Ganesh Prasad as the Enquiry Officer for conducting the domestic enquiry in accordance with the principles of Natural Justice. The Enquiry Office fairly conducted the domestic enquiry in which the workman fully participated. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report, having held the charges levelled against the workman established fuly.The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman for his proved misconduct. The dismissal of the workman is legal and justified. The OP/Management has also sought the permission to prove the fairness of the domestic enquiry at a preliminary hearing, and in case of finding it unfair, then to allow to adduce evidence afresh for poof of the charge.

The OP/Managment in their rejoinder has simultaneously categorically denied all the allegations of the workman as incorrect, and stated that the workman entered into the employment fraudulently.

the fact the workman was illegally dismissed as per the letter dt.27/29.12.1997 (Ext.M.5) as it was decided by the Competent Authority to do so for giving false information in order to get his employment, and there was no second Show cause notice to the workman, so the dismissal of the workman was not justified.

FINDING WITH REASON

4. In the instant case, Mr.B.B.Pandey, Ld.Advocate for the workman by filing a petition duly seen by Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Counsel for the OP/Management in course of preliminary enquiry has submitted that the workman concedes to the domestic enquiry as fair and proper, and accordingly the domestic enquiry was held fair as per the order No.33 dt. 31.7.2013 of the Tribunal. It has resulted in the final argument of both the parties on merits.

Mr. B.B. Pandey, Learned Advocate for the workman Rash Bihari Yadav has submitted that he had got his compassionate appointment in place of his father, but he was issued the charge sheet that he has not the son of Fagu Ahir. According to him, the Enquiry Report (Ext.M.3) at the concluding Para 8 appears to have supported the case of the workman as adopted son of Fagu Ahir as such no change was proved against him, so he was allowed to resume his duty as per the Note sheets (Ext.M.4), despite In quick response to it, Mr.D.K.Verma,Learned Advocate for the O.P./Management has contended that the workman has all along misrepresented himself as the son of Fagu Ahir as apparent from his service record including his own affidavit dt.9th Sept.,1991 while getting the employment, but later on, in the course of the proceeding the workman firmly claimed to be the son of Fagu Ahir, his statement in his cross examination clearly expresses his ignorance of whether he was adopted son by Fagu Ahir or not or about his being as son of Kishun Yadav whereas the Police report at page 36 clearly affirms that the workman was not the son of Fagu Ahir,rather he was the son of Kishun Yadav, the brother of Fagu Ahir.Mr.Verma,Ld.Counsel for the O.P./Management has emphasized the fact that during the enquiry, it has been prime facie proved that the workman had fraudulently taken his employment as the son of Fagu Ahir whereas he was factually the son of Kishun Yadav, but later on the workman was alleged to be adopted son of Fagu Ahir as per plain agreement("Ekrarnama") dt.10.09.1976 which was never produced at the time of his compassionate appointment in place of his Ex-employee Fagu Ahir in the year 1992.Mr.Verma thus submits that moreover the Enquiry Officer's report is not final and decisive, the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to take a different view and punish delinquent if found guilty as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tayagi reported in (2012)2SCC (L & S)811(CB): (2012)9 SCC 685.In the instant case, no criminal proceeding was against the workman a criminal for fraudulent representation Mr.Verma submits that giving totally the false information by the workman for his fraudulent employment is a very serious misconduct under clause 26.1.12 of the Certified Standing Order for the workmen of Establishment under BCCL,so the dismissal of the workman from service of the Company by the OP/Management was quite proportionate to the grave nature of his misconduct, and it is legal and justified.

Considering the aforesaid facts after hearing the arguments of both parties, I find that the workman appears to have all along misrepresented as the son of Ex-workman Fagu Ahir,who stood his own uncle, with intend to get his compassionate employment in his place. It is a serious misconduct in the matter of employment as per the Certified Standing Orders of the Company applicable to its all employees; I am of the view that the dismissal of the workman for his aforesaid grave misconduct is quite proportionate to its nature.

In result, it is hereby awarded that the dismissal of Sri Ras Bihari Yadav from service by the Management of7672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Dated, Dhanbad, the 31st October, 2014

AWARD

Govindpur Colliery Area III of M/s. BCCL is quite legal and justified. Hence, the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/564/2000 C-I dt.27.04.2001.

SCHEDULE

dk-vk- 3163.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 128/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल-20012/564/2000-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3163.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 128/ 2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/564/2000- IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the nonpayment of L.T.C. and L.L.TC. for the Block year 1995-98 and 1999-2002 to the workman Sri Shyamlal B.P. by the Management of CCL,Tapin South Colliery is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled

On receipt of the Order No. L--20012/564/2000 C-I dt.27.04.2001 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.128 of 2001 was registered on 14.05.2001 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.

ANNEXURE

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 representatives appeared in, and contested the case.

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. 128 OF 2001.

PARTIES : The Secretary,

United Coal Workers Union, PO: Toppo, Hazaribagh,

Vs.

Project Officer, Tapin South Colliery of M/s. CCL, PO: Tapin, Hazaribagh. .

Ministry's Order No L-20012/564/2000 C-I dt.27.04.2001

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the : Mr. C. S.Pathak, workman/Union Union Representative

On behalf of the : Mr. Santosh Chandravesh Management Management Representative

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

2. The case of the sponsoring Union for workman Shyamlal B.P. Clerk G.II/LDC is that he is an Office Bearer and very active member of the United Coal Workers Union (AITUC), so he has been victimized and harassed for his Trade Union activities particularly agitation against Coal Mifia.He had availed of leave from 6.4.1998 to 13.4.1998 for availing LTC for the block year 1995-98 as per the NCWA which was duly sanctioned. The leave wage for the period was paid, but the LTC bill having been submitted on 20.4.1998 was returned unreasonably. The workman again availed of the leave from 9.2 1999 to 22.2.1999 for availing LLTC for the block year 1999-2002 as per NCWA which is a condition of service. The leave salary was paid, but likewise the LLTC bill was refused arbitrarily. When the respective leaves had been sanctioned, and have been paid, there is no rule or authority to withhold or refuse LTC or LLTC Bills malafide to cause him economic loss. Further with a view to victimize the workman, the O.P./Management out of conspiracy alleged a complaint against the workman as an imposter that there appears to be no such person as "M.Singh".It is prima facie fictitious complaint. The workman was antidatedly served with the charge sheet cum suspension order on 23.2.1999 by dating it as 8.2.1999. No supporting materials and relevant documents were provided despite the demand of the workman. Yet an[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7673 to prove his Identity. Since alleged workman is nor real Shyamlal B P, he is not entitled to receive any amount payable to Shyamlal B.P.The workman had proceeded on leave from 9.2.1999 to 22.2.1999, but to the next date of his being placed under suspension. Hence, the payment of LTC or LLTC does not arise.LLTC payment not effected, as disciplinary proceeding of severe nature was pending against the workman; lastly on proof of the charge, he was dismissed. The Union raised the present Industrial Dispute just to defeat the Departmental /Disciplinary proceeding initiated against him by the Management.

The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has categorically denied the allegations of alleged workman, and stated that the Office Bearer of a Trade Union has not been granted immunity by any law from the disciplinary proceeding, which was pending against the workman for the severe charge at the relevant time. He deliberertatly did not submit his reply. At the relevant time, the Model Standing Order was applicable in the establishment of the Management.

FINDING WITH REASON

enquiry was ordered. Thus, the opportunity to reply the chargesheet passed. The Charge sheet was originally issued under Certified Standing Order. At the demand of its copy, it was modified as Model Standing Order which is legally a nullity, as the Certification of CCL Standing Order on 8.7.1991 was applicable to all the establishment of CCL.The alleged Model Standing Order was repealed. No proceeding can be held under the provision of the alleged Model Standing Order. The charge was clearly biased on Vigilance enquiry report. No supply of the relevant documents including the statement of witnesses to the delinquent workman is violtive of the principle of natural justice. No Model Standing Order provides for appointment of a Management's Presenting Officer, who was highly Qualified and trained, whereas the representation of the delinquent through a legal practitioner was refused. So the alleged enquiry was merely a formality. The CCL Certified Standing Order provides for representation of the delinquent by Trade Union Official, but not for as Representing Officer or Management Representation. The Enquiry Officer was dictated by Vigilance Office who was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer was seriously biased, failing to work as Quasi Judicial Authority. No Co-worker of the workman was released to assist him. Unfair Labour Practice is punishable under provisions of Sec.25 U of the I.D.Act 1947.Thus it has been alleged for payment of LTC & LLTC for the relevant block years to the workman.

3. The Union Representative in the rejoinder for the workman has specifically denied all the allegations of the OP/Management, further alleging that LTC and LLTC are well established conditions of service not open to adverse change without compliance of provisions under Sec.9A of the I.D.Act, 1947. The Suspension Order Charge sheet are subsequent events having no retrospective effect as also represented in the written statement of the workman in the Ref No.185/2001. The identity of the workman was never in dispute at any time during service of over 25 long years under CCL.As admitted the LTC and LLTC that became legally due have been refused payment arbitrarily without hearing. No employer has absolute power to punish the workman without hearing. So the workman is entitled to payment for availed LTC and LLTC.

4. Adversely the case of the O.P./Management with categorical denials is that the alleged workman is an impersonator impersonating Late Shyamlal B.P. who was an employee of M/s CCL and died on 19.7.1976 at his native village Taldeori in Madhya Pradesh. The workman concerned fraudulently entered into the service of CCL at Tapin South Colliery by impersonating Late Shymlal B.P.When the matter came to knowledge, the Management initiated the departmental proceeding against him and put him under suspension as per the Charge sheet-cum- Suspension Order dt.8.2.1991.On holding fair and proper domestic enquiry giving him full opportunity, the Management dismissed the workman from the services of the Management for his proved misconduct. As he failed 5. In the instant reference, WWI Shyamlal B.P. on behalf of the Union and MWI Gautam Kumar Acharya, the General Mazdoor Cat.I at Tapin Project for the O.P./ Management have been respectively examined.

Mr. C.S. Pathak,the Union Representative for the workman petitioner has to submit that petitioner Shyam Lal B.P. was not paid the LTC and LLTC for Rs.5,508/- and Rs.10,224/- bill for the Block years 1995-98 and 1999-2002 respectively, though he had availed of the same with his sanctioned leaves, and the payments thereof were admittedly proceeded by the O.P./Management. According to him, the workman had taken due leave from 6.4.1998 to 13.4.98 duly sanctioned (Ext.M.1/1) and availed LTC; and he submitted the bill on 20.4.1998 (Ext.W.1) for its expenditure of Rs.5,588/-; likewise on his leave from 9.2.1999 to 22.2.1999 duly sanctioned as per Ext.M.1/2 for availing his sanctioned LLTC, he also claimed for the incurred expenditure Rs.10,224/- over it as processed by the O.P./ Management as per Ext.W2,but the O.P/Management has not paid off the due amount of the petitioner for his aforesaid availed leaves as per prevalent provisions of NCWA-V and VI respectively on the irrelevant ground that petitioner workman was served with charge sheet-cum- suspension letter just after return from LLTC on resumption on 23.2.1999; thus the claim of the workman petitioner for it is alleged to be justified.

Adversely the contention of Mr. Santosh Chandravesh, the Asstt. Manager (Pers.) as the Representative for the OP/Management is that none of the Bills as allegedly filed by the workman petitioner has been docketed in the office of the O.P./Management,that he has not referred to by which he had travelled; if he had stayed in 5-Star hotel in place of 3-star one, he would been titled to payment only for his entitled stay at 3-Star Hotel which7674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] would payable on production of his bill only. Mr. Chandravesh for the O.P./Management submits that so far as the claim for LLTC from 9.2.1999 to 22.2.1999 total 13 days is concerned, it is unsustainable, as he was already suspended w.e.f. 8.2.1999; therefore, the workman/ petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3164.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/60/2005- 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

Ref. No. 88 of 2005

PARTIES : The Exec. Member,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Block-E, Sector II, Bhuli, Qr. No. 483, P.O. Bhuli—D Block, Dist : Dhanbad.

Vs.

Project Officer, Incline Mines, Sudamdih of M/s BCCL, PO: Sudamdih, Dhanbad.

Ministry's Order No. L-20012/60/2005-.IR (C-I) dt.13.9.2005.

APPEARANCES :

On perusal and considerations of the materials available on the case record, I find that admittedly the workman/petitioner on his two applications dt. 2.4.98 and 21.1.1999 was granted his EL from 6.4.98 to 13.4.98 and 9.2.1999 to 22.2.1999 for his LTC and LLTC as evident from Ext.M.1 and 1/2 respectively. The LPC of the workman for the month of Feb.1999 (Ext M.1) defies and unsubstantiates his suspension in Feb., 1999. But out of three documents, the affidavit as sworn by the workman on 5.5.2005 before the Execution Magistrate, Ranchi (Ext.W.3) as his evidence being his personal facts of the LTC and dismissal is unsustainable. But petitioner could not be able to prove whether he submitted in the office of the O.P./Management his bill for LTC Form M-A (Ext W.2) along with Form D for the Block year 1999-2002 and details of fares claimed for both in the office. Out of these documents in original, the LTC for the said period 1995-98 (Ext.W.1) appears to show its processing up to the SOM/CM/TSC, but the words "Entry of S. Book is required " by the concerned Authority meant not fully passed or processed to its finality by the Dy.F.M./TSC and PO/TSC.Rest documents /Forms (Ext.W.2) are in the pen and signatures of the workman/petitioner. Not a single receipt of his factual travelling up and down has been produced and proved. These very facts of the workman/petitioner make his claim for payment LTC or LLTC totally vague.

On behalf of the workman/Union : Mr. A. K. Sharma

Ld. Adv.

On behalf of the Management : Mr. U. N. Lal

Ld. Adv.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 31st October, 2014

AWARD

In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby responded and awarded that no payments of LTC & LLTC for the Block years 1995-98 and 1999-2002 to the workman Shyam Lal BP by the Management of CCL,Tapin South Colliery in lack of proof of his bills with requisites concerned having been submitted in the office of the O.P./Management is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/60/2005-IR (C-I) dt.13.09.2005.

SCHEDULE

dk-vk- 3164.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 88/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/60/2005-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी "Whether the action of the Management of Incline Mine, Sudamdih of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Sengrai Munda, working as D.C.P. w.e.f. 29.7.2004 is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/60/2005-IR (C-I) dt.13.09.2005 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.88 of 2005 was registered on 06.10.2005 and[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7675 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 respective Ld.Counsels appeared in, and contested the case.

2. The case of sponsoring Union Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union (BCKU), Bhuli for workman Sengrai Munda is that he was a permanent employee of Incline Mine, Sudamdih, working as DCF under M/s. BCCL, P.O. Sudamdih, Distt. Dhanbad. He had been sincerely and punctually performing his duty under the management since his appointment on 12.1.1993.He was unable to attend his duty from 23.06.2001 due to unavoidable circumstances of his prolong sickness. So his dismissal by the Management w.e.f. 29.7.2004 is absolutely illegal and unjustified, as the entire family of the workman used to live at his native village, but he was living bachelor, and due to his sudden illness and being not in good condition, he could not personally informed the Management, though through his neighbour co-worker had informed the Management of it, and about his going to his native village for better treatment.

reply to it was received, the Disciplinary Authority as per his decision got the matter enquired into by the Enquiry Officer by appointing him and the Management Representative as per Memo dt.01.10.2001.Despite three Notices for Enquiry on 16.10.2001, 15.1.2002 and 19.3.2002,the workman did not participate in it unreasonably, the enquiry was ex-parte held. The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The 2nd Show-Cause Notice along with a copy of the Enquiry report was issued to the workman for his response within 15 days. Lastly, the Disciplinary Authority as per his Order dt.25/29.7.2002 dismissed the workman after the approval of the Competent Authority as per the Note Sheet dt.10.7.2002, instructing the workman to collect his terminal benefits from the office after handing over the quarter and tools, if any, of the Company.

Previously, the workman was awarded with punishment of his increments stoppage as per the Office order No 1413 dt.7.4.2002 for his charge sheets dt.7.7.01 and 18.10.2000, as his last three years attendances were 88,121 and 51 days in the years 1999 to 2001 respectively. Ample opportunity was given to the workman for his defence in his case. On considering all the facts including the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority rightly imposed on him the punishment of his dismissal for the proved charges of misconduct. So the action of the Management in dismissing the workman w.e.f. 24.7.2004 is quite fair and proper.Hence, he is not entitled to any relief.

The O.P./Management in their rejoinder has categorically denied all the allegations of the workman as incorrect, further alleging the workman to have received the 2nd Show Cause Notice/letter dt.30.6.2002 as evident from Para 9 of his written statement. Permission has been sought for adducing evidences on merits, if the enquiry found to be unfair at preliminary.

FINDINGS WITH REASONS

The Management charge sheeted the workman on 03.09.2001, but he could not replied to it, as he had got its copy. He had got only the letter dt.30.5.2002 from the Incline Mine about his unauthorized absentism from duty from 23.6.2001, a misconduct, wilful or habitual absence unreasonably under clause 26:1:1 of the Certified Standing Orders. But the workman submitted to have violated the standing orders of the Company. The fact and circumstances were too critical for him to personally inform. Just after the issuance of the charge sheet, the Management set up the domestic enquiry, by appointing Sri C.S.Dubey as the Enquiry Officer and Sri A.K.Singh, the Head Clerk as Management Representative respectively. But the workman had no knowledge of it. The enquiry was conducted in absence of the workman quite illegal and arbitrarily, as no chance was given to the workman for his defence. The Enquiry Officer had not followed the rules of law. The Management had no right to dismiss him without giving a chance for his defence. Hence the Industrial dispute after due consideration of the facts by the Government of India was referred for an adjudication.

3. Whereas the contra case of the O.P./Management is that the employer had submitted all the details of it in the Industrial Dispute raised by the Union concerned. Workman Singrai Munda, DCF at incline Mine, Sudamdih, was issued the charge sheet dt. 3.9.2001 through Regd. Post for his unauthorized absence w.e.f. 23.6.2001 under clause 26.1.2001 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. When no 4. In the instant case of dismissal, on the evidence of the MWI Arun Kr.Singh for the O.P./Management at preliminary issue, but due to the failure of the workman in producing any evidence at it, it was found and held the domestic enquiry as fair and proper as per the Order No.41 dt.11.2.2014 of the Tribunal. So it has resulted in hearing the arguments of both the parties on merits.

Even at the eleventh hour, neither the Union Representative nor any one appeared to argue in spite of giving ample opportunity for it. At last, Mr.U.N.Lal,Learned Advocate for the O.P./Management submits that the workman has been a habitual absentee from duty unauthorisedly as vivid from his past record of the his service; so the action of the Management in dismissing the workman from the service of the Company is undoubtedly justified as well as legal, as the punishment of dismissal to the workman for his frequent misconduct of habitual absentism is proper and proportionate to the nature7676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of his habitual misconduct; therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

PARTIES : The President,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Rajender Path, Dhanbad.

Vs.

Chief General Manager, Block II Area of M/s. BCCL, PO: Nawagarh, Dhanbad

Ministry's Order No L-20012/265/96- IR(C-I) dt. 24.10.1997

APPEARANCES :

On perusal and due consideration of the materials on the case record, I find that the workman has been accustomed to habitual absentism unauthorizedly as his previous record of his service stands, so I am of the view that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman for his habitual conduct of will full absentism appears to be quite just and proper. The Labour Law never recognizes any relaxation in favour of willful habitual absentee workman in the industry of Coal where its production totally depends upon the work of a workman.

In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby responded and accordingly awarded that the action of the Management of Incline Mine,Sudamdih of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Sengrai Munda,working as D.C.P.w.e.f.29.7.04 is absolutely justified.Hence,the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief except to the Gratuity and other terminal benefits on his application to the O.P./ Management.

On behalf of the : Mr. O.P. Verma, Ld. Advocate workman/Union

On behalf of the : Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate Management

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 27th October, 2014.

AWARD

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

SCHEDULE

dk-vk- 3165.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 116/1997) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/265/1996-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3165.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/1997) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/265/1996- IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the action of the General Manager, Block II Area of M/s BCCL in denying to regularise the services of Shri Satish Kumar Verma, Underground Munshi as Loading Supdt./inspector with full benefits is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No. 20012/265/96-IR(C-I) dt.24.10.1997 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.116 of 1997 was registered on 20.11.1997 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

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

2. The case of workman Satish Kumar Verma as sponsored by the Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh is that he had been working as Underground Munshi since his appointment in the year 1981 at Govindpur Colliery under Govindpur Area of M/s BCCL. Due to his sincerity and REFERENCE No. 116 OF 1997[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7677 Asstt. Loading Inspector/Asstt. Loading Superintendent in Technical and Supervisory Grade C who gets promotion to that of the Loading Inspector/Loading Supervisory Grade B after minimum five years service as Asstt.Loading Inspector. Thus the eligibility criteria fixed in the Cadre Scheme can not be abrogated by an officer of the Company. So an Underground Munshi either in Clerk Grade III or Grade II can not be directly eligible for promotion as the Loading Inspector/Loading Superintendent in Tech. & Supervisory Grade B. The JBCCI circular strictly prohibits any favourtism of an officer or the Agent of the Colliery in collusion with some leaders towards there selective workers in the matter of promotion. As such the present demand of the workman for regularizations sponsored by the Union is quite unfair.

The O.P./Management in their rejoinder has categorically denied all the allegations of the workman as concoctions and incorrect. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

FINDING WITH REASONS

honesty, on his deputation by the Management for the job of Loading Supervisor in Road Sales Dispatch Department on 26.8.1986, since then, he has been continuously performing his duty till April,1994. Even on his transfer to Block II Area at B Nudkhurkee Colliery as informed by the Area Personal Manager of Govindpur Colliery through the letter No.GM/Ar III/PD/Date 14/15.4.1995 to the Personnel Manager of Block II Area, the workman has been performing the same job. The Management of Nudkhurkee OCP had confirmed his demand for regularization and had for further necessary action as per the letter dt.5/4th June,1996 of the Project Officer to the Personnel Manager, Block II Area. The Union had also demanded for his regularization in the post of the Loading Supervisor with other benefit as per the decision of JBCCI/NCWA.Lastly an Industrial Dispute was raised by the Union before the ALC©, Dhanbad, but the failure of conciliation on the part of the Management despite the ability and experience of the workman as the Loading Supervisor /Inspector finally resulted in the reference for an adjudication. The Tenure of the workman performing the job as assigned as the Loading Supervisor/ Inspection was more than 11 years. So it is alleged that the workman is legally entitled to regularization on the post of the Loading Supervisor/Inspector with full back wages and other benefits as per its proper pay scale since 26.6.1986.

3. In the rejoinder filed by Mr.O.P.Verma,the Learned Advocate for the workman, all the allegations of the O.P./ Management have been specifically denied as incorrect, further alleging that the Experience Certificate to that effect was also issued by the Dy.CM.E./Agent of Govindpur Colliery to the workman who has a Bachelor Degree fin/ Ranchi University.Though he is at present a clerk in Grade I Scale. The Competent Authority has time to time also regularized Sr.Clerk Grade Special (in several Section as Sri Aghanu Ram on the post of Loading Supervisor/ Inspector).There is no need for any vacancy for the regularization. The Management of Block II has transferred to workman to Benedih Weight age as U.G.Munshi working as Loading Supervsior; and the L.P.C. and Identification Certificate have been issued by the Management in his favour. So the workman's claim for it is genuine and legal.

4. Whereas the case of the O.P./Management with specific denials is that there is no rule to regularization on the Underground Munshi as the Loading Supervisor/ Inspector. As per the JBCCI circular No. 38 dt. 25.9.1984 Annexure III-3 Cadres Scheme has been incorporated for the Loading personnel. According to it, any permanent employee with Matriculation or equalvent Certificate duly granted by any University or Board of examination can be selected as Assistant Loading Clerk in Clerical Grade III by the Selection Committee. All eligible candidates of requisite qualifications working in all the collieries of the Area are given equal opportunity. The promotion from Asstt. Loading Clerk with requisite experience can be made to the post of the Loading Clerk Grade II on the recommendation of the DPC.The Loading Clerk with the minimum 3 years of working experience in Grade II is promoted to the post of 5. In the reference WWI Satish Kumar Verma, the workman on behalf of the union concerned and MWI Benedit Xalxo,Sr.Manger (Pers),Block II OCP,Baghmara for the OP/Management have been respectively examined.

In the instant reference on perusal of the material available on the case record, it appears to he no dispute that the workman was initially appointed as M/Loader at Govindpur Colliery in the year 1981.It can not be denied that the post of the Loading Supervisor in T & S Grade B is very senior post. Between the Loading clerk and the Loading Supervisor there are many posts Loading Clerk Gr.II, Asstt.Loading Inspector and the Loading Inspector. The indisputable facts are that the work of the workman as Munshi was in the underground as contrasted with the Loading work which is done at Colliery dept, Railway sidings as well as road side on the surface. The workman has admitted that on the Weight Bridge, the weight of the loaded and unloaded vehicles are recorded; accordingly no questions about the duty of the Loading Supervisor there. The workman also undoubtedly appears to have admitted in his cross examination that the Management had not issued any order for transfer from the underground to work as the Loading Supervisor on the road Side.

Mr. O. P. Verma, the Ld. Counsel for the workman has submitted the workman by virtue of the office order (dt.25.6.1986)(Ext.W.1 with objection) has been though designated as the Munshi,yet working for 18 years as Loading Supervisor all along in different Collieries of the O.P./Management as evident from his documents: the transfer Orders (Ext. W.4,5)the four letters of the Project Officers concerned (Ext.W.8 -8/1) and the LPC issued by the Personnel Manager, Block II OCP (Ext.W.9) respectively, but despite his several representations as per his carbon copy letter dt.01.02.1995 (Ext.W.3) to the Project Officer of Nudkhurkhi Colliery, he was not regularized as the Loading7678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Supervisor, so he is entitled to it. The Learned Counsel Mr. Verma has based his argument upon the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court, Jhrkhand, referring L.P.A.179/2012, Employer-Management of Rajhara Colliery M/s BCCL Vs. President Rajhara Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, wherein 287 casual Wagon Loaders were ordered by the Tribunal concerned to be regularized as permanent workmen, as they were working as casual wagon Loaders for more than three decades, and since other similarly situated workers were earlier regularized. So the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to uphold the order passed by the Tribunal, directing appellant Management to regularize them as justified. (Para 2, 37).

On the other hand,the polite contention of Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the O.P./ Management is that in the terms of the reference under an adjudication firstly the Reference itself is vague as claimed for regularization as Loading Supervisor/Inspector, because admittedly the workman was never selected for either of the two posts; the application of the workman (Ext.W.1 with objection) for seeking permissions to work in the Road Sale which was allowed his claim is based on is not an authority for working in Loading Section in which the highest post is the Loading Supervisor. The very admission of the workman is that the Management except the purported authority never issued any authority to him to work as Loading Supervisor. Moreover, no person can be selected except through the D.P.C. for the post of the Loading Supervisor as per the Cadre Scheme. It is settled law as held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Secy.State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006)(3)SSC (L & S) 753 that over constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure the unequals are not treated as equals; thus any public employment has to be in terms of the Constitutional Scheme. Adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution is a must in the process of public employment. Long continuance of such employees on irregular basis in public employment, if violated, they can not claim to be treated on par with those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. (Para 1 and 48).

from 01.07.1995 under SLU. His Ext.W-9 is not his LPC, rather it is his Identification Certificate with illegible date on his transfer. In such situation, the argument of Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld.Counsel for OP./Management appears to outweigh that of Mr.O.P.Verma, Ld.Counsel for the workman whose cited ruling being mark off the point holds not good with the factum of the reference case. In the light of the findings, it stands clear that the case of the workman is absolutely concocted and baseless.

In result, it is hereby in the terms of the reference, responded and accordingly awarded that the action of the General Manager, Block II Area of M/s. BCCL in denying to regularize the services of Shri Satish Kumar Verma, Under Ground Munshi as Loading Supervisor/Inspector with full benefits is quite justified as well as legal. The workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3166.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (48/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/15/2009-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3166.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 48/2009 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/15/2009- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 48 of 2009. Reference No. L-12012/15/2009- IR(B-II)dated 18.08.2009.

Sh. Taranbir Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Surjeet Singh, House No.397, Phase-2, 2nd Floor, Mohali(Chandigarh).

...Workman

Versus

Having heard both the learned Counsel for the respective parties, and on perusal and considerations of the materials available on the case record, I find that the workman prima facie appears to have himself sought on his own application dt. 26.6.1986 (date digit 6 over written as 5) for permission to work as Road Sale Dispatch from 26.6.1986 as ordered by the Agent concerned (Ext.W.1) which is virtually no authority for working as the Loading Inspector. Only designation of the Loading Inspector as noted and added to the inherent post of UG Munshi of the workman as per his few relevant documents can not confer on the workman any right to claim his regularization. The official letter dt.22/25.2.96 of the Project Officer concerned (Ext.W.8/1) proved that the workman had got his Grade (I)[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7679 1. The General Manager, Northern Zone, Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office, Bank of Baroda Building, 16-Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

...Respondent

Appearances

For the Workman : Sh. P.K.Longia Advocate.

For the Management: On the date of argument none

appeared for Management;

Award Dated:-07.11.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-12012/15/2009-IR(B-II)dated 18.08.2009 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

"Whether the action of the Management of Bank of Baroda in imposing a penalty of 'Removal from Bank's service without disqualification for future employment' on Sh. Taranbir Singh is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. Workman in the claim statement submitted that he was appointed in the Traders Bank Ltd. on 13.02.1983 at Delhi. Later on the Bank merged in the Bank of Baroda. In the June, 2000 some of the relatives of the workman made complaint against him to the bank and to the SSP Ludhiana. Those complaints were investigated into by SSP Ludhiana and finding no substance the same were dropped. The business as alleged by the relatives of the workman was actually promoted by the wife of the workman independently and due to heavy losses in the business by his wife, she went into depression and for that reason she was not to be left alone for a second and workman was also upset due to her illness. The workman reluctantly intervened with the persons involved in her business. The children of the workman were aged 13 and 9 years respectively and the workman had to spent time for his family due to the condition of his wife. The workman was also fell ill and remained under treatment of a specialist at Faridabad for four months together and during this period the relatives complained against the workman to the bank authorities whereas the wife of the workman was running the business independently. The workman never used the name of the bank or misused his official position and there was no financial lose to the bank and no party had involved of the bank in any case. Vide order dated 11.08.2001 the workman was removed from service.

3. The workman was charge sheeted on 14.05.2001 containing a stipulation that the departmental inquiry would be held and inquiry officer Sh. A.K.Sodhi was appointed for conducting departmental inquiry. This order appointing the inquiry officer was also included in the charge sheet. The management meanwhile issued circular dated 14.12.2000 calling upon the employees for seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme which contain certain

additional incentive over and above the usual terminal dues. The workman applied under the said scheme for voluntary retirement vide application dated 14.02.2001 but the same was rejected by the management vide letter dated 25.04.2001 on the ground of contemplated disciplinary proceeding. The workman filed appeal against the decision of refusing the voluntary retirement. It is further pleaded by the workman that after receipt of charge-sheet dated 14.05.2001 he became apprehensive that appellate authority would not allow the workman for voluntary retirement and workman persuaded the matter through his union representative Sh. M.M.K. Joshi. The aforesaid representative of the union learnt that if the workman did not drag on departmental inquiry and got it concluded even if by admitting the guilt, the offer of workman for voluntary retirement could be considered on the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. Accordingly without contesting, the workman requested the investigating officer to advance the inquiry from 25.05.2001 to 22.05.2001 on which date the workman appeared before the investigating officer and admitted the charge sheet writing on the charge-sheet accepted against each and every charge/allegations because of the anxiety of the workman to get the proceeding concluded at the earliest which according to the workman, an understanding conveyed to the workman between the union and the management would have entitled workman to have his offer to the voluntary retirement considered by the management favourably. Due to this reason the departmental inquiry was concluded in few minutes and inquiry officer gave his finding holding the charges proved. It is also brought to his notice that the presenting officer did not produced his evidence neither documentary nor oral and word written has accepted against each and every allegation by the workman was sufficient. The workman was further called upon to give his comments on the finding dated 22.05.2001. The disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of removal from service without disqualification for future employment on 27.06.2001. The appeal of the workman against decision of refusing to entertain the offer of the workman seeking voluntary retirement from the service on 12.05.2001 was dismissed on 20.07.2001. The workman's submission dated 26.07.2001 against the proposed punishment of removal from service precisely stated that indirect acceptance of the allegation was procured from the workman on the solemn assurance that the services of the workman will not be dispensed with and such type of assurance in the circumstances does not amount to confession of guilt on the part of the workman and bank management facilitated their designing removing the workman from service on the ground of alleged acceptance of the charges by the workman. It is submitted by the workman that he accepted the charges on the assurances that he would be allowed to avail of the voluntary retirement in view of his earlier conclusion of departmental proceeding. The appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority was also rejected. It is prayed by the workman that the punishment imposed was not based on material on record7680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] and it is a case of denial of opportunity of hearing and condemning the workman without hearing. It is prayed that punishment of removal from service may kindly be set aside and the workman may be ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

4. Written statement filed by the management. Preliminary objection has been taken that workman holding all position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and the punishment is commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the workman. On merits the management submitted that the wokman committed gross misconduct and on the basis of facts and material available disciplinary proceeding initiated against the workman vide charge sheet dated 14.01.2001 which contain the following charges:-

"It has been reported against you as under:-

1. That you have been running an investment company by name of "R.K. Investments" and a Lucky Draw Scheme by name of "Abchal Lucky Scheme", with both having their offices at 1160 Phase-I, Urban Estate, Dugri Road, Ludhiana. That the following corroborative facts substantiate that the aforesaid "R.K.Investments" and "Abchal Lucky Scheme" are run by you.

(a) The offices of "R.K.Investments" and "Abchal Lucky Scheme" are situated at 1160, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Durgi Road, Ludhiana, which happens to be your residence.

(b) The visiting card of "R.K.Investments" showing it to be dealing in LIC, UTI, Shares, Mutual funds bears your name as :T.S.Oberoi:, which shows that you are the proprietor/principle functionary of the company.

(c) A news report was carried by "The Indian Express" dated 6.6.2000 in its Punjab News Line Section, with heading as "Bank Employee dupes residents of Rs.1 Cr.". In the said news report it was stated that the Computer Operator of Focal point branch of Bank of Baroda (who happens to be you) has duped several people of nearby Rs.1 Cr. by floating lucky schemes. Another news report was carried in a Hindi news Paper stating that you have duped people of Rs.72000/-.

(d) The bank has received complaints made by various persons as detailed below wherein it has been stated that you have lured them to join the lucky draw schemes run by you and on maturity of the schemes you have defaulted in payment. It has also been complained that in respect of money owed by you to the complainants you had issued them cheques which have bounced.

(i) Complaint dated 31.03.2000 given to Chief Manager, SSI branch, Ludhiana by Mr.Gurdeep Singh, Mrs. Arashbir Kaur, Mr.Ajit Pal Singh. Mrs.Rajinder Kaur, all residents of 212- E, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana.

(ii) Complaint dated (Nil) sent to Sr.Supt. of Police, Ludhiana by Mrs. Arashbir Kaur and Mr.Ajit Pal Singh.

(iii) Complaint dated 26.4.2000 sent to Asstt.Gen.Manager, Bank of Baroda, Chandigarh by Mrs.Arashbir Kaur.

(iv) Complaint dated (Nil) given to Chief Manager, SSI Branch, Ludhiana by 11 persons including one Mr. Parmod Madaan, Madaan Shocker Repair, 378-Bhai Bala Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141002.

(v) Another complaint dated 'Nil' sent to the Chief Manager, SSI Branch, Ludhiana by Mr. Paramod Madaan with copies endorsed to various authorities.

(e) The aforesaid complainants have sent to the bank, copies of pass books of "Abchal Lucky Scheme" issued to various persons as detailed below, which have been filed by you. The fact that you have filled the lucky draw scheme pass books evidences that the said lucky draw schemes were run by you.

Pass book of "Abchal Enterprises":-

(i) Sarabjit Singh Namdghar, Membership No.-42

Pass Books of "Abchal Lucky Schemes No.-2

1. Mr. Saurabh Chhabra Membership No.-36

2. Mr. Subhash Madaan Membership No.-79

3. Mr. Shakti Mehendru Membership No.-124

4. Mr. Iqbal Membership No.-176

5. M/s. Taveen Investmtnes Membership No.-101

6. M/s. Taveen Investments Membership No.-163

7. M/s. Taveen Investments Membership No.-17

8. M/s. Taveen Investments Membership No.-71

9. Mr. Gurdip Singh Membership No.-8

10. Mrs. Arshbir Kaur Membership No.-34

11. Mrs. Rajinder Kaur Membership No.-136

12. Mr. Ajit Pal Singh Membership No.-56

(f) legal notices were issued to you on behalf of Mr.Gurdeep Singh, Mr. Ajit Pal Singh. Mrs. Arashbir Kaur & Mrs. Rajinder Kaur demanding payment of overdue amounts. There have been exchange of legal notices between you and several other persons making claims and counter claims of money owed. All these show that you are engaged in financial dealings with several persons.

(g) You had issued seven cheques bearing No.145001 to 145007 drawn on your OD A/C/ No.65003 to third parties and subsequently you have given stop payment instructions to the bank in respect of the same. It shows that you are involved in financial dealings with various persons and owe them huge amount.

(h) You had taken loan of Rs. 170000/- on 15.5.1999 and Rs. 75000/- on 26.8.1999 from one Mr. Parmod Madaan of M/s Madaan Shocker Repair, 578-Bhai Bala Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141002 which shows that you are dealing in financial matters and incurring heavy indebtedness.

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7681

(i) Another complainant, Mr. Anil Narang has alleged that you have defaulted in payment of Rs.683250/-(Rupees six lakh eighty three thousand two hundred fifty only).

You are, therefore, charged as under"-

(i) By running investment company/lucky draw scheme, you have engaged yourself in business/gainful activities out side the scope of your duties which constitutes "Gross Misconduct" under Clause 19.5(a) of the Bipartite Settlement.

(ii) By luring the public to invest in investment company and lucky draw schemes floated by you and duping them subsequently which has resulted in the said duped persons complaining to the bank and adverse newspaper reports, you have committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank, which constitutes "Gross Misconduct" under Clause 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement.

(iii) By incurring huge indebtedness from various persons, you have committed acts which constitute "Minor Misconduct" under Clause 19.7(1) of the Bipartite Settlement.

The enquiry will be conducted by Mr. A.K. Sodhi, Sr. Branch Manager, Samrala Road, Ludhiana branch who will advise you the date, time and place of enquiry.

You may give your written statement in your defence to the enquiry officer atleast 3 days before the date of enquiry."

You will be permitted to be defended by a Representative of a Registered Trade Union of Bank Employees of which you are member on the date first notified for the commencement of enquiry and if you are not a member of any Trade union of Bank employees on the aforesaid date, by a representative of registered trade union of employees of the bank in which you are employed.

You will be allowed to produce your evidence to examine witnesses in your defence and to cross- examine the witnesses brought by the bank against you at the time of enquiry."

5. It is submitted by the management that workman was running an investment company under the name and style of M/s. R.K. Investment and Lucky Draw Scheme in the name of "Abchal Lucky Scheme" and its office was situated at 1160 Urban Estate, Phase-I, Durgi Road Ludhiana, which happened to be the residence of the workman. Inquiry was initiated and workman was given full opportunity to defend himself before the inquiry officer. He engaged his defence representative of his choice Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma and his request was allowed by the inquiry officer. Charges were read over to the workman and workman unconditionally and without reservation in the presence of his defence representative accepted all the allegations contained in the charge sheet. The competent authority sent inquiry report to the workman for the comments on the same. The workman submitted his comments after availing numerous extensions. The disciplinary authority after considering all the relevant record, findings of the inquiry officer and written submission made by the workman proposed the punishment of removal from bank service without disqualification for futures employment and also provided opportunity of personal hearing on the said proposed punishment. On 30.7.2001 the workman along with his defence representative attended the personal hearing and after applying its mind the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service without disqualification for future employment. Workman filed appeal against the order dated 11.8.2001 of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority also provided personal hearing to the workman and after duly taken into consideration submission made by the workman rejected the appeal of the workman. The workman was provided full opportunity during inquiry proceedings and workman voluntarily without any pressure or coercion, admitted all the charges and the disciplinary authority also provided him opportunity of personal hearing and inquiry proceeding were conducted in fair and proper manner adhering to the principle of natural justice.

6. It is further pleaded by the management that workman applied for the voluntary retirement and the same was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against the workman were contemplated vide order dated 25.4.2001. It is further pleaded that at the time of introduction of voluntary retirement scheme vide circular dated 14.12.2000 disciplinary proceeding were contemplated against the workman regarding his fraudulent activities and under these circumstances request of the workman for voluntary retirement was illegal and unjustified. As regard the claim of the workman that there was some understanding it is totally denied by the management. The submissions of the workman in this regard are false, concocted, and baseless and have no iota of truth. It is specifically pleaded by the management that there was no assurance as such the question of taking lenient view does not arise and allegation of the workman are frivolous and far from truth. It is further pleaded by the management that a sum of Rs. 2,99,712.02 on account of provident fund was received from head office of the bank towards the terminal dues of the workman and the bank adjusted the recovery of outstanding balance in loan account of the workman and the balance was credited to the SB account of the workman. The workman was also paid the gratuity amount on 15.2.2005 in his saving bank account. It is prayed that the claim is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed with cost.

7. In evidence, workman filed his affidavit and also examined two witnesses Sh. M. M. K. Joshi WW1, Sh. Rajesh Kumar,WW2 and himself examined as W3 in evidence. The management in evidence examined MW1 Sh. K.S Simar, MW2 B.B.Garg who categorically stated in cross-examination that he had never given any assurance to the union representative Sh. Joshi for taking a lenient view.

7682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. I have heard the parties and gone through the record of the case. The first point to be determined in this case is whether the inquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner adhering to the principle of natural justice? From the record it is revealed that the workman on the first date of hearing, charges were read over to him in the presence of him defence representative Sh.Sharma. The workman admitted all the charges without any pressure coercion by writing on the charge sheet it self on 22.5.2001 as under:-

"I hereby accept all the charges levied vide charge sheet No.PB:PD:STF661/1358 dated 14.5.2001. I am accepting the charges without any pressure, fear, commitment. I am accepting the charges of my own having fully read and understood the same."

9. The inquiry was concluded on that very day in view of the admission of the charges by the workman. There is nothing on the record to show that the workman raised any objection by taking any plea that he was not being afforded opportunity of defence during inquiry before the disciplinary authority/appellate authority. It is not the case of the workman that there was any pressure exaggerated on the workman to admit the charges before the inquiry officer. It is settled principle of law that admitted facts need not to be proved. I draw support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of L.K.Verma Vs. HMT Ltd & oths. reported in 2006(1) SCT page 601. In this judgment it is held that things admitted need not be proved and the findings on the basis of admission cannot be questioned on the ground of availability of no evidence. Therefore, as the workman admitted the charges voluntarily and without any pressure from any side, therefore, later on the workman cannot take this plea that inquiry was not held fair and proper. The workman failed to proved that the inquiry was held against the workman without giving him the opportunity of defence rather the charges were admitted by the workman in the presence of his defence representative Sh.Sharma. Therefore, finding no infirmity in the inquiry, it is held that inquiry was conducted fairly, properly and in accordance with the principle of natural justice.

position of trust especially in the banking industry where honesty and integrity are in built requirement for proper and smooth functioning and in the case in hand the workman admitted all the misconduct attributed to him by writing on all the four pages of charge sheet and specific writing on the charge sheet mentioned above.

12. Banking business runs on the faith and confidence of the general public. If this faith and confidence is shaken by the misconduct of the employee of the bank, certainly the bank earns bad reputation. In the present circumstances, the punishment awarded by the management is commensurate to the misconduct committed by the workman. Consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief.

13. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well as hard copy be sent to the Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

07-11-2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3167.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साउथ इंडिया कारर्पोरेशन लि. 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 संं. 25/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-34012/3/2005-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3167.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. South India Corporation Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-34012/3/2005- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

10. The next point to be determined is that whether any assurance was given to the workman that his voluntary retirement would be accepted and he would be allowed VRS as per the scheme. It is pleaded by the workman that he has been assured through his union representative Sh. M.M.K Joshi that if he admits the charges, lenient view would be taken. To this effect the workman produced Sh. M.M.K. Joshi in the witness box as his witness as W1. But no where it is proved that any assurance was given to Mr. Joshi and there is no evidence of any assurance given to the workman.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

11. As regard the plea of the workman that punishment is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct is concerned. The workman was charge sheeted for gross misconduct as mentioned in the charge sheet and it is settled principle of law that a person holding the PRESENT: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of July, 2014[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7683

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 25/2006

Between:

The General Secretary, Visakhapatnam Port and Dock Mazdoor Sangh, H. No.53-20-2/1, Chaitanyanagar, Visakhapatnam - 530 013 ...Petitioner

AND

The Manager, M/s. South India Corporation Ltd., 'Rani Meyyammai Building' 14-1-54, Naroji Road, Maharanipeta, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam - 530002 ...Respondent 3. Respondent management filed counter stating that whenever necessitates they used to engage workmen on casual basis and used to pay daily wages to the rowing boat workers as per the bill raised by them for number of days worked. Respondent management have hired the rowing boats which have independent owners. The owner employed the crew as per his wish and convenience. There is no employee-employer relationship between the applicant workmen and the Respondent management, as such the claim is not maintainable under law and the ID shall be dismissed in limine.

4. To substantiate their contentions Chief examination affidavit of WW1 filed. But WW1 is not produced for cross- examination inspite of giving fair opportunity. Hence, the said evidence can not be considered as evidence at all.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri K. Bala Krishna (Died)

For the Respondent : M/s. Ch. Sanjeeeva Rao &

Ch. Syamasundara Rao, Advocates

5. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. No representation. Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking any interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no interest to pursue the claim, 'Nil' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

AWARD

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 3rd day of July, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-34012/3/2005-IR(B-II) dated 15.2.2006 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. South India Corporation Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

SCHEDULE

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

"Whether the demand of the Visakhapatnam Port & Dock Mazdoor Sangh for payment of retrenchment Compensation amount to their member workmen viz. S/Sh. V. Lakshmana Rao and 7 others, Ex-Rowing Boat Workers (as per the list), according to their eligibility, by the management of M/s. South India Corporation Ltd., Visakhapatnam is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief the concerned union is entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 25/2006 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner union filed claim statement stating therein all the eight workmen were removed by the management without assigning any reason. These workmen are permanent employees as such, they are entitled for retrenchment compensation. Hence, the management be directed to pay the retrenchment compensation to each individual applicant workmen in accordance with the length of their service @ 15 days average for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months and costs of the Petition.

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3168.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्रा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संं. 35/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/48/2011-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3168.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2012)7684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-12011/48/2011- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 10.10.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/35 of 2012

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

The Assistant General Manager Bank of Maharashtra Solapur Region Solapur (MS).

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

The President Bank of Maharashtra Employees Union Phaltan Galli Branch Solapur (MS).

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMEN : No appearance.

Mumbai, dated the 10th October, 2014.

dk-vk- 3169.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया 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 सं. 21/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/52/2008-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3169.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2008) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/52/2008- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-12011/48/201-IR (B-II), dated 09.07.2012 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:

PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 30th day of October, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21/2008

Between:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in terminating the services of S/Shri Haridas Sawant and Gurappa H. Bodake w.e.f. 20/02/2008 and 27/02/2008 is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference from Ministry of Labour & Employment, both the parties were served with notice. Nobody on behalf of the union appeared before this Tribunal even after several adjournments. Fresh notice was issued to second party union vide Ex-7. Acknowledgement to that effect is at Ex-8. The second party union has neither approached this Tribunal nor filed statement of claim. Since there is no statement of claim on record, therefore, this Sri Ravela George, S/o Ananda Rao, R/o D. No. 18-4-91/A, |Salipet, Tenali - 522201. ...Petitioner

AND

The Manager, Bank of India, Nuthakki Branch, Mangalagir (M), Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh.

...Respondent[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7685

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri M. Pitchaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent : Party in person

AWARD

Vide the proceeding No. L-12012/52/2008-IR(B-II) dated 24.9.2008 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi made a reference to this Tribunal requiring this Tribunal to give its award on the question,

"Whether the action of the Management of Bank of India, Nuthakki Branch in terminating the services of Shri R. Georege, Ex.Cashier-cum-clerk with effect from 30.3.2005 is justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

On receiving the said reference this Tribunal issued notices to both the parties and secured their presence before it.

2. The workman has filed his claim statement with

the averments in brief as follows:

account of the version of the workman the Zonal Manager, Visakhapatnam issued proceeding dated 30.3.2005 ordering compulsory retirement of the workman. The customer mentioned the amount as Rs.180000/- on front portion of SB Voucher in figures and words. Subsequently it was detected that an excess cash of Rs.5000/- was lying and the customer was intimated by phone immediately by the workman asking him to collect Rs.5000/-. He came some time later and took the cash. Thus, there is no misappropriation. It does not amount tampering of records. The workman has corrected on the voucher by putting the figure Rs.185000/- in the denomination column. The Zonal Manager, Visakhapatnam is not competent to remove the workman from service as his appointment authority is Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Hyderabad. It appears that there is delegation of powers conferred on the Manager, Bank of India, Nuthakki from the Zonal Manager, Hyderabad. It is bad in law since, the same is hit by doctrine of "Delegatus protes, non delegary" i.e., delegatee can not further delgate. Punishment imposed is not consistent with the circulars issued by the Management bank and settlements entered into with the recognised trade unions. Thus, the same is arbitrary, illegal, malafide colourable exercise of power and unfair labour practice, discriminatory, unjustified and opposed to principles of natural justice. Petitioner workman who is to maintain his family consisting of wife, children and old aged mother is suffering financially, and psychologically apart from social stigma due to this unlawful and illegal punishment. He belongs to SC community. Inspite of best efforts he could not secure alternate employment and remained unemployed. The mercy petition send by him to the bank was mechanically rejected. Thus, he was to approach the conciliation officer as the conciliation failed the present reference is made. Therefore, the order dated 30.3.2005 of the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Visakhapatnam is to be set aside directing the Management to reinstate the workman into service, with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits together with the interest @ 12% on the arrears from the due date till the date of realization and costs.

3. Though one Sri Vikram Sinha, Sr. Manager, Bank of India, appeared before this Tribunal on 4.7.2009 in answer to the notice received by the Management, thereafter the Management failed to take any interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances, they were set exparte by virtue of orders dated 23.11.2010.

4. To substantiate the contentions of the workman he filed his chief examination affidavit as WW1 and got marked Ex.W1 to W8.

5. Heard the arguments of the workman. Written arguments are also filed for him and the same are received and considered.

6. The points that arise for determination are:

While the workman was working as cashier in Nuthakki, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur district, chargesheet dated 1.6.2004 was issued against him alleging that on 5.7.2003, a customer by name Sri B. Ravi Kumar Reddy, holding SB A/c No.8575 at Nuthakki branch, brought cash to the branch for depositing his account as he was late, he approached the workman that the workman advised the customer to come on the next working day, that then the customer approached the Branch Manager, who instructed the workman to accept the cash as late cash to be accounted on 7.7.2003 that the customer came to the workman along with the cash and pay-in-slip, and reported that the amount deposited by him was Rs.1,85,000/- and it was recorded as Rs.1,80,000/-. That the workman admitted that he altered the denomination changing the figures from Rs.185000/- to Rs.180000/- and after a week thereafter the workman approached the customer promising that he would pay Rs.5000/- and paid the same to him on 28.7.2003 with a request to him not to complain to the Manager and that it amounts to tampering of bank record and an attempt to misappropriation. The workman has submitted his explanation denying the charges and stating true state of affairs. But without even waiting for the said explanation a regular Departmental enquiry was ordered appointing an Enquiry Officer which show that the Manager, Bank of India, Nuthakki branch, decided to punish the workman and enacted a drama of domestic enquiry. The enquiry was conducted without complying with the principles of natural justice. The documents relevant are not supplied to the workman. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and baseless. Basing on such findings the Zonal Manager, Visakhapatnam issued notice dated 1.3.2005 asking the workman to show cause as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service as the charges levelled against him stood proved. Thereafter, without taking into

I. Whether the action of the Management of Bank of India, Nuthakki branch, in terminating services of7686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Sri R. George, Ex. Cashier-cum-clerk with effect from 30.3.2005, is justified?

II. To what relief the workman is entitled to?

7. Point No.I:

To decide the justification or otherwise of the impugned order dated 30.3.2005, the evidence relevant is the documents produced by the workman and which are marked as Ex.W1 to W8. Ex.W1 is the copy of chargesheet dated 1.6.2004. Ex.W2 is copy of the enquiry proceedings dated 24.7.2004, which include the statement of the workman as charge sheeted employee made to the Enquiry Officer. Ex.W3 is copy of the punishment order dated 30.3.2005. Ex.W4 is the Copy of appellate order dated 8.5.2005. Ex.W5 is the copy of mercy petition dated 19.7.2005 made by the workman to the Management. Ex.W6 is a copy of letter said to have been addressed by the General Secretary of Bank of India Staff Union, Ex.W7 and W8 are copies of representations said to have been made by some account holders.

is produced by the workman himself clearly reveal that there was strict compliance of principles of natural justice during the Departmental enquiry.

12. Further more, considering the gravity of the charges proved against the workman who has been a cashier in the banking institution which deals with public money and which can function only on the faith of the public, it can not be said that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the workman is disproportionate to the said charges.

13. In the given circumstances, it can safely be held that the action of the Management of Bank of India, Nuthakki branch, in terminating services of Sri R. George, ex. Cashier cum clerk with effect from 30.3.2005, is justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.II:

In view of the finding given in Point No.I, the workman

is not entitled for any relief.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result:

8. A fact to be noted is that the authors of the Ex.W6 to W8 are not examined as witnesses to prove these documents. Even otherwise, they got nothing to do with the domestic enquiry conducted in this case. Hence, these documents can not be considered.

9. As can be gathered from Ex.W3 and W4 the punishment order and the appellate order, the authorities concerned found that the workman was guilty of fraud and tampering with bank's records.

10. As can be gathered from the material on record, it is an admitted fact that the customer Sri B. Ravi Kumar Reddy, actually deposited Rs.185000/- on 5.7.2003, but he mentioned the amount deposited as Rs.180000/- on the front side of the pay-in-slip. The record further discloses that the amount was counted by one Sri C V Rao, the special assistant and he mentioned the amount actually deposited as Rs.185000/- and also noted the denominations of the said currency notes. But the workman has altered the figures and made it as Rs.180000/- and he confessed regarding the same in his statement dated 7.8.2003 which is marked as Management Ex.No.7 during the Departmental enquiry. Evidently he returned the amount of Rs.5000/- to the customer but the enquiry finding is that the same took place only after the customer made a complaint to the Manager.

11. Considering the given circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.3.2005 was issued, that too after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the workman. The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority by virtue of order dated 8.5.2005. The contentions of the workman made against the mode of conducting of Departmental enquiry are vague and devoid of particulars. Thus, it is to be taken that he has not made out anything against the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted against him. The record of the Departmental enquiry which In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the Management of Bank of India, Nuthakki branch, in terminating services of Sri R. George, Ex. Cashier cum clerk with effect from 30.3.2005, is justified. Therefore, the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 30th day of October, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri R. George NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photostat copy of charge sheet dt. 1.6.2004

Ex.W2: Photostat copy of enquiry proceeding

dt. 24.7.2004

Ex.W3: Photostat copy of punishment order dt. 30.3.2005

Ex.W4: Photostat copy of appellate order dt. 28.5.2005

Ex.W5: Photostat copy of mercy petition by WW1 to

CMD of Respondent bank dt. 19.7.2005

Ex.W6: Photostat copy of representation of staff Union reg. reconsideration in case of WW1, dt. 17.4.2007[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7687

Ex.W7:    Photostat  copy  of  lr.  of  Sri  B.  Ravi  Kumar, AND
          customer dt. 21.6.2004
                                                            The Asstt. General Manager (HR) :     2nd Party/1st
Ex.W8:    Photostat copy of lr. of customers                Indian Bank,                          Respondent
                                                            HO : HRM Department
      Documents marked for the Respondent
                                                            66, Rajaji Salai
                          NIL                               Chennai-600001

Appearance:

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

For the 1st Party/    :   Sri K. Krishnan, Authorized
Petitioner Union          Representative
For the 2nd Party/    :   M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
Management                Advocates

AWARD

dk-vk- 3170.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संं. 68/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/26/2013-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3170.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 68/2013 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-12011/26/2013- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/26/2013-IR(B-II) dated 23.05.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the Indian Bank Management in respect of outsourcing the employees for core functions and other IT related activities is justified or not? What relief the workmen entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 68/2013 and issued notices to both sides. The First Party has appeared through Authorized Representative and the Respondent through the counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder after the counter statement was filed.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

ANNEXURE

petitioner in brief are these:

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 20th November, 2014

PRESENT : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 68/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union Indian Bank Employees Association (T. Nadu) 17, Ameerjan Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600094

The petitioner is a union registered under the Trade Union Act. It has substantial following among the workmen in the Respondent Bank. It takes up genuine issues relating to its members and also issues relating to the security of the Bank as a whole. The service conditions of the Bank employees are governed by the Bipartite Settlement. All core functions in the branches of the bank like account openings and other day-to-day computer operations are handled by the employees working in the branches. KYC data of the accounts opened in the branch are updated by the Centralized Deposits Processing Centres (CDPC) established by the Management all over the country. These functions are as per the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. Para-31 of the 8th Bipartite Settlement covers the scope of computerization and the permissible limit of computerization in bank activities and had also imposed restrictions on bank's management with regard to outsourcing of computer related works, emphasizing the need to train the staff in the related field of computer activities and also the need to develop in-house competencies. The training of staff under CBS environment and opening of DDPC centres are the outcome of7688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Points

conditions put forth in Para-31 of Bipartite Settlement. The Respondent, with the intention to outsource the functions so far performed by CDPC centres, crippled the activities of these centres by not posting adequate staff to these centres. This is in violation of Para-31 of the 8th Bipartite Settlement. The Respondent should be directed to stop the outsourcing of normal and core functions of the bank in violation of Para-31 of 8th Bipartite Settlement.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contenting as follows:

The Respondent Bank has large network of branches spread through the width and breadth of the country. In the current competitive environment it has become imperative for Nationalized Banks to resort to outsourcing the service of external agencies in non-core functions for operational excellence and cost reduction. In December 2005 the RBI has issued guidelines in outsourcing the service of external agencies for attending to banking functions. Outsourcing has come to stay in the Banking industry and the only area where outsourcing can be resisted is when there is a threat to job security of the existing employees or where it is prejudicial to the interests of public and bank finance. The petitioner is not entitled to oppose the outsourcing as the RBI has itself permitted outsourcing and has given instructions as to the manner in which outsourcing should be resorted to. The Respondent Bank has established CDPC Centres at Chennai, Bangalore, Mumbai and Delhi in the year 2005 with the object of better and speedy customer service. CDPC is being manned by regular employees of the bank and it is only overseeing the compliance of opening of accounts at the branch level and keep recording the system opening access from anywhere in the bank. Though there was an informal proposal for outsourcing service sometime in the year 2011, the proposal had not assumed shape. The bank is entitled to outsource its functions within the framework of the Bipartite Settlement and RBI guidelines. So the apprehension of the petitioner is wholly unfounded and unwarranted. When the petitioner has addressed a letter to the Bank it was keen to assert its right to go in for outsourcing if it becomes necessary and it was in this context a reply was sent to the petitioner on 15.10.2011. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the contentions in the counter statement and also reiterating the averments in the Claim Statement.

6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1, MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W3 and Ext.M1 and Ext.M2.

7. The points for consideration are :

(i) Whether the action of the Respondent in respect of outsourcing the employees for core functions and other IT related activities is justified or not?

(ii) What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

8. The petitioner has filed the claim seeking a ban on outsourcing of normal and core functions of the Respondent Bank in violation of the provisions of Para-31 of the 8th Bipartite Settlement. According to the petitioner, Para-31 of the 8th Bipartite Settlement had imposed restrictions on the manner in which computerization is to be done in the Bank activities. It is stated by the petitioner that the training of staff under the CBS environment and opening of CDPC Centres are the logical outcome of restrictions imposed by Para-31 of 8th Bipartite Settlement. It is alleged by the petitioner that the activities of CDPC centres are crippled by the Respondent with the intention to outsource the functions that were performed by the Centres. In answer to this allegation the Respondent has contended in the Counter Statement that the bank is entitled to outsource its functions within the framework of the Bipartite Settlement and also as per the RBI guidelines. Even while asserting this it is stated by the Respondent that so far outsourcing had not been resorted to at CDPC Centres. According to the Respondent the raising of the dispute by the petitioner is much ado about nothing.

9. Para-31 of the 8th Bipartite Settlement between the bank and its employees refers to computerization, mechanization and technical upgradation. Clause-h of Para- 31 states that while it shall be the bank's endeavour to retain/re-skill staff and to develop in house competencies they may outsource IT and its related activities in respect of specialized areas where in-house capability is not available. It is on the basis of the above clause both the petitioner and the Respondent have taken their stand in the Claim Statement and the Counter Statement respectively. The Respondent has also been referring to the guidelines of RBI on outsourcing of financial services by the banks. While the 8th Bipartite Settlement has been signed on 02.06.2005, the RBI guidelines on outsourcing of financial services has been issued on 06.12.2005. The guidelines states that the world over the Banks are increasingly using outsourcing to third parties who may be unrelated or members of the group / conglomerate as a means of both reducing cost and accessing specialist expertise not available internally and achieving strategic aims. It is also stated that outsourcing brings in its wake several risks and failure to manage these risks can lead to financial losses and reputational risk to the Bank and could also lead to systemic risk within the entire banking system in the country. The guidelines seems to have been issued in an effort to mitigate the risks Clause-6(i) of the guidelines refers to outsourcing policy. It states what are the steps to be taken before outsourcing is resorted to. The Board of the Bank or a Committee delegated by it is to approve any outsourcing of the financial activities. Thus it could be seen that the Bipartite Settlement entered into prior to the guidelines issued by the RBI as well as the guidelines of the RBI supports outsourcing by banking institutions. The restriction placed as per Para-31 of the Bipartite Settlement is that outsourcing should be only in respect of specialized[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7689 areas where in-house capability is not available. It further states that there should be an endeavour to retain and re- skill the staff and to develop in-house competencies.

10. The petitioner in his capacity as a General Secretary of the Union has given evidence as WW1. The facts revealed through cross-examination will justify the stand of the Respondent that so far outsourcing activities apprehended by the petitioner has not been resorted to. What is stated in the Claim Statement is that the activities of CDPC centres have been crippled with the intention to outsource the activities of the Centres. But even as admitted by the petitioner, so far such outsourcing is not done. The Centres are still manned by the staffs of the bank. Though the petitioner would assert that in case outsourcing is resorted to it will affect the service conditions of the existing employees,according to him, it is difficult to answer whether outsourcing has so far affected the service conditions of the existing employees. He has admitted that as per Para-31 of 8th Bipartite Settlement outsourcing is not ruled out. He has also admitted that all the information regarding accounts of the customers are transmitted to the CDPC through the computer and such transmission is done for the purpose of updating. At the last stage of his cross- examination the witness has stated that he is objecting to outsourcing because the secrecy of the customers would be lost and also because job opportunities in the Bank will be curtailed.

11. It could be seen on going through Para-31 of Bipartite Settlement that there is an inbuilt provision that outsourcing shall not result in retrenchment in any of the employees. So the settlement itself assures that there will be no risk for the existing staff because of outsourcing. True Para-31 provides for developing in-house competency also. At the same time it is stated that where in-house capability is not available outsourcing can be resorted to. The claim of the petitioner is that there should be a total ban on outsourcing of normal and core functions of the Bank. However, there is no case for the petitioner that any normal and core functions of the Bank are outsourced by the Bank. CDPC Centres seems to have been set up for the particular purpose of updating the data in respect of the customers. Whether this is a normal function of the Bank or core function of the Bank is not stated by the petitioner. The stand of the Respondent is that it is a non core function and for such functions outsourcing can be resorted to if the Banks wants even though it is not done so far. Probably updating of the data in respect of the existing customers is not the normal or core function.

12. The petitioner has been referring to the stand taken by the Respondent in the Ext.W2, the reply given before the Labour Commissioner in which the Respondent stated that it has got the responsibility of preserving the records of the Bank, that maintaining hard copies will require a lot of space and retrieval of the forms will be difficult, that the Bank is intending to preserve them in electronic form and for this purpose integrated document management system through scanning is mooted for easy preservation and retrieval and for this purpose a software firm has come forward with a scanning solution. Referring to this, the Respondent has stated in the Counter Statement that the Respondent was keen to assert its right to go for outsourcing if it becomes necessary and it was in this context such a reply was sent. On the other hand, according to the petitioner this stand of the Respondent before the Labour Commissioner itself would show its intention to resort to outsourcing.

13. As already stated even as per the 8th Bipartite Settlement and the RBI guidelines, outsourcing is not taboo for the Bank. Only thing is that it should be in consonance with the restrictions given in Para-31 of the settlement and in accordance with the guidelines of the RBI. In the absence of proof of any outsourcing so far the case of the Respondent that it has not resorted to any outsourcing even in respect of the activities referred to in Ext.W2 is to be accepted. Whether updating of data is the core activity of the Bank could not be established by the evidence of the petitioner alone.

14. As per the RBI guidelines Banks are restricted from outsourcing only core management functions like corporate planning, organization management and control.Decision making functions like determining compliance with KYC norms for opening deposit accounts, according sanction for loans and management of investment portfolio shall not be outsourced. That means the RBI does not restrict outsourcing of other activities of the Bank. This guidelines of the RBI is to be read alongwith the restrictions placed by Para-31 of Bipartite Settlement. The RBI has stated in the guidelines that a bank intending to oursource any of its financial activities should put in place a comprehensive outsourcing policy approved by Board. The Board of the Bank or a committee delegated by it is responsible for approving a framework to evaluate the risk and materiality of all existing and prospective outsourcing. Thus it could be seen that sufficient safeguard is placed by the RBI for outsourcing of activities. So it will not be proper to give a blanket ban on outsourcing without enumerating which are the activities that will not come within the restrictions imposed by the RBI, which are core activities, whether in-house competency is available, etc. In any case there is no case for the petitioner that so far the employees have been affected by outsourcing. So far as the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that outsourcing will result in loss of secrecy of the customers and will cause risk to the customers as well as to the Bank, sufficient safeguards are provided in the guidelines and these guidelines will take care of such apprehensions expressed by the petitioner. I find that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the above circumstances.

15. In view of my discussion above, the reference is

answered against the petitioner.

7690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

An award is passed accordingly.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

the 20th day of November, 2014)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri K. Krishnan

Union

For the 2nd Party/ : MW1, Sri R. Sakthivel S.O. 3171.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 233/ 99 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/44/99- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Management

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Documents Marked :

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

On the petitioner's side

No. CGIT/LC/R/233/99

Ex.No. Date Description

Ex.W1 17.08.2011 IBEA(TN) letter to ALC, Chennai

IBEA/GEN/120/2010-13 raising an

Industrial Dispute against outsourcing

of CDPC works

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Praveen Kumar Yadav, S/o Babulal Yadav, Sanwara road, Burhanpur, Distt. East Nimar (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Ex.W2 15.10.2011 Reply letter by Indian Bank Management

to the above letter dated 17.08.2011

Ex.W3 02.06.2005 Provisions of 8th Bipartite Settlement

under Para-31 with regard to com-

puterization/mechanization and

technological upgradation with reference General Manager, Bank of India, Head Office, Express Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai

...Management

AWARD

to types of works that can be outsourced Passed on this 23rd day of September 2014

On the Management's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ex.M1 06.12.2005 Reserve Bank of India Guidelines on

outsourcing for financial services by

Banks

Ex.M2 02.06.2005 Extract from 8th Bipartite Settlement

Clause-31 on Computerization/

Mechanization and Technological

upgradation.

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3171.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संं. 233/99) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/44/99-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 1. As per letter dated 4-11/6/99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L- 12012/44/99/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

" Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Praveen Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Babulal w.e.f. April 92 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3 to 11. Case of workman is that he was working as peon in Bank of India, Sanwara, Burhanpur Branch, Distt. Khandwa from 1989 to March 1992. The details of working days are shown 84 days in 89-90, 200 days in 90-91, 287 days in 91-92, 277 days in 1991, 74 days during January to March 92. Workman submits that he completed 240 days continuous service and acquired permanent status. He was eligible for regularization of his service. Inspite of regularising his services, IInd party terminated his services from April 1992. He is out of employment. He has no source of income. Several post of peon are vacant.

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7691

3. It is further submitted that Union ad management had agreed that on completion of 240 days service, daily wage employees will be regularized. Inspite of regularizing his services, workman has been terminated without notice. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 93 to 107. IInd party submits that workman was not engaged by Bank. Employer employee relationship is not existing. Order of reference is made mechanically. It is prejudicial to the management as workman was not appointed by Bank. There was no question of termination of his service. The dispute is raised in 2000 challenging termination of workman in 1992 is highly belated. Reference is not tenable.

5. IInd party on facts denied employer employee relationship. It is reiterated that employment of sub staff is made through Employment Exchange. It is not mandatory. The Manager has power to make appointment. The name of workman was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. Workman was not on rolls of the Bank. He was given certain advantage for miscellaneous work in the Bank. Branch Manager had to make necessary arrangements. The payments were made by Branch Manager. He was reimbursed of such payment from miscellaneous charges. Amount was debited from Profit and Loss Account. Temporary engagement doesnot give right to the workman as his engagement was as stop gap arrangement. Workman was not appointed by Bank. There was no question of his termination. He is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. It is denied that workman completed 240 days service. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim of workman.

6. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 101 to 10/3

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of General Manager, In Negative Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Praveen Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Babulal w.e.f. April 92 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the work- As per final man is entitled to?" order.

is not challenged before superior court. The order of reference is not set-aside therefore Tribunal is bound to decide the reference.

9. Workman filed affidavit of evidence. He has stated that he was working with the Bank on daily wages from 1989 to 1990. He completed 240 days continuous service. His services were terminated without notice in April 92. He has no source of earning. In his cross-examination, workman says he was engaged on daily wages by Branch Manager Pahadia. He was told that there were vacancies in the Bank. He was interviewed by Pahadia who was acquainted with him. 3-4 persons were also interviewed on the same point. He was engaged on daily wages. Employment card was deposited in Bank. Zerox copy is not with him. He submitted separate application. In 1989, he worked for 200 days, 90-225 days, 91-287 days, 92- 240 days. No certificate was issued by Bank about work for 287 days. He was paid wages Rs. 60.70 per day. There is no suggestion to workman that he not completed 240 days continuous service. The documents produced by workman Exhibit W-1 is working of 240 days during preceding year is denied. Exhibit W-2 Regional manager has not disputed working more than 240 days of workman during 90 to 92. Rather it was accepted. In Exhibit W-3 certificate given by Bank working days of workman are shown 187 days during the period 8-8-89 to 31-3-92. Said document is not clear about completion of 240 days continuous service by workman prior to termination of his service. However document Exhibit W-2 clearly supports his evidence.

10. Evidence of management's witness Manohar Baburao Dange is by way of denial of 240 days working by workman. However the witness has admitted that workman was working in Bank during 1989 to March 92. Management's witness in his cross-examination was unable to tell working days of workman during each of the year. He says that no record of casual labor is maintained by the Bank. That wages paid to the workman are reimbursed. Salary is not paid to casual labour. Branch Manager is authorized to engage casual labours and payment of wages is reimbursed. The payment vouchers are not produced. Witness of management admitted Exhibit W-2, W-3. Exhibit W-2 supports claim of workman. The evidence on record establish that workman was continuously working more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his termination. His services are terminated without notice, no retrenchment compensation is paid to him. The termination of services of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

REASONS

8. Workman is challenging termination of his service in violation of ID Act. That after completion of 240 days, he acquired status of permanent employee but his service were not regularized rather were terminated. IInd party denies above contentions of management. Employer employee relationship is denied. Legality of order of reference is challenged. However order of reference 11. Point No.2- workman was engaged on daily wages. His services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Workman was working from 1989 to March 92. He was not appointed following rules and regulations therefore reinstatement of workman would not be justified. considering period of working, compensation Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

7692 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

(1) The action of the management of General Manager, Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Praveen Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Babulal w.e.f. April 92 is illegal.

Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Vidarbha & Marathawada, West High Court, Dharampeth, Nagpur

: Management

AWARD

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One Lakh to the workman. Cost of Rs.5000/- be paid to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3172.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संं. 152/99) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/161/98-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3172.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 152/99) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/161/98- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer Passed on this 22nd day of May 2014

1. As per letter dated 31-3-99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/161/98/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

" Whether the action of management of Bank of Baroda through its Regional Manager, Nagpur (2) Branch Manager Bahmani Branch. Tah.Umrer in terminating the services of Shri Raju S/o Shri Ambadas Dukare, Peon w.e.f. 26-9-97 is justified, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to?"

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/152/99

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Ambadas Gulabrao Dukre, LR of

Shri Raju S/o Ambadas Dukare, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Mahal, Chitnavispura, Behind Agni Mata Mandir, Nagpur

: Workman

Versus

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed as peon by IInd party Bank. Nomenclature of parties I wrongly shown. The Bank is hereinafter referred as Party No.2 and workman Raju as Ist party. Ist party workman was appointed as peon on 31- 3-97 at Bramni branch. He was continuously working till termination of his service. he was paid salary Rs.1600/- plus allowances. His appointment was on probation for six months. Thereafter his services were likely to be confirmed against clear vacant post. That the workman had proceeded on leave from 2-5-97 to 5-5-97 as he was suffering from illness. He had submitted medical certificate at the time of joining duty. That the IInd party Bank had issued letter dated 6-5-97 about his unauthorized absence. His salary was detected for above leave period. It is alleged to be by way of punishment without giving opportunity to explain his grievance. IInd party Bank further issued letter dated 31-5-97 and caution notice about his unauthorized absence was given. Workman again proceeded on leave on 7-6-97 to 9-6-97 on ground of his illness. He submitted medical certificate at the time of joining duty. IInd party called his explanation as per letter dated 9-6-97 and warning was issued to him. that the services of Ist party workman were terminated from 26-9-97 without notice as per the conditions in the order of appointment. That DD No. 671939 dated 26-9-97 of Rs. 2995/- was sent alongwith termination order. No seniority list was prepared by IInd party Bank 7 days prior to the order of termination. Ist party workman says the services were terminated for unauthorised absence without holding the enquiry. He was not given opportunity to explain his absence. His services are terminated in violation of section 25-G, H of I.D.Act. On such ground workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7693

(ii) If not, what relief the workman Workman is

is entitled to?" not entitled to

relief as prayed

REASONS

3. IInd party Bank filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/7. It is submitted by IInd party that workman was appointed as peon on probation as per order dated 31-3-97. The conditions in the appointment order provided that he will be on probation for the period of six months liable to be extended at discretion of the Bank. His services were liable to be terminated issuing one months notice or payment of one months salary in lieiu of notice. During probation period, 14 days notice was liable to be given. On expiry of period of probation, he found satisfactory and medically fit. His services were liable to be confirmed. That the workman joined his service on 31-3-97 at bramni branch. During probation period, his conduct was not found satisfactory. Workman remained absent from 2-5-97 to 5-5-97. There was no leave to his credit. His absence was treated unauthorized. He was also issued warning letter on 31-5-97 requesting to improve his conduct. Workman was deputed for cash remittance from currency chest, Dharampeth Branch, Nagpur on 29-5-97 but he did not reached to said branch neither reported to the Bank on duty. The Bank was put to trouble. Workman remained absent without intimation from 7-6-97 to 9-6-97. Warning letter was issued to him on 31-5-97.

4. IInd party further submits that at the time of joining workman submitted declaration to attestation form that he was not arrested or kept under detention etc. for any offence. However in police verification report, it was reported that workman was accused in Crime No.53/97 for offence under Section 85, 110, 117 of Police Act. The workman was produced before Court No.8 at Nagpur in Criminal Case No. 140/97. Said case was pending against him. Such facts were suppressed by the workman. Workman was granted opportunity to improve himself during probation period. Workman did not shown improvement. He continued to commit lapses during probation period. Therefore his services were terminated from 26-9-97 as per conditions in the appointment order. One months salary in lieu of notice period was paid to him by cheque. The cheque was sent alongwith termination order. He submitted that termination of workman is not covered as retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. his termination is not in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. IInd party has denied all material contentions of Ist party workman. IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of

management of Bank of Baroda through its Regional Manager, Nagpur (2) Branch In Affirmative Manager Bahmani Branch. Tah.Umrer in terminating the services of Shri Raju S/o Shri Ambadas Dukare, Peon w.e.f. 26-9-97 is justified?

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act that his services were terminated without notice. Workman filed affidavit of evidence. However he remained absent for his cross- examination. Workman died during pendency of reference. His LRs are brought on record namely Ambadas Gulabrao Dukre. However the LR of deceased workman donot participate in the reference proceeding, no evidence is adduced. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Lalit Kumar Bidaye, Dy.General Manager consistent with the contentions in Written Statement that workman reported for duty on 31-3-97. Management received letter dated 3-5-97 regarding criminal case pending against workman under Bombay Police Act, 1951. Workman remained absent from duty from 2-5-97 to 5-5-97, no leave was at his credit, warning letter was issued to him on 6-5-97. Workman also remained absent during 7-6-97 to 9-6-97 despite of warning issued to him. He also not reported to the Regional Manager. That the declaration submitted by workman that he was not involved in criminal case neither he was arrested. However police verification report shows that workman was arrested in criminal case. Similar affidavit is filed by Shri P.P.L.Achari Balaga Sr. Manager (HRM) Ist party failed to cross-examine the witness of the management. I donot find any reason to disbelieve evidence of management's witness. The contentions of workman are not supported by any thread of evidence. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

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

(1) The action of management of Bank of Baroda through its Regional Manager, Nagpur (2) Branch Manager Bahmani Branch. Tah.Umrer in terminating the services of Shri Raju S/o Shri Ambadas Dukare, Peon w.e.f. 26-9-97 is proper and legal.

(2) LR of workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3173.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्रा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संं. 64/99) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/140/98-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी7694 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3173.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/99) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/140/98- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

of Enquiry Officer. Workman submits the finding of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Disciplinary Authority without application of mind issued order of his dismissal on 19.02.96. Workman was dismissed on 9.05.97. That charges against him related to the year 1986-90. In all 7 charges were alleged against him. Any of the charge was not of the consequence that Bank suffered any loss. Charges were in the form of related to day to day working not warranting dismissal from service. That the working in the bank is extended at Jabalpur branch. There was no hard and fast rule earmarking one posting for one clerk. Clerks as a class were deployed and assigned work on various counters dealing with different nature of transactions. Assignment of work depends on day to day requirements. A group of 4-5 clerks known as relievers for providing substitute service in place of clerks gone on leave. Workman was one of such reliever. No fixed duty was assigned to him.

No. CGIT/LC/R/64/99

Shri R.K. Gupta, Clerk-cum-Cashier, 394, Shastri Colon, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, Katni, Jabalpur (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Regional Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional office, Wright town, Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 3rd day of November, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 27-1-99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/ 140/98-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

" Whether the action of management of Bank of Maharashtra Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri R.K. Gupta, Clerk cum cashier from 19.02.96 was legal and justified, If not, to what relief workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/8. Case of workman is that he was appointed as clerk on 7.04.80. He was posted at Kamti. In 1983, he was transferred to Jabalpur, His service record was unblemished. That as per order dated 24.12.90, he was suspended without assigining any reasons. Chargesheet was issued to him on 16.07.91. According to workman, the charges are fabricated with a predetermined mine to dismiss him from service. That formal enquiry was held. Enquiry Officer in his report dated 26.09.95 found him guilty of charges. Workman received report of Enquiry Officer in October 1995. He submitted representation on 20.12.95 challenging findings 3. Workman further submits that first charge against him related to loss of pay orders on 11.01.1989 while he was sitting over DD counter. Workman alleged to be negligent in his work. Workman himself reproted loss of pay order to branch Manager on same day at 3.45 PM. That there was no provision of law to keep pay orders. Bank Manager being administrative Head was obliged to take action that no pecuniary loss was caused to the Bank. Enquiry Officer held them guilty of such charges without considering his bonafide act immediately reporting matter to Branch Manager. IInd charge against him related to shortage of cash. That he was reliever was to sit on dispatch desk on 03.08.89 after starting his work. That cash was not tallied for long time. Workman informed about it to Branch Manager. However he was asked to carry out his work and try to balance the same. Workman accordingly work for 5 days on his table. On 08.08.89, he was told to sit in cash department. There was no alternative for him but to move to cash department leaving dispatch desk therefore he submits that charge of shortage of cash cannot be attributed to him. That the cash and stamps were in custody of Branch Manager himself and the same were given to dispatch clerk in morning.

4. Third charge against him related to using amount to credit of his own account and 4 other accounts. He submits that he was reliever at branch. Branch Manager asked me to open new ledger of Savings Bank. Accordingly new ledger were opened and transferred the correct balances in the accounts. Thereafter he had proceeded on leave. There is no occasion to deal with new ledger. Somebody from branch added figures preceding the balances transferred by workman which resulted in inflating the balances in the accounts. Workman submits that on his return, he presumed that bonus must have been paid and accordingly the workman withdrew the amount. Subsequently Branch Manager asked about it. The same was adjusted. Next charge related to shortage in Cash Rs. 50/-, the charge is incorrect. That 50 Rs. Note came from counter and resulted in shortage in the packet of notes.

[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7695

5. The charge w.r.t. shortage of Rs. 100/- note in packet. Workman had requested other six packets may also be provided to him so that he can check them whether there are 101 pieces and shortage was inflicted. However no action was taken as per his request. That Head cashier who received cash and remitted to SBI was not questioned in that regard. The charge No. 4(d) relates to tendering cash by M/s. United India Insurance Company. The amount was shown in figures Rs. 2903 and Rs. 2908/- while tendering cash they remitted Rs. 2903/- and accordingly the workman accepted the same and gave the receipt. In substance, the workman submits charge against him were not correct.

6. 5th charge against him related to Leave without pay during a span 4 years period. The entire leave was taken by him for his sickness supported by Medical Certificate was sanctioned by the authority. The charge of drunkenness is denied. It is submitted that management was pre-determined for his dismissal because of his Union activities.

7. 1st Party further submits that enquiry was not conducted following principles of Sastry Award or principles of natural justice. He was not supplied documents. He was not permitted to cross-examine witness of management. Enquiry Officer acted as procecutor. He was not given opportunity to produce his defence evidence. Enquiry Officer was Sr. Officer of the Bank always standing with management. Enquiry Officer was not impartial, enquiry is vitiated. He also submits that showcause notice was not issued to him. Opportunity to personal hearing was not given to him. Enquiry was conducted illegally. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

9. IInd party further submits that workman acted negligently and filed to take proper care for keeping pay order books in custody. One of pay order lost pay orders from the book bearing No. 0738253 was used by unknown starnger to defraud the Bank. The said pay order dated 25.02.89 was issued in favour of M/s. Ecotex India for Rs. 34,200/- was persented at Gwalior branch for payment through clearing by Indian Overseas bank. Said branch did not make payment to M/s. Ecotex India Ltd. It is further submitted that workman handed over charge of dispatch desk to one Ramdeo Saydiwal, the balance was Rs. 481.70 but the actual stamp found the handed over by workman were Rs. 255.45 thus there was shortage of Rs. 226.25 while working on dispatch desk, no expenses were made during temporary period of his working. That in staff Account No. 133, balance amount was Rs. 5.86. amount was inflated by Rs. 1100/- while carrying of new ledger. Workman withdrawn said balance with fraudulent motive. IInd party reiterates that all charges against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings. Findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence. The same are not perverse. Workman was in habit of attending duties under inference. His drunkenness was cause for his negligence in work. The reputation of Bank is spoiled from such acts. The punishment of dismissal is proper. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

10. As per order dated 22-06-09, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal and valid. Considering pleadings on record and findings on enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the charge alleged In Affirmative

against workman are proved from evidence in Equiry proceedings?

(ii) whether punishment of dismissal In Affirmative

imposed on workman is proper and legal?

(iii) if not, what relief the workman is Workman is

entitled to? entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

8. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 3/1 to 3/10. The material contentions of workman w.r.t. charges are denied. That claim of workman for reinstatement cannot be allowed. It is submitted that workman was working as clerk at Jabalpur branch. He committed certain misconduct. The details of charges against workman are given. Charges under clause 19.5 (c), (d) & (j) were of serious nature. The punishment of dismissal without notice is provided. Other charges relates to minor penalty. Details are shown in para-4. IInd party submits DE was conducted against workman. He was allowed reasonable opportunity for his defence. Principles of natural justice were followed. Enquiry Officer considering evidence and arguments on both sides submitted his report on 26.09.95. The dismissal authority considering serious charges proved against workman imposed punishment of dismissal. The appeal preferred by workman was dismissed as per order dated 09.05.97. The findings of Enquiry Officer were confirmed. The allegations of workman about Enquiry Officer acted as prosecutor. The findings of Enquiry Officer are preverse are denied. It is denied that workman was suspended without assigning reasons. It is denied that punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges against workman.

11. As per order dated 24.06.09, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal and proper. The question remains for adjudication whether from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, charges against workman are proved or findings of Enquiry Officer are preverse. The next question remains to be decided whether punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal.

12. Learned counsel for workman Shri A.K. Shashi during course of argument submitted chargesheet issued to workman was amended twice. The order on preliminary7696 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 13. Management's witness MW-4 Prashant Sonwanshi was working in December 1992 as cashier and teller. In his evidence he says on 7-7-89, CSE was receiving cashier. Letter ME-11 was issued. Said document is admitted by Defence Representative and marked Exhibit 11. Management's witness admits its contents while Rakesh Gupta was receiving cash he observed that cash was not proper and he was unable to tally cash received from him. In his cross-examination said witness of management says that it depend on working habit of individual whether he should put date of receipt or not. Management's witness No. 5 Ramdeo Saidiwal in his evidence says about documents page 176 to 180 written in handwriting of CSE Rakesh Gupta. Those documents were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit M-16. In his further evidence he says that stamps worth Rs. 105.40 were used and stamps worth Rs. 255.45 were handed over to him. The evidence of management's witness on the point of workman had inflated amount while preparing new ledger. Workman was coming late and leaving office early. Found him on drunkenness condition is supported by management witness. The evidence of management's witness is not required to be appreciated as Appellate authority. The legal position is rather settled that in domestic enquiry, the burden of proof is not required as in criminal case. The findings of enquiry Officer w.r.t. all charges are supported by evidence.

14. Shri A.K. Shashi argued that findings of Enquiry Officer does not show evidence was read over. Zerox copy of enquiry proceeding is produced shows signatures of Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer, Defence representative, Chargesheeted Employee on equiry proceedings. Therefore I do not find substance in above argument. Besides above point relates to fairness of enquiry. It is also submitted that DE papers are not exhibited and therefore cannot be considered in evidence. The management's witness A.K. Hasari has referred enquiry record in his affidavit of evidence. He was cross-examined in detail by counsel for workman without raising any objection. Therefore above submissions cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that documents about medical examination are not produced. The document Exhibit ME-104 is medical certificate. The workman was found under intoxication consuming alcohol. It is submitted that for withdrawal of Rs. 100/- passing officer is responsible. The workman written new ledger inflating amount and withdrawn it. Certainly workman is also responsible for it. Arguments on above point cannot be accepted.

issue holding enquiry valid was challenged in W.P. No. 11516/09 allowing liberty to workman to assail the order on preliminary issue alongwith findings on other issues. Said Writ petition was disposed. It is clear from the judgement that Hon'ble High Court has not set aside order on preliminary issue therefore I find it would not be wise of my part to deal with the finding on preliminary issue. Learned counsel for workman Shri A.K. Shashi pointed out my attention to charges against workman related to loss of pay order, shortage of stamps from his custody, taking wrong entries, false accounting, unauthorized absence, attending office in drunkenness condition on duty. It was emphasized that even the petty misconducts were included in chargesheet which was issued in the year 1991. The management had waived its right to issue chargesheet. However any provision was not brought to my notice that chargesheeted to the delinquent employee should be issued within particular period. Learned counsel further submits that the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. The evidence of witnesses was not recorded in presence of chargesheeted employee. So far as argument related to perversity of findings, there was no dispute that evidence of 13 witnesses of management was recorded in Enquiry Proceedings. The evidence of witnesses covered each of the charges. Management's witness Shri L.G. Hardikar confirmed complaint given by him. He admitted his signature and documents. The complaint is dated 07.08.89 addressed to Branch Manager. The chargesheeted employee was the receiving cashier on the day of incident. During course of argument, learned counsel of both parties did not deal with the details of the evidence of management's witnesses. Management's witness D.N. Vase was working in Jabalpur branch in January 1986 as cashier. Workman was receiving cash on 23rd and 24th June 89. The evidence of said witness is devoted about genuineness of the documents which were verified. Document ME-2 witness admitting his signature on said document. He has signed against the remark while taking cash by Mr. Sinha on 24-06-89. 99 notes of 100 Rs. was found in the packet, 1 note of Rs. 100 was less. The envelope was on 23.06.89. His evidence on the point is not shattered in his cross examination. His evidence in corss-examination shows the recording was not written in his presence. However as per pleading in statement of claim, workman himself has pleaded that one 100 Rs. note was found less in envelope when he was working as cashier. In that context, the evidence of management's witness cannot be disbelieved. Management's witness Shri A.K. Bapat in his evidence says about missing pay order book while workman was working. Workman himself has stated that he has complained about it to the Branch Manager. The fact remains that pay order book was lose while workman was incharge. Whether the pay order was kept in key and lock and workman is not responsible for loss of pay order book, the contentions of workman cannot be accepted and the pay order book is document and one of cheque is tried to be misused at Gwalior.

15. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for workman that showcause notice was not issued to workman before imposing punishment, personal hearing was not given to him cannot be re-appreciated as finding on preliminary issue is not set-aside by Hon'ble High Court. Rather liberty is given to challenge finding on preliminary issue alongwith other issues in the matter. The fact that pay orders were missing was not in dispute during course of argument. The mistakes committed while taking entries in account was also not disputed. Learned counsel for[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7697 workman emphasized that no loss was caused to the Bank. Amount found short was already recovered from the workman. The charge about amount of Rs. 50/- was found less by receving amount from customer is also supported by evidence. W.r.t. charge that workman as found in drunken condition on duty, learned counsel for workman Shri A.K. Shashi submits that workman was not examined by Medical officer and therefore the charge could not be proved. The burden of proof in criminal case and in domestic enquiry is different. When management's witness working alongwith workman says that workman was attending duties under intoxication, he was misbehaving with the Manager, The details are given in the evidence. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Shoti supported the findings of Enquiry Officer and punishement of dismissal of workman. It was submitted that workman was attending duty under intoxication, he was misbehaving with Manager.Such persons could not be taken in service. The evidence of management's witness is supported by documents. The management has examined 13 witnesses to prove the charges against workman and also documentary evidence. The Enquiry Officer had discussed entire evidence. I donot find substance in the argument that the finding of Enquiry Officer are not supported by evidence.

16. Learned counsel for workman Shri A.K. Shashi relies on ratio held in case of State Uttaranchal and others versus Kharak Singh reported in 2008(2) Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 698. Their lordship dealing with natural justice, the departmental enquiry held, enquiry should not be empty formality. The witness should not be the enquiry officer. Departmental evidence should be led in the first instance and in presence of charged employee.

The ratio cannot be applied to present case as finding of preliminary issue is not set-aside by Hon'ble High Court.

Next reliance is placed in ratio held in case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi and State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2010-SCLJ-416. Their Lordship of the Apex court dealing with principles of natural justice held no one can be condemned unheard. Order cannot be passed by a public authority without affording him reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

As the order on preliminary issue is not set aside by Hon'ble High Court, the ratio cannot be applied to present case. Rather the facts of present case are not comparable to the case at hand.

For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in

Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

17. Point No. 2.—In view of my finding in Point No. 1, charges against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings, question arises about quantum of punishment imposed on workman. Learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri A.K. Shashi submits that the charge cover from 1986 to 1991. Any loss was not suffered by bank, the charges were not of serious nature to warrant punishment of dismissal. That the workman was young at the time of alleged incident and he should be branded as criminal for such instance. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Shroti submits that proved charges against workman relates to taking wrong entries while preparing ledger, inflicted amount was immediately withdrawn by workman shown his motive. Workman was attending duty in drunkenness condition, he was misbehaving with his superiors. The proved charges relates to loss of pay order, taking wrong entries in account books, remaining unauthorisely absent, leaving office early, attending officer late. Punishment of dismissal for such proved charges is proper. Learned counsel for workman Shri A.K. Shashi in support of his argument relied on ratio held in

Case of Commissioner of Police and other versus Sandeep Kumar reported in 2011(4) SCC 644. Their Lordship dealing with service law, right to appoint, condonation of minor indiscretions of youth held young people after committed in indiscretions and approach should be to condone such indiscretions rather than branding them as criminals for rest of their lives. The facts of case before their Lordship show that Sandeep Kumar applied for post of head constable in 1999. In the applications form it was printed about arrest, prosecution etc.was answered in negative. However it was found that Sandeep Kumar was arrested for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC which was compromised on 18-01-98. The respondent and his family member were acquitted.

The facts of present case are not comparable. Workman was working as relieving cashier. The proved charges are that pay orders were lost during his duty period. Submitting immediately report to the Branch Manager doesnot relieve him from his responsibility. The negligence shown in duty by workman resulting loss of pay order is certainly of serious nature. Proved charges against workman shows that while he preparing new ledger, amount was inflicted immediately he withdrawn amount of Rs. 1100/- show his malafide. The stamps were found short while he was dealing with the work. Workman was attending duties in drunkenness condition. Multiple charge of serious nature against workman are supported by evidence of management witness.

18. Learned counsel for workman Shri A.K.Shashi

support of his agrument relies on

Unreported judgement in Writ petition No. 3224 of 2004 in case of Shri Premnath Singh versus WCL by High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. In para-5 their Lordship observed it is necessary to know that the petitioner was charged for dispatching 53,690 metric tones of coal in excess, it was found by the enquiry officer that only 2.85 metric tones of coal was issued in excess.It is however necessary to note that no reasons are recorded by the enquiry officer for arriving at this finding. The enquiry report also doesnot state that the petitioner had intentionally or willfully neglected his work. The acts of misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner fell under clause 26.2 and 26.5 of Standing Orders.

7698 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The facts of present case are not comparable as discussed above as all six charges against workman are supported by evidence of management's witnesses. The facts are not comparable. Therefore the judgment relied by learned counsel for workman cannot be beneficially relied in present case.

The Chairman M/s. UTI AMC Ltd. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai 400 008.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Ajay Yashwant Ramraje Kamal D-5, 2nd floor BARC Quarters Mandala Trombay Mumbai.

APPEARANCES:

19. Considering the facts, the charges proved against workman are of serious nature, the amount inflicted in account of Chargesheeted employee was immediately withdrawn by him, pay orders were lost the accounts were not properly maintained. Workman was coming to duty under intoxication. the dismissal of workman cannot be said improper. For abvoe reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 2.

20. In the result, award is passed at udner:—

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Ms. Nandini Menon,Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the14thAugust, 2014.

AWARD

(1) The action of the Management of Bank of Maharashtra, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri R.K. Gupta, clerk cum Cashier from 19.02.96 is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014 dk-vk- 3174.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यू टी आईएएम सी लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संं. 57/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/70/2006-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3174.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. UTI AMC Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/70/2006- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-12012/70/2006-IR (B-II), dated 30.10.2006 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 demand of Shri Ajay Y. Ramraje to allow him to withdraw his application for voluntary Separation Scheme introduced by the UTI AMC Pvt. Ltd., during the year 2003 is justified? If so, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/57 of 2006

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF U.T.I. AMC LTD.

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-6. According to the workman he was permanent employee of the first party since the year 1994. On 30/08/2003 the first party management had issued a circular on the subject of Voluntary Separation Scheme- "B" which provided an exit option to the employees of the first party. In response thereto the second party signed the printed application dt.3/10/2003 for voluntary separation Scheme-'B".The second party had requested the first party to relieve him on or before 31/10/2003. According to him he realized the evil consequences of his option for voluntary retirement. Therefore he immediately approached the officers of the first party and requested them to allow him to withdraw his application for voluntary separation. The first party allowed the second party workman to continue in their service without any formal communication to that effect. However by office order dated 10/05/2004, the first party informed him that they have decided to relieve him under voluntary separation scheme 'A' from the services of the first party w.e.f. 11/06/2004 AOH. According to the second party workman V.S. Scheme 'A' as referred in the said office order was not at all applicable to the second party[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7699 and the said office order has no consequence in respect of the second party and the said order was liable to be ignored. The second party has sent a letter dt. 2/6/2004 addressed to the Chairman of the first party requesting him to allow the second party to withdraw his VSS-B application dt. 3/10/2003. However the first party did not give any response to his request and they did not allow him to work after 11/06/2004.

3. The second party says that he is 37 years of age and passed the maximum age even for the backward class employee to get new employment in any organization. He has his old mother and two unmarried sisters and two minor children and wife depending on him. He had submitted the VSS application without seriously thinking about the same and under fear created by the vicious circle around him. He had never applied for VSS- 'A'. On the other hand his application was for VSS-B. He has sought to withdraw the said application. However the first party has illegally not considered his application for withdrawal and did not allow him to continue in the service. Therefore the second party has raised the industrial dispute. As conciliation failed, on the report of ALC (C), the Ministry of Labour & Employment sent the reference to this Tribunal. The second party therefore prays for declaration that second party workman was well within his right to withdraw his resignation by his letter dt 2/6/2004 before the effective date of retirement i.e. 11/6/2004. He also prays that he be allowed to continue his service ignoring the letter dt. 10/5/2004. The second party also prays to direct the first party to reinstate the second party in service w.e.f 12/6/2004 with full back-wages, continuity in services with all consequential benefits, cost and compensation.

4. The first party Management resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex-14. According to them,by their circular dated 30/08/2003 they have introduced the voluntary separation scheme-B (VSS- B) for the Class III and Class IV employees who have not completed 10 years' service or 40 years of age. As per clause six of the said scheme an employee can apply for VSS-A or VSS-B during the period the schemes were open. Once applied for, the employee has no right under any circumstances to withdraw his application. The workman has submitted his application under VSS-B Scheme on 3/10/2003 and he was therefore bound by terms and conditions set in the said scheme. His application for VSS was accepted by the management. Thereafter workman cannot withdraw the same. The workman had verbally requested the management to consider his application while accepting the same under VSS-A due to the tax relief available under the said scheme and requested that he should be relieved only in June 2004 so that he would complete 10 years' service and would be eligible to get pension. The management has accepted the verbal request of the workman taking into consideration the financial implications and benefits which the workman was to get. The workman and two other employees were informed by the office order No. 254/2003-2004 dt.29/10/2003 that their application for voluntary separation were accepted and that their dates of relieving would be communicated later. They were specifically informed that their schemes were accepted under VSS-A. By the order no.39/2004-2005 dated 10/05/ 2004 it was communicated to the workman that he will be relieved from the service of the company w.e.f. 11/06/ 2004 AOH. The workman for the reasons best known to him wrote a letter dt. 2/6/2004 to the Chairman of the first party requesting withdrawal of VSS application and seeking sympathetic consideration for the same. As under the scheme there was no provision for withdrawal and in the case of workman his request for VSS was already accepted and date of relieving was also fixed, therefore, his request was not accepted. The workman has completed, signed and submitted his application dt.18/6/2004 for release of his provident fund dues as well as his application for inclusion of himself and his family members for group medi-claim policy for hospitalization. The workman wrote another letter dt.20/7/2004 to the Chairman seeking sympathetic consideration for withdrawal of his VSS application on the same grounds. However for the same reasons it could not be allowed. The workman canvassed his case with a letter dt. 2/8/2004 addressed through a trade union. The management has forwarded to the workman his pension book vide their letter dt. 31/8/2004. The workman is receiving his pension regularly till the date. It shows that the workman received benefits under the scheme. Now he is estopped from challenging the acceptance of his application for VSS. The dispute raised by the workman does not fall in the category of Industrial dispute. The workman is not entitled to be reinstated. He is not entitled to any back wages. He is also not entitled to any relief sought for. Therefore the first party prays that the reference be dismissed with cost.

5. The second party filed his rejoinder at Ex-16. He denied the contents in the written statement and reiterated the contents in the statement of claim.

6. Following are the preliminary issues for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr.No. Issues Findings

1. Whether the action of the

first party not allowing to Yes. withdraw the VSS application of the workman is just, legal and proper?

2. Whether the workman is

entitled to be reinstated in No. service with full back wages as prayed for?

3. What order? As per order

below.

7700 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

Issues Nos. 1& 2:-

7. In the case at hand the facts are not disputed that in response to the VSS scheme the second party workman had applied on 3/10/2003 for Voluntary Separation and requested the management to relieve him on or before 31/10/2003. The fact is also not disputed that the application of the workman was accepted by the first party and on 10/05/2004 he was informed that he would be relieved on 11/06/2004 AOH. The fact is also not disputed that the workman by his letter dt. 2/6/2004 requested the Chairman of the first party that he would like to withdraw his VSS application and his request be considered sympathetically. In this respect according to the workman he has withdrawn his application before the due date of 11/06/2004 when he was to be relieved. Therefore it was submitted on behalf of the workman that the management ought to have allowed the workman to withdraw his application for VSS. In support of his argument the ld. adv. for the second party resorted to Apex Court ruling in State Bank of Patiala V/s. Phoolpati 2005 (4) SLR 133 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 7 of the judgement observed that;

"It is a settled position in law that unless the employee is relieved from the duty after acceptance of the order of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end."

8. In the case at hand the point for determination is not whether there exists jural relationship between the employer and employee even after acceptance of his application for VSS. The main question for determination is whether the workman can be allowed to withdraw his application or willingness to opt for VSS. Therefore the ratio laid down in this ruling is not attracted to the case at hand.

9. In this respect the ld. adv. for the second party also referred another Apex Court ruling in Shambhu Murari Sinha V/s. Project and Development India Ltd. &Anr2002 II LLJ 430 (SC). In that case the workman had given application for voluntary retirement. Acceptance thereof was conditional. Later on workman had withdrawn the option for voluntary retirement sent before he was released from service. In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the appellants' letters withdrawing his voluntary retirement were valid as they were sent before the jural relationship of employer and employee had come to an end, as the acceptance of his application for such retirement was a conditional one.

10. In that case the application for voluntary retirement was accepted conditionally. In such circumstances Hon'ble Court held that till the date of relieving the workman from service, he was entitled to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement and jural relationship continued till that date. In the case at hand the application for VSS was already accepted by the first party. It was not conditional acceptance as in the case cited herein above. Therefore the ratio laid down therein also does not attract to the case in hand.

11. The ld. adv. for the second party placed much reliance on the judgement of Atulkumar Jain V/s UTI AMC (P) Ltd. and Ors decided on 31/03/2009 in WP (C)no. 8778/ 2004 wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has allowed the petition of the workman and he was allowed to withdraw his application for VSS. The ld. adv. for the second party argued that the facts of this case are similar to the case at hand. In this respect I would like to point out that the facts of the above cited case are altogether different. In that case the workman therein had applied for VSS. However his application was not accepted by the management on the ground that some disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. Thereafter the workman had withdrawn his offer for voluntary separation. In the circumstances Hon'ble Court held that, the workman therein was entitled to withdraw his option. The point in that case was also agitated as to whether clause in the said scheme not allowing the workman to withdraw the option is unconstitutional. The Hon'ble Court held that, such clause is violative of fundamental right and would not bind the workman from exercising his right to withdraw his option of VSS. The workman therein was thus held entitled to withdraw his option as it was not accepted by the management. The facts of this case are also quite different. Therefore ratio laid down in that case is not attracted to the set of facts in the case at hand.

12. The ld. adv. for the second party also referred another Apex Court ruling in Bank of India &Ors. V/s. O.P. Swarnakar 2003 I LLJ 819 (SC).In this case the Hon'ble Court in respect of irrevocable voluntary retirement scheme has observed that ;

"Employee has every right to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement."

In this case the Hon'ble Court found that the management of the Bank has every right to accept or reject the application for voluntary retirement and the employee was not given option to withdraw his option for voluntary retirement which cannot be allowed. This judgement is not on the point as to whether after acceptance of the option of voluntary retirement whether employee can withdraw his option. Therefore this ruling is also not helpful to the second party workman.

13. The ld. adv. for the second party referred another Apex Court ruling in Srivastava J.N. V/s. Union of India &Anr Civil Appeal nos. 6573-6574 /1997 decided on 22/9/1997. In this case the employee had submitted voluntary retirement notice of three months on 3/10/1989. It was to come into effect on 31/01/1990. The proposal was accepted by employer in November 1989. Subsequently in December 1989 employee had withdrawn the notice of voluntary retirement. Employer refused to act on the withdrawal. The Administrative Tribunal held[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7701 that voluntary retirement was operative not withstanding withdrawal of notice since employee handed over charge on 31st January 1990. In that case Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and employer was directed to pay full back wages from the date of withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement till the date of superannuation subject to adjust pension and other terminal benefits already paid to employee. It was a case of notice for voluntary retirement and Hon'ble Court held that before expiry of the due date the employee was well entitled to withdraw the notice. The facts of this case are different from the case at hand as in the case at hand the workman sought for withdrawal of VSS scheme after his application for the same was accepted and date of relieving was also communicated to the workman.

14. The ld. adv. for the second party also cited the Apex Court ruling in Power Finance Corporation Ltd. V/s. Pramod Kumar Bhatia 1997 I CLR 1111 (SC) wherein the employee had applied under Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the employees. The management accepted his application subject to clearance of outstanding dues. The workman wrote a letter requesting to deduct the amount of outstanding dues and to relieve him. Meantime the voluntary retirement scheme was withdrawn. In that case the Hon'ble Court held that as the acceptance of voluntary retirement was subject to condition, the workman has right to withdraw his application for the voluntary retirement. In the case at hand the acceptance of the voluntary separation scheme was not accepted conditionally. It was already accepted and due date of his retirement was also communicated to the employee. Therefore the ratio laid down in the above referred case is not applicable to the case at hand.

15. In this respect the ld. adv. for the second party further submitted that the workman had applied for voluntary separation scheme -B whereas Management has granted him Voluntary Separation under Scheme 'A' which was not sought for. In this respect it is submitted by the first party that under Voluntary Separation Scheme "A", the employee was entitled for more benefit and pension was prescribed for the employees who had completed 10 years of service. The employee herein had applied under scheme 'B' as he had not completed either 10 years' service, or 40 years of age and had requested to relieve him on or before 31/10/2003. According to the first party, the second party was completing 10 years' service in June 2004 and he had requested the first party to relieve him in June 2004. Accordingly his VSS was accepted under Scheme 'A' which was beneficial to the employee and till the date of acceptance was communicated to the second party, he had not withdrawn his option. Therefore once the offer of employee is accepted and the same is communicated to the employee, he cannot withdraw the same. This submission and argument of the first party appears quite probable and acceptable as since October 2003 the second party has not written any letter to the first party till 02/06/2004 in respect of his withdrawal.

16. According to the ld. adv. for the first party submission of application for VSS by the workman was a proposal under Contract Act. The same could have been withdrawn before the acceptance and not thereafter. He further submitted that once the workman has accepted the retirement benefit he is estopped from withdrawing his option for VSS. The ld. adv. pointed out that all the retirement benefits were already paid to the workman. He is also getting pension. Thus now he cannot be allowed to withdraw his option for VSS. In support of his argument ld. adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Bank of India & Ors V/s. O.P. Swarnakar &Ors.referred supra. In para 75 of the judgement the Hon'ble Court observed that;

"Once application filed by the employee is held to be an 'offer', Section 5 in absence of any other independent binding contract or Statute or Statutory Rule to the contrary would come into play."

It shows that the workman had sent the offer to the management. Management had accepted the same and the acceptance was communicated to the workman by their letter dt.10/05/2004 informing that they have decided to retire him from service under VSS-'A' w.e.f. 11/6/2004. It means that after communication of acceptance, the second party workman has no right to withdraw his option till his relieving date though till that day workman remains the employee of the first party.

17. In para 115 of the judgement the Hon'ble Court

further observed that;

"The scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right derived by the employees concerned, therefore, could be waived. The employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand."

18. The Ld. Adv. for the first party further submitted that after communication of acceptance of VSS to the workman, though workman was to be relieved on later date, he cannot withdraw his option. In support of this argument ld. adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Vice Chairman and Managing Director APSIDC Ltd. &Anr V/s. R. Venkataprasad and Ors (2003) 11 SCC 572. In this case the employee had given option for retirement under VRS Scheme. The same was accepted by the employer. But in terms of VRS the workman was retained in service even after the cut-off date till the receipt of funds from Government for payment of amount due under VRS. During intervening period the appellants had applied for withdrawal of their option for voluntary retirement. As per interim order of Hon'ble High Court, they were continued in service. Ultimately High Court also directed the employer to retain the workmen in service till superannuation. When the matter was taken up before Apex Court, the Hon'ble Court observed that;

"Withdrawal of option for VRS after the same was accepted is impermissible."7702 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/27 of 2012

19. The Ld. Adv on the point also cited another Apex Court ruling in State Bank of Patiala V/s. Ramesh Chandra Kanoji & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 651 wherein the Hon'ble Court held that, offer may be withdrawn at any time before it is accepted and not thereafter.

20. In the light of these rulings I am of the opinion that after acceptance of VSS Scheme the employee was not entitled to withdraw the same. He was well entitled to withdraw the option before 10/05/2004 i.e. before the date of acceptance and not thereafter. Therefore I hold that the action of the management is quite just and proper. Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in the affirmative. Consequently I also hold that the workman is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement and back wages. Thus I decide this issue no. 2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order:

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

(1) M/S. ERICSON & RICHARDS, MUMBAI

(2) M/S. ERICSON & RICHARD (SURVEYOR) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

1. The Chief Executive Officer M/s. Ericson & Richards Kamani Chambers 32, R. Kamani Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001.

2. The Director

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

Date: 14/08/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3175.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अरिकसन और रिचर्ड्‌स मुंबई, अरिकसन और रिचर्ड (सर्वेक्षक) प्राईवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संं. 27/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

M/s. Ericson & Richard (Surveyor) Pvt. Ltd. Kamani Chambers 32, R. Kamani Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

The Secretary Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena Arjun Khotha Vaid, Ground floor BMC Parking Plaza Building Dadar (W) Mumbai 400 028.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : No appearance

FOR THE WORKMEN : No appearance

Mumbai, the 21st October, 2014

AWARD

[सं. एल-31011/3/2011-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3175.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 2. Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of 1. M/s. Ericson & Richards, Mumbai 2. M/s. Ericson & Richards (Surveyor) Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-31011/3/2011- IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-31011/3/2011-IR (B-II), dated 15.05.2012 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 M/s. Ericson & Richards, Mumbai and M/s. Ericson & Richard (Surveyor) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the services of 21 workmen (as per Exhibit- I) by way of retrenchment and terminating the services of 12 workmen (as per Exhibit-II) by way of removal of their names from Muster Roll is legal, just and proper? What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?"

ANNEXURE - I

ANNEXURE

1. Omprakash Pisat

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

2. Pankaj A. Shinde

3. Gopalkrishnan Nair[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7703 4. Sanjay Amberkar

5. Atmaram S. Gaikwad

6. S.G. Harijan

7. Vijay Parab

8. Ashok Kumar Dhobi

9. Narendra Naturam Lokande

10. Keshkumar Yadav

11. Ajit Dayanad Dalvi

12. Dipika Digamber Munj

13. Sanjay Kumar Oza

14. Amit Madhukar Revdekar

15. Ramesh G. Gadege

16. Ramesh R. Chauhan

17. Pravin B. Jadhav

18. Rajan M. Jadhav

19. Rajesh P. Barai

20. Rajendra S. Posam

21. Nandakumar Talekar

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3176.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (28/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/04/2010-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

S.O. 3176.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2009) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/04/2010- IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE-II

ANNEXURE

1. Pandharinath G. Hase

2. P. Mahalingum

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

3. Altaf Ansari

4. Paris M. Kothare

PRESENT : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

CASE NO. I.D. No. 28/2009

5. Naresh P. Pednekar

6. Girish B. Prabhakar

7. Rajan C. Keer

8. Kiran Ganapat Padwal

9. R. G. Singh

10. Alam Ansari

11. Nasim Farooqui

12. M.A. Raja

Registered on 8.3.2010

Sh. Joginder Singh, C/o Sh. O. P. Indal, General Secretary, North India SC/ST Bank's Employees Federation, H. No. 3086/2, Sector 44D, Chandigarh

.....Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh

.....Respondents

Appearances:

For the Workman : Sh. Raj Kaushik Adv.

For the Management : Ex-Parte

AWARD

Passed on 15.10.2014

2. After receipt of the reference from Ministry of Labour & Employment, both parties were served with notice. The matter was adjourned on number of occasions as both parties remained absent. The second party union has neither approached this Tribunal nor filed statement of claim. Since there is no statement of claim on record, therefore, this reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 21.10.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/ 04/2010-IR(B-II) Dated 18.2.2010, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

7704 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Joginder Singh w.e.f. 28.2.2008 is legal and justified? What relief the workman concenred is entitled to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was engaged by the respondent management on temporary basis on 21.8.2006 as a General Attendant where he worked continuously till 28.2.2008. His services were terminated on 1.3.2008 without paying him retrenchment compensation and without serving any notice. Since the termination of his services is in violation of Section 25F of the Act, he be reinstated in service.

Management was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 7.9.2010. Thereafter an application was moved to file written statement but the written statement filed along with the application was not signed by any person.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken by him in the statement of claim.

I have heard Sh. Raj Kaushik, counsel for the

workman.

The workman has specifically pleaded that he worked with the respondent management on temporary basis from 21.8.2006 to 28.2.2008 and these assertions were supported by him while appearing in the witness box. The respondent management did not contest the claim of the workman despite appearing through authorized representatives and was later on proceeded against ex parte, as state above. Since the management did not contest the claim of the workman despite having notice of the proceedings, it is reasonable to presume that the management itself admit his claim.

Thus relying on the testimony of the workman along with the fact that the management did not contest the claim, it stands proved on the file that the workman continuously worked with the respondent management from 21.8.2006 to 28.2.2008 on temporary basis.

reinstatement cannot be ordered which will tantamount to backdoor entry into the service. In the circumstances, he is to be paid compensation by the termination of his services illegally. He has not mentioned the pay he was withdrawing.

Thus compensation is to be given only by doing the guess work. Considering the circumstances it is to be held that he is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation from the management.

In result, it is held that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is not legal and justified and workman is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation from the management. The management shall pay the amount within three months from the publication of the award failing which the workman shall get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the passing of the award till realisation. The reference is acccordingly answered. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2014

dk-vk- 3177.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक, स्कूटर्स इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संं. 07/2010) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03/12/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/12/2010-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी. के वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2014

S.O. 3177.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 07/2010) of the Cent. Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Chairman & Managing Director, Scooters India Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 03/12/2014.

[No. L-42012/12/2010- IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

It is categorically stated by the workman that he was not paid any retrenchment compensation. Thus the termination of the services of the workman are in violation of Section 25F of the Act which inter alia provides that the workman cannot be retrenched unless served with one month's notice in writing or paid compensation in lieu of such notice etc. Since the workman was not paid any retrenchment compensation, therefore, termination of his services are illegal.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Shri RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 07/2010

There is nothing on the file to suggest that workman was appointed as per Rules and Regulations on the respondent management and it is the case of the workman himself that he was appointed on temporary basis. Since his appointment was not as per Rules and Regulations, his Ref. No. L-42012/12/2010- IR (DU) dated : 15.04.2010[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7705

BETWEEN

Sh. Surendra Pratap Singh, S/o Sh. Jay Mangal Singh House No. L-121, Sector-E, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road Lucknow

AND

The Chairman and Managing Director Scooter India Limited, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow-226 008 unjustified and he be re-instated with consequential benefits including full back wages.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/12/2010-IR(DU) dated: 15.04.2010 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Surendera Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Jay Mangal Singh, House No. _-121, Sector -E, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow and the Chairman and Managing Director, Scooters India Limited, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

5. The management has contended the submissions of the workman, made in the statement of claim, with a mention that the workman has raised present industrial dispute at a belated stage hence not admissible. Apart from this the management has submitted that the workman was in habit of taking leaves without prior approval of the Competent Authority. The management has given a detail of unauthorized leaves availed by the workman and summary of actions taken by the management against the workman during his services tenure with the opposite party. The management has alleged that the workman neither reported on duty after returning back from LTC nor sent any information or application for grant of leave; accordingly, he was issued a letter dated 21.8.1990 asking him to join the duties within 3 days, failing which his name was liable to be struck down from the rolls of the Company. Since the workman did not respond to the letter dated 21.8.1990 nor did he come to join the duties; accordingly, his name was struck off from the rolls of the company due to his unauthorized absence w.e.f. 11.9.1990. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF MANAGEMENT OF

SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED IN REMOVING THE NAME

OF SHRI SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH FROM THE

ROLLS OF THE COMPANY W.E.F. 11/09/1990 IS LEGAL

AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?"

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman has been engaged as an unskilled worker with the management of Scooters' India Limited, hereinafter referred to as Company, on 22.05.1974 and he proceeded on LTC for Ahmedabad on 14.06.1990. On coming back to the Headquarters, the workman was to join his duties on 30.06.1990; but he failed to do so; and accordingly, letter dated 21.08.1990 was issued to the workman, requiring him to join the duties within three days, failing which his name was liable to be struck down from the rolls of the Company. The workman failed to join the duties within specified time; resultantly, his name was struck down from the rolls of the company as per provisions contained in Section 9.3.12 of the Certified Standing Orders; and the workman was intimated accordingly vide letter dated 11.09.1990.

4. The workman in his statement of claim has submitted that during his return journey while on LTC he fell sick and could not join duties as per the advice of the doctors at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi; accordingly he requested the employers for sanction of medical leave. It is also alleged that the management struck down his name from its rolls w.e.f. 11.09.1990, soon after issuance of letter dated 21.08.1990; without conducting any formal inquiry and giving him an opportunity of defence; which was violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the termination order dated 11.09.1990 be declared illegal and 6. The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the statement claim has submitted that he has been involved in litigation since the termination of his services and delay caused in the matter is just due to not approaching right forum as the workman firstly, approached UP Industrial Tribunal and thereafter at their direction approached the appropriate court after long delay, which was beyond control of the workman.

7. The workman has filed photocopy of the following

documentary evidence in support of his claim:

(i) Letter dated 21.08.1990 of the Scooter's India Ltd.

(ii) Letter dated 26.10.1993 of PA, Minister of State

Industrial Development.

(iii) Letter dated 11.9.1990 of Scooter's India Ltd.

Terminating services of workman.

(iv) Application for conciliation.

(v) Order dated 22.2.2008 of Industrial Tribunal (UP),

Lucknow.

In rebuttal, the management has filed photocopy of

following documents:

(i) Joining letter dated 23.5.1974.

(ii) Attestation Form.

(iii) Charge-sheet dated 01.03.1982.

(iv) Charge-sheet dated 19.07.1982.

(v) A letter No. SIL:PER:Est:01264 dated 12.08.1982.

7706 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(vi) A letter No. SIL:PER:Est:01264 dated 20.09.1982.

(vii) A letter No. SIL:PER:Est:01264 dated 29.09.1982.

(viii) A letter No. SIL:PER:IR:83:01264 dated 16.02.1983.

(ix) A letter No. SIL:PER:Est:01264 dated 16.02.1983.

(x) Charge-Sheet dated 28.04.1984.

(xi) Charge - Sheet dated 02.07.1990.

(xii) Attendance Record dated 21.08.1990.

(xiii) LTC leave from 11.06.1990 - 23.06.1990.

(xiv) Termination letter No. SIL:PER:Est: 01264 dated

11.09.1990.

The workman has examined himself whereas the management examined Shri A.K. Chatterjee, Manager (HR) in support of their case. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the each other's witnesses apart from putting oral arguments as well as written arguments.

8. Heard the authorized representatives of the parties

at length and perused the evidence on record.

9. The authorized representative of the workman has contended that the workman who proceeded on LTC with due permission of the employers could not join duties due to his illness. But the management removed his name from rolls of the Company without issuing any show-cause notice or holding any formal inquiry against him, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The authorized representative of the workman has also contended that the workman is working in the Company since 1974 and has completed more than 240 days in with the management in the year preceding his date of termination i.e. 11.9.90; but the management has terminated his services without complying with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it has not given any notice or notice pay in lieu of notice period nor has paid any retrenchment compassion. The workman has relied on:

(i) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Shambhu

Nah Mukaerjee 1981 SCC (L&S) 595.

(ii) D.K. Yadav vs M/s J.M. A. Industries Ltd. 1993

(67) SC 111.

(iii) H.D. Singh vs. Reserve Bank of India & others

1985 SCC (L&S) 975.

(iv) M/s Scooters India Ltd. Vs M. Mahammad Yaqub & Another, Civil Appeal No. 1471 of 1999, decided on 21.11.2000 Supreme Court.

(v) Anil Kumar Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal II U.P., Lucknow & Another, Writ Petition No. 4161 of 1988(S/S), High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

10. Per contra, the authorized representative of the management has argued that workman was on LTC from 1.6.90 to 23.6.90 but he remained absent from duties up to 28.7.90 without any intimation to the employers. It is also submitted that the so called illness is not supported by any documentary evidence or other cogent evidence; and he over stayed the expended period, which resulted into issuance of letter dated 21.8.90 to the workman; whereby he was advised to join the duties within three days, failing which his name was liable to be removed from rolls of the company. It is contended by the management that the workman remained idle even after receipt of letter dated 21.8.90 and neither joined his duties nor moved any application for leave; and resultantly, his name was removed from the rolls of Company in compliance of the provisions of 9.3.12 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company vide order dated 11.09.90. It is also argued by the management that the workman was removed from services in wake of clause 9.3.12 of the Standing Orders which provides that the services of any workman who remains absent from duty without leave in excess of the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended for more than 10 consecutive days, he shall be deemed to have left the services of the Company on his own accords, without notice, thereby terminating his contract with the Company and his name will, accordingly, be stuck off the rolls; accordingly, the name of the workman was struck off from rolls for the reasons he did not turn up to the duty for more than 10 days; hence, his termination does not come within the purview of retrenchment. The management has relied on following case laws:

(i) The Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. Vs.

Venkatiah & Antr. 1964 AIR 1272 SC.

(ii) Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association AIR 2000 SC 2198.

(iii) Vijay S. Sathaye Vs. Indian Airlines Limited (2013)

10 SCC 253.

(iv) Davalsab Husainsab Mulla vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation 2014 (140) FLR 756.

11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in light thereto.

12. The workman has come up with a case that he has been appointed with the opposite party on 22.05.1974 and working as Artisan Grade 'D'. The workman proceeded on LTC on 14.06.1990 and was expected to reach the headquarters on 30.6.1990; but could not join the duty due to his ailment and meanwhile he received a letter dated 21.08.1990 from the management whereby he was asked to join the duties within three days of receipt of letter, failing which his name shall be removed from rolls; and when the workman failed to join the duties within the specified time his name was struck off from the rolls of the Company vide order dated 11.09.1990. The workman has alleged that the action of the management was violative of the principles of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 6, 2014/अग्रहायण 15, 1936 7707 natural justice; whereby the management was duty bound to conduct a formal inquiry against him before terminating his services. Furthermore, it is also the case of workman that since he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination therefore, the termination of his services vide impugned order dated 11.9.90 amounts to retrenchment and the management was ought to have complied with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act before removing him from the services.

13. The management of the Scooters' India Limited, rebutting the claim of the workman has come up with a clear cut case that the workman had been habitual absentee, who remained absent on various occasions previously without any sufficient cause and had been punished with various penalties in the past too. This time the workman over stayed the LTC leave and did not respond in spite of written notice dated 21.08.1990; whereby he was asked to join the duty within three days from the receipt of letter, failing which his name was liable to be removed from the rolls of the company. Since the workman neither turned up nor requested for extension of leave, his name was struck off from the rolls in compliance of provision 9.3.12 of the Standing Orders.

14. The workman in his cross-examination has stated that he proceeded on LTC on 14.6.90 and fell ill during the course of his LTC. He also stated that he got treated at AIIMS for 7-15 days. He admitted at page 3 that he has not filed any evidence regarding treatment at AIIMS. He also stated that thereafter he went to his village for treatment and he informed the Company of his illness through a letter, which could not be received at the Company. He also admitted that after 1990 he is gainfully employed. The workman admitted of having been given warning, penalties for unauthorized absence earlier; but denied of being in the habit of habitual absence.

On the contrary, the management witness, Shri A.K. Chatterjee, Manager (HR) has stated that the workman's name was struck off from rolls due to his unauthorized absence and the workman was not issued any charge sheet for unauthorized absence. He also stated that the workman did not give any information regarding his illness and also that the workman was given notice to join but he did not join.

15. The workman has filed photocopy of the numerous documents in support of his contention, less any documentary proof in support of his pleading that during the course of his LTC he fell ill and he was under treatment at AIIMS and other places; resulting into his non-joining the duties. The workman also could not show any evidence that he ever requested the management to grant him medical leave or any application stating his position as to why he was not joining his duties. On the contrary, the management of the Scooters' India has come with the solitary contention that the workman was habitual absentee and he remained absent after end of LTC leave; and when he did not turn up for joining his duties even after issuance of letter 21.08.1990, his services were terminated in wake of clause 9.3.12 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company.

The workman has relied on M/s Scooters India Ltd. Vs. M. Mohammad Yaqb & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1471 of 1999; wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected the appeal on the ground that the employee who was removed from services of the appellants consequent to his failure in joining the duties, even after personal advice of the Chief Personnel Officer of the Company, in view of Standing Order 9.3.12., was not given any opportunity of defence. In the very case, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Standing Order 9.3.12 could not have been used for terminating his services.

In rebuttal, the management has relied on Syndicate Bank Vs. Gen. Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association AIR 2000 SC 2198; wherein a case where the employee abstained himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days even after sending show cause notice to the delinquent, the Bank deemed the workman as voluntarily retired from the services of the Bank by virtue of Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement treated the delinquent as having voluntarily abandoned his services. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

"17. Bank has followed the requirements of Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement. It rightly held that Dayananda has voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank. Under these circumstances it was not necessary for the Bank to hold any inquiry before passing the order. An inquiry would have been necessary if Dayananda has submitted his explanation which was not acceptable to the Bank or contended that he did report for duty but was not allowed to join by the Bank. Nothing of the like has happened here. Assuming for a moment that inquiry was necessitated, evidence led before the Tribunal clearly showed that notice was given to Dayananda and it is he who willfully defaulted and offered no explanation of his absence from duty and did not report for duty within 30 days of the notice as required in Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement."

Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay S. Sathaye vs. Indian Airlines Limited and others (2013) 10 SCC 253 has held that absence from duty in beginning may be misconduct, but when such absence is for long period, it may amount to voluntary abandonment of service resulting in termination of services automatically without necessitating any further order from employer. It has observed has under:

"12. It is a settled law that an employee cannot be termed as a slave, he has a right to abandon the service any time voluntarily by submitting his resignation and alternatively, not joining he duty and remaining absent for long. Absence from duty in the beginning may be a misconduct but when absence is for a very long period, it may amount to voluntary7708 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] abandonment of service and in that eventuality, the bonds of service come to an end automatically without requiring any order to be passed by the employer.

all after issuance of letter dated 21.08.90, there was no option for the management to struck off his name from the rolls as his unexplained long absence has amounted to voluntary abandonment of the service and in that event the bonds of services came to an end automatically without requiring any order to be passed by the employer; as it is evident from the principle propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay S. Sathaye Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. (Supra). 14. For the purpose of termination, there has to be positive action on the part of the employer while abandonment of service is a consequence of unilateral action on behalf of the employee and the employer has no role in it. Such an act cannot be termed as "retrenchment" from service."

17. The workman has also contended that while terminating his services the management did not comply with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management has emphasized that the termination of the workman was not retrenchment as it was abandonment on the part of the workman. In this regard it may be kept in mind that to construed 'termination' there should be some action by the management against the workman, but in the present case, the workman has himself abandoned the services (as inferred from his conduct) which was a unilateral action on his behalf wherein the management had no role; hence, the same could not be termed as 'retrenchment' of service.

18. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case and law cited hereinabove after minute cogent analysis of the evidence available on record; I am of considered opinion that the action of the management of Scooters India Limited in removing the name of workman from the rolls of the company w.e.f. 11.09.1990 is neither illegal nor unjustified. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman, Shri Surendera Pratap Singh is not entitled to any relief.

19. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

20. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

21st November, 2014.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer 16. In the instant case, admittedly who was on regular rolls of the management of Scooters' India Limited preceded on LTC but did not join his duties long after the date when he was expected to join. The management of the Company sent a letter dated 21.8.1990 to the workman at his three addresses one at New Delhi, the other one at his village at Faizabad; and another at his local address, which was in form of notice to the workman, asking him to join the duties within three days from receipt of latter, failing his name was going to be struck off from the rolls of the Company. The workman has claimed that he did not receive the above letter. Even then being an employee the workman was duty bound to inform the employers about his illness, due to which he was not in position to join the duties. During cross-examination, at page 3, he stated that he had undergone treatment at AIIMS for 7-15 days but did not file any documentary evidence before this Tribunal in that regard. The only contention from the side of the workman is that he had not been given any notice or any formal inquiry has been initiated against him; wherein he might have been given an opportunity to explain his position. But from the evidence on record, it is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the workman, if he was ill then he should have given any documentary proof in support thereof. Secondly, what prevented him from informing the employers of the same? Had he been given an opportunity for explanation before an inquiry then what would have been his explanation as he failed to bring anything on record before this Tribunal. Since the workman did not turn up at

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.