dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3062.—dasnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi&/kkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, t;iqj fLFkr fopkj.k

U;k;ky; esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk laLFkkfir

ekeyksa] tks dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks }kjk mUgsa lkSais x, gSa] dk vfHk;kstu

rFkk fof/k }kjk laLFkkfir iqujh{k.k vFkok vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa esa bu

ekeyksa ls lEc) ,oa izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa

ds fy, loZJh lat; 'kekZ ,oa lat; egyk] vf/koDrkvksa dks fo'ks"k

yksd vfHk;kstd ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 225@12@2012&,-oh-Mh-&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

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

or appellate courts established by law.

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

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

4624 GI/2014

(7521)

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 49]

ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 30—fnlEcj 6] 2014] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 9—vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

No. 49]

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 30—DECEMBER 6, 2014, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 9—AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

7522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3063.—fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e]

1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la- 25½ dh /kkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr

/kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk vle jkT; ljdkj] jktuhfrd ¼d½ foHkkx]

fnliqj dh lgefr ls fnukad 17 twu] 2014 dh vf/klwpuk

la- ih,y,&58@2014@15 }kjk csgkyh iqfyl LVs'ku esa ntZ fd, x,

vijk/k ekeyk la- 08@2014 ds laca/k esa vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959

¼1959 dk vf/kfu;e la- 54½ dh /kkjk 25¼1½¼d½@27 ds lkFk

ifBr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e la- 45½ dh

/kkjkvksa 147] 148] 149] 447] 325] 326] 307 ,oa 302 ds rgr

vijk/kksa rFkk mi;qZDr vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa iz;kl djus] nq"izsfjr

djus rFkk "kM+;a= djus laca/kh dksbZ vU; vijkè@vijk/kksa dh tkap

gsrq fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj

U;k;kfèdkj {ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ vle jkT; ij djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 228@43@2014&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2014

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3064.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi&èkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznRr 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jktLFkku fLFkr Vªk;y U;k;ky;

esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼ds-v-C;w-½ }kjk laLFkkfir lhchvkbZ

ekeyk la- vkjlh 1¼,l½@2011& ,llh&III@ubZ fnYyh rFkk

vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa ;k muls lEc) vU; ekeyksa rFkk buds vuq"kkafxd

ekeyksa ds lapkyu ds fy, Jh Jhnkl flag jtkor] vfèoäk dks

fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qä djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 225@21@2014&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

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.

fons'k ea=ky;

¼lhihoh izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3065.—jktuf;d vkSj dkalyh; vkWfQlj ¼'kiFk

vkSj Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds

vuqlj.k esa dsanz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh iou cD'kh] lgk;d dks

fnlacj 2] 2014 ls Hkkjr ds dksalqykokl] E;qfud esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vfèdkjh ds dÙkZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, çkf/kd`r djrh gSA

[la- Vh-4330@1@2014]

çdk'k pUn] mi&lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(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)

ukxj foekuu ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 21 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3066.—dsUnz ljdkj] ljdkjh LFkku ¼vçkf/kd`r

vfèHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½

dh /kkjk 3 esa çnÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, rFkk Hkkjr ljdkj]

ukxj foekuu ea=ky; dh fnukad 9 tuojh] 2001 dh vf/klwpuk

la[;k ,l-vks- 84 dk vf/kØe.k djrs gq,] ,sls vfèØe.k ls iwoZ

iwjs fd, tk pqds dk;Z vFkok iwjk fd, tkus ds fy, NksM+ fn, x,

dk;ks± ds vykok] uhps izLrqr rkfydk ds dkWye ¼2½ esa mfYyf[kr

vf/kdkfj;ksa dks] ljdkj ds jktif=r vf/kdkjh ds leku jSad ds

gksus ds dkj.k] mi;qZDr vf/kfuf;e ds mn~ns';ksa ls ,rn~}kjk lEink

]

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7523

vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrh gS tks] vius lacaf/kr {ks=kf/kdkj ds nk;js

esa] iznÙk dh xbZ 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Åij mfYyf[kr

rkfydk ds dkWye ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V fd, x, ljdkjh LFkku ds

laca/k esa vFkok mDr vf/kfu;e ds varxZr lEink vf/kdkjh ds

fn, x, dk;ksZa dk fuokZg djsaxsA

rkfydk

Ø-

vf/kdkjh dk uke

ljdkjh LFkkuksa dk oxhZdj.k

la-

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

lgk;d egkizca/kd] dkfeZd

vle] fcgkj] ef.kiqj] fetksje] ukxkySaM

foHkkx] iwohZ {ks=] ,vj

mM+hlk] f=iqjk] if'pe caxky jkT;ksa

bafM;k fyfeVsM] dksydkrk

rFkk la?k 'kkflr izns'k vaMeku ,oa

fudksckj n~ohilewg esa fLFkr ,vj bafM;k

fyfeVsM dh vFkok ,vj bafM;k

fyfeVsM }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls

iV~Vs ij fy, x, lHkh vkoklh;

ifjljA

lgk;d egkizca/kd] dkfeZd

la?k 'kkflr izns'k fnYyh rFkk fgekpy

foHkkx] mÙkjh {ks=] ,vj bafM;k çns'k] tEew ,oa d'ehj] e/; izns'k]

fyfeVsM] bafnjk xk¡/kh ,;jiksVZ] iatkc] jktLFkku] mÙkjk[kaM] mÙkj çns'k

varjkZ"Vªh; ,vjiksVZ]

rFkk la?k 'kkflr izns'k paMhx<+ esa

ubZ fnYyhA

fLFkr ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM vFkok ,vj

bafM;k fyfeVsM }kjk vFkok mldh vksj

ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, lHkh vkoklh;

ifjljA

lgk;d egkizca/kd] dkfeZd

vka/kz izns'k] dukZVd] dsjy] rfeyukMq

foHkkx] nf{k.kh {ks=] ,vj

rFkk rsyaxkuk jkT;ksa esa fLFkr ,vj

bafM;k fyfeVsM] psUuSA

bafM;k fyfeVsM ds vFkok ,vj bafM;k

fyfeVsM }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls

iV~Vs ij fy, x, lHkh vkoklh;

ifjljA

lgk;d egkizca/kd] dkfeZd

xksok] xqtjkr] e/; izns'k rFkk egkjk"Vª

foHkkx] if'peh {ks=] ,vj

jkT;ksa esa fLFkr ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM

bafM;k fyfeVsM] eqEcbZA

ds vFkok ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM }kjk

vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy,

x, lHkh vkoklh; ifjljA

ofj"B lgk;d egkizca/kd]

,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM] eq[;ky;] ubZ

vkS|ksfxd laca/k] eq[;ky;

fnYyh ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.k ds ,vj

,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM] ,;j&

bafM;k fyfeVsM ds vFkok ,vj bafM;k

ykbal gkml] ubZ fnYyhA

fyfeVsM }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls

iV~Vs ij fy, x, lHkh vkoklh;

ifjljA

lgk;d egkizca/kd] lEifÙk

vle] fcgkj] ef.kiqj] fetksje]

,oa lqfo/kk foHkkx] iwohZ {ks=]

ukxkySaM] mM+hlk] f=iqjk] if'pe caxky

,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM]

jkT;ksa rFkk la?k 'kkflr izns'k vaMeku

dksydkrkA

,oa fudksckj }hi lewg esa fLFkr ,vj

bafM;k fyfeVsM ds vFkok ,vj bafM;k

fyfeVsM }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls

iV~Vs ij fy, x, vkoklh; ifjljksa ls

fHkUu lHkh ifjljA

lgk;d egkizca/kd] lEifÙk

la?k 'kkflr izns'k fnYyh rFkk fgekpy

,oa lqfo/kk foHkkx] mÙkjh {ks=] izns'k] tEew ,oa d'ehj] e/; izns'k]

,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM]

iatkc] jktLFkku] mÙkjk[kaM] mÙkj izns'k

bafnjk xk¡/kh varjkZ"Vªh;

rFkk la?k 'kkflr izns'k paMhx<+ esa

,;jiksVZ] ubZ fnYyhA

fLFkr ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM ds vFkok

,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM }kjk vFkok

mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x,

vkoklh; ifjljksa ls fHkUu lHkh ifjljA

lgk;d egkizca/kd] lEifÙk

vka/kz izns'k] dukZVd] dsjy] rfeyukMq

,oa lqfo/kk foHkkx] nf{k.kh

rFkk rsyaxkuk jkT;ksa esa fLFkr ,;j

{ks=] ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM

bafM;k fyfeVsM ds vFkok ,;j bafM;k

psUuSA

fyfeVsM }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls

iV~Vs ij fy, x, vkoklh; ifjljksa

ls fHkUu lHkh ijfljA

lgk;d egkizca/kd] lEifÙk

xksok] xqtjkr] e/; izns'k rFkk egkjk"Vª

,oa lqfo/kk foHkkx] if'peh

jkT;ksa esa fLFkr ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM

{ks=] ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM]

ds vFkok ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM }kjk

eqEcbZA

vFkok mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy,

x, vkoklh; ifjljksa ls fHkUu lHkh

ifjljA

10-

lgk;d egkizca/kd] lEifÙk

,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM] eq[;ky;] ubZ

,oa lqfo/kk foHkkx] eq[;ky;]

fnYyh ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.k ds vèhu

,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM]

,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM ds vFkok ,vj

ubZ fnYyhA

bafM;k fyfeVsM }kjk vFkok mldh vksj

ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, vkoklh; ifjljksa

ls fHkUu lHkh ifjljA

[Qk- la- ,oh-18050@21@2014-,vkbZ]

vfer ?kks"kky] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

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.

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

7524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3067.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼çek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa %&&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykbZlsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'khœZd

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx

vuq

oœZ

la[;k

dh frfFk oœZ@

la[;k

ekg

2872673

02&04&2014

Hkokuh ,aVjçkbZl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

,y&584] th vkbZ Mh lh ,LVsV]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okWVj½

iksLV vkWfQl ds lkeus] vks<o]

vgenkckn&382415

2874980

02&04&2014

fuykax ok;lZ rFkk dscy çk- fyfeVsM

ihohlh balwysfVM dscy

694

1990

'kSM uacj 5 rFkk 6] ';ke baMfLVª;y ,LVsV

IykWV uacj 5813] Qsl&1]

th vkbZ Mh lh ,LVsV]

cVok&382445

2877380

03&04&2014

eSd iEi baMLVªht

eksVlZ QkWj lce£lcy iEilSV

9283

1996

IykWV uacj 65] Qsl&1]

th vkbZ Mh lh ,LVsV]

,Vyl jsfM;ks ds lkeus] ujksMk]

vgenkckn&382330

(1) (2)

(3)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7525

2878180

03&04&2014

Mslh baMLVªht

VSDlVkbZy&ySfeusfVM gkbZ

15351

2003

49@1,] iSdh 2] VheHkh xk¡o] Hkykfj;k eSVy MSaflVh ikWyhFkyhu

ds ikl] okjksyh czht ds ikl]

¼,p Mh ih bZ½ QScfjd QkWj

ok;k latu] mejxk¡o] oylkn&396150

dSuky ykbZfuax

2876681

03&04&2014

ToSy xksYMh ¼bafM;k½

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

Jh jked`".kk dkWEySDl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

22] fu'kky Qkfy;k] nwljh eafty]

,oa eqgjkadu

ihiYl cSad ds ikl] dVVjxke]

lwjr&395004

2875679

07&04&2014

feylSaV ,iykbZflal izk fyfeVsM

flaxy Qsl Leky , lh rFkk

996

2009

20] th vkbZ Mh lh ,LVsV]

;wfuolZy bySfDVªd eksVlZ

foB~By m|ksxuxj] xk¡o oYyHk fo|kuxj]

rk- vkuan] oYyHk fo|kxuj&388121

2874677

08&04&2014

vkLd okWVj izksMDV~l

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

xtkuan gkÅl] xksMkmu uacj ch] lh] ,Q

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okWVj½

iUuk ikdZ cl LV®M ds lkeus]

?kkVyksfM;k] vgenkckn&380061

2874778

09&04&2014

èzqo LVkjl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

losZ uacj 24@14] dkjseosys LVs'ku jksM]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okWVj½

eksgu QkVd] okyokMk] rk- vacjxk¡o]

oylkn

2874879

09&04&2014

,lVªky ikyhVSdfud fyfeVsM

dkaM;wV~l QkWj bySfDVªdy

9537

1983

CykWd uacj 149@1] xk¡o jkeiqj]

baLVkys'ku

<ksydk [ksM+k jksM]

th vkbZ Mh lh ,LVsV ds lkeus]

rk- <ksydk] vgenkckn&382225

10-

2877784

09&04&2014

Vªw czkWl çksMDV~l]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IykV uacj 4510 th vkbZ Mh lh

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okWVj½

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

vadys'oj] Hkk:p

11-

2876075

11&04&2014

uhydaB fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

,V rFkk ih vks fc'kkriqjk

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okWVj½

rk dMh ¼mÙkj xqtjkr½] esglkuk]

dMh&382715

12-

2876580

15&04&2014

/kuJh ,xzks ikyh çksMDV~l]

yks M®flVh ikWfyFkfyu fQYe

2508

1984

15@,] pkaxksnj baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

lj[kst ckoyk jksM]

pkaxksnj] vgenkckn&382213

13-

2877885

15&04&2014

,f'k;u feYl çkbZosV fyfeVsM

LVhy V~;wCl QkWj vkbZMyj

9295

1983

104] lkdkj III] vksYM gkbZ dksVZ ds

QkWj cSYV duos;lZ

lkeus] bude VSDl ldZy ds ikl]

vkJe jksM] vgenkckn&380014

14-

2877986

15&04&2014

,f'k;u feYl çkbZosV fyfeVsM

LVhy V~;wCl QkWj eSdsfudy

3601

2006

104] lkdkj III] vksYM gkbZ dksVZ ds

rFkk tujy bathfu;fjax ijil

lkeus] bude VSDl ldZy ds ikl]

vkJe jksM] vgenkckn&380014

15-

2877279

16&04&2014

,DokykbZV fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

1999

IykV uacj 9] 10] 11 th vkbZ Mh lh VSu]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okWVj½

rk ckjMksyh] lwjr&394601

7526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16-

2877481

16&04&2014

,l ih Mh ,aVjçkbZl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

1999

13] xqukVhuxj lkslkbVh fyfeVsM

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okWVj½

jkes'oj ,LVsV ds ikl]

LokfLrd pkj jkLrk] vejkbZokMh]

vgenkckn&380026

17-

2878483

21&04&2014

jfo IykaV ckW;ks VSDuksyksftl fyfeVsM

,fefVax ikbZIl flLVe

13488

2008

losZ uacj 2@1] okLdk rktiqjk jksM]

xk¡o oklsVh] rk gyksy]

iapegy&389350

18-

2878584

21&04&2014

jfo IykaV ckW;ks VSDuksyksftl fyfeVsM

bjhxs'ku bD;wiesaV&ikyhFkyhu

12786

1989

losZ uacj 2@1] okLdk] rktiqjk jksM]

ikbZi QkWj bjhxs'ku ysVjy

xk¡o oklsVh] rk gyksy]

iapegy&389350

19-

2879182

22&04&2014

ikFkZ bathfu;fjax

iEil&fjtSujsfVo vkSj Dyh;j]

8472

1998

2] vejukFk ,LVsV] QkstZ rFkk Cyks;j

dksYM okWVj

dEiuh ds ikl]ujksMk jksM]

vgenkckn

20-

2879384

23&04&2014

ljLorh QwM rFkk fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

1999

IykV uacj 1] ljnkjckx] ek/ko gksVy ds

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okWVj½

ikl] luuxj ds lkeus] gkbZos jksM ,V rFkk

ih vks rk fl)iqj ikVu&384151

21-

2880268

28&04&2014

Mkjfld gSYFkds;j bUl

,Y;wfefu;e daMDVlZ QkWj

398

1992

224] lgtkuan ,LVsV]

vksojgSM Vªkalfe'ku ijit

lj[kst ckoyk jksM] lj[kst]

vgenkckn&382110

22-

2882171

28&04&2014

v{kj fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

ih@363] ,@ch] xzkmaM ¶yksj]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okWVj½

lc fMfotu 2 U;w DV~Vj xke]

lwjr&395004

23-

2883779

28&04&2014

xqfu;k ,ykW; rFkk LVhy izk- fyfeVsM

dkcZu LVhu dkLV fcysV bueksV~l] 2830

2012

losZ uacj 644] xk¡o flest]

fcysV] Cywel rFkk LysCl QkWj

rk Mksydk] vgenkckn&382810

fj&jskfyax baVw LVhy QkWj

tujy LVªDpjy ijil

24-

2881775

29&04&2014

jkseSDl iEi baMLVªht

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

lh@20] ikVZ 2] ek:fr baMLVªh;y ,LVsV]

ujksM ds lkeus] Qk;j fczxsM]

vgenkckn&380025

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%11]

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa çeq[k

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 :

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7527

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant Date

Name & Address of the Party

Title of the Standard

Part

Sec

Year

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2874879

09-04-2014

Astral Polytechnic Limited

Conduits for electrical

9537

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-382715

7528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

Survey No. 644,

ingots, billets, blooms

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7529

ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3068.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼5½ ds mi&fofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

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

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y

2817665

eSllZ tSydks bySDVªkfud izk- fyfeVsM

ih oh lh balwysfVM dscy

04-04-2014

Cykd uacj 142] ,V rFkk iksLV dkjksyh] tykjke

vkbZ ,l&694%1990

fljkfeDl ds lkFk esa] [krjkt pksdM+h ds ikl]

xka/khuxj&382721

7318672

eSllZ teZy dyjdkWu bafM;k

flaFkSfVd QwM dyj&izhijs'ku rFkk feDlplZ

09-04-2014

losZ uacj 206@2@1] izlkjHkkjrh jsfM;ks LVs'ku ds

vkbZ ,l 5346%1994

lkeus ckjstkMh jksM] xkao chMt] rk [ksMk&387120

7455783

eSllZ rjy baMLVªht izk- fyfeVsM

iSdstcan is;ty

29-04-2014

476] fot; baMfLVª;y ,lVsV] lkfe;kyk]

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

rk iknjk oMksnjk&391410

vkbZ ,l 14543&2004

[la- lh,eMh@13%13]

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

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

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

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

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' & Head

7530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3069.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼çek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa %&&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykbZlsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'khœZd

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx

vuq

oœZ

la[;k

dh frfFk oœZ@

la[;k

ekg

2880975

01-05-2014

xuScks bafM;k izk- fyfeVsM

Qk;j fjflafVax ¼balwysfVax½

14561

2007

IykV uacj 1302&1306] thvkbZMhlh

Qk;fyax dsfcusV

baMLVªh;y ,LVsV pkaikusj jksM]

gyksy&389350

2881068

01-05-2014

lkseukFk ikyh IykLV izk- fyfeVsM

vuIykfLVlkbZM ih oh lh

4985

2000

IykV uacj 88] fueZy baMfLVª;y ikdZ]

ikbZIl Qkj iksVscy okVj

thvkbZMhlh xkstkfj;k] rk rFkk iksLV esglkuk lIykbZl

2881674

01-05-2014

fgydksuk dscy

ih oh lh balwysfMV dscy

694

1990

uacj ch&25] vafcdk baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

vafcdk uxj] vks<o] vgenkckn&382415

2882272

02-05-2014

ojhVkl baMLVªht izkbZosV fyfeVsM

,Y;wfefu;e daMDVj Qkj

398

1996

losZ uacj 32] th vkbZ Mh lh] rk vacjxksae vksojgSM Vªkalfe'ku ijil

oylkn] lkfjxke

2882474

06-05-2014

,u ,y ,DLVªwlu

dkaM;wVl Qkj bySfDVªdy

9537

1983

43] Jhjke ,LVsV] 'kkg ,yk; ds lkeus]

bULVkys'ku

lkarst rk dyksy] xka/khuxj&382721

2883880

06-05-2014

lkcsjks vkjxSfuDl xqtjkr fyfeVsM

ekudkstSc okVj fMi£lcy

8708

1978

IykV ua- 2102] th vkbZ Mh lh] lkfjxke]

ikmMj dalaVsªV

feykM] oylkn] okih&396155

2884579

06-05-2014

x.kifr oqy IykbZ baMLVªht

oqMu ¶y'k Mksj 'kVj ¼lkfyM

2202

1999

,V /keZiqjk] IykV ua- 7] ,l vkj ua- 276]

dksj VkbZi½

xkao ukbZdk] rk [ksMk&387560

2885682

06-05-2014

vkse fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IykV ua- 81@6@1] th vkbZ Mh lh] oVok

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

vgenkckn

2883981

07-05-2014

T;ksfr ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

'kkWi ua- 19] Kkedqat dks vksi ,p ,l lh

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYdkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

lkslkbVh] vfHkyk"kk pkj jkLrk] U;w lkek jksM eqgjkadu

oMksnjk&390008

10-

2883577

07-05-2014

t; Hkokuh Mk;eaM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

15] ikVhnkj dkEiySDl LVs'ku jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYdkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

ckjMksyh] lwjr&394602

eqgjkadu

11-

2884983

08-05-2014

Jh lkbZukFk fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

47] izgykn ikdZ lkslkbVh] pkan[ksMk]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

jsyos Økflax ds lkeus] xkao txriqj]

rk nlØksabZ] vgenkckn&380005

12-

2887080

08-05-2014

jrue ySfeusV~l izk- fyfeVsM

MSdksjsfVo FkeksZlkSfVax fluFksSfVd

2046

1995

losZ ua- 116@ch&1] xkao lkaik] rk nsgxke

jsflu cksafMM ySfeusfVM 'khV~l

xka/khuxj&382305

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7531

13-

2885076

12-05-2014

ekykckj xksYM izkbZosV fyfeVsM

pk¡nh rFkk pk¡nh /kkrqvksa ds

2112

2003

Mksj ua- th 2] th 3] rhljk vkbZ ou

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

dkWef'kZ;y dkEiySDl] iapoVh ldZy

eqgjkadu

ds ikl] lh th jksM] vgenkckn

14-

2885177

12-05-2014

xkykckj xksYM izkbZosV fyfeVsM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

Mksj ua- th 2] th 3] rhljk vkbZ ou

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

dkWef'kZ;y dkEiySDl] iapoVh

eqgjkadu

ldZy ds ikl] lh th jksM] vgenkckn

15-

2885783

12-05-2014

vkj oh ,Dok

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

,V dadkiqjk] nsoiqjk] rk fotkiqj] fM esglkuk iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

fotkiqj&382870

16-

2886482

13-05-2014

Jh cyjke jksfyax feYl ¼izk-½ fyfeVsM

LVhy Qkj tujy LVdpjy

2062

2011

losZ uacj 1959] xkao oket]

ijil

rk dMhA] fMfLVªDV esglkuk] okest&382715

17-

2886583

13-05-2014

uspj izksMDV~l

iEil&fjtSujsfVo vkSj

8472

1998

46] ukyank ,LVsV] fxjukj LdwVj daikmaM

Dyh;j] dksYM okVj

ljnkj iVsy fjax jskM ldZy ds ikl] vks<o

vgenkckn&382415

18-

2887787

13-05-2014

Mk;eaM ikoj baizÃkLVdpj fyfeVsM

,Y;wfefu;e daMDVlZ Qkj

398

1996

Qsl&II xkao oMkMyk]rk lkoyh

vksojgSM Vªkalef'ku ijil

oMksnjk&391520

19-

2887181

16-05-2014

vkj ch ikyhelZ fyfeVsM

MSdksjsfVo FkeksZlSfVax fluFkSfVd

2046

1995

IykV ua- 103 ls 108] egky{eh baMfLVª;y

jsflu cksafMM ySfeusfVM 'khV~l

,LVsV ,V vkbok] vgenkckn&382110

20-

2887383

17-05-2014

Qksje fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IykV uacj] 49] 50 xzkmaM ¶yksj]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

veh/kkjk baMfLVª;y lkslk 3] Vh oh ,l

odZ 'kkWi ds ikl] bekrk jksM]

eSxksc lwjr&395001

21-

2887888

20-05-2014

ekjoSDl ikbZi VSd izkbZosV fyfeVsM

gkbZ MSaflVh ikyhFkyhu

4984

1995

Cykd ua- 121] e;wj flusek ds ikl]

ikbZil Qkj iksVscy okVj

cMksnjk xkao] vgenkckn gkbos] ,V cMksnjk] liykbZl

vgnkeckn] nlØksbZ&382434

22-

2888385

21-05-2014

fgelu baMLVªht

flaxy Qsl Leky , lh rFkk

996

2009

IykV ua- 40] jksM ua- ,] dkBokMk] thvkbZMhlh

;wfuolZy bySfDVªd eksVlZ

dkBokMk vgenkckn&382430

23-

2888486

22-05-2014

v'kksdk QwM~l rFkk fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

19@6&2] izdk'k ,LVsV] jhVkuxj] oL=ky jksM] iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

vejkbZokMh vgenkckn

24-

2888688

22-05-2014

Jh dkjs'ojh toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

2782@bZ@2] dkVksij njoktk cktkj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

Hkk:p&392001

eqgjkadu

25-

2888890

26-05-2014

,DlhVsjk gSYFkds;j

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IykV uacj 133] f'ko flVh baMLVªht

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

ikVZ&1 euduk] lwjr

26-

2889589

26-05-2014

t; vacs feujYl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

,l vkj uacj 195@3] IykV uacj 2

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

Nkuklek gkbos] gfjt fyad jksM] ikVu

7532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

27-

2889488

28-05-2014

,efi;j bySfDVªdYl

flaxy Qsl Leky , lh rFkk

996

2009

28] iVsy uxj] e?kkZ QkeZ ds ikl]

;wfuolZy bySfDVªd eksVlZ

'kkL=h LVsfM;e ds ihNs]

ckiwuxj] vgenkckn&380024

28-

2890069

30-05-2014

jkt ikfyelZ

QfVZykbtj rFkk dSfedy

14483

1997

IykV uacj- 427] jksM uacj- 10]

batSDVj flLVe

Qsl II, th vkbZ Mh lh]

dkBokMk] vgenkckn&382430

29-

2890170

30-05-2014

jkt ikfyelZ

bZjhxs'ku bD;wieSaV&gkbMªks

14743

1999

IykV uacj- 427] jksM uacj- 10]

lkbdyksu fQyVj

Qsl II, th vkbZ Mh lh]

dkBokMk] vgenkckn&382430

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%11]

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa çeq[k

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

Part

Sec

Year

No.

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

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

2881674

01.05.2014

Hilcona Cable

PVC insulated cables

694

1990

No. B-25, Ambica Industrial

Estate Ambica Nagar, Odhav

Ahmedabad-382415

2882272

02.05.2014

Veritas Industries Pvt. Ltd

Aluminium conductors for

398

1996

Survey No. 32, GIDC Sarigam

overhead transmission

Tal; Umbergaon, Valsad,

purposes

Sarigam

2882474

06.05.2014

N L Extrusions

Conduits for electrical

9537

1983

43, Shri Ram Estate,

installations

Opp. Shah Alloys Santej,

Tal; Kalol, Gandhinagar 382721

2883880

06.05.2014

Sabero Organics Gujarat Ltd.,

Mancozeb water

8708

1978

Plot No. 2102, GIDC Sarigam,

dispersible powder

Bhilad Valsad, Vapi-396155

concentrates

2884579

06.05.2014

Ganpati Wood Ply Industries

Wooden Flush door

2202

1999

At Dharampura, Plot No. 7,

Shutters (solid core type):

Sr. No. 276, Village Naika,

Taluka Kheda-387560

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)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7533

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

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-382434

7534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3070.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼5½ ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

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

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y&

7143461

eSllZ fdjyksldj cznlZ

lceflZcy iEilSV

05-05-2014

254@1 pkjksMh xkao] lkuan]

vkbZ ,l&8034%2002

vgenkckn fojexkke gkbos]

vgenkckn&382170

3745671

eSllZ tks'k baMLVªht

vkWVkseksfVo foghdYl & V~;wCl QkWj U;weSfVd Vk;j

16-05-2014

IykV uacj 26] th vkbZ Mh lh nkcksbZ]

vkbZ ,l&13098%1991

oMksnjk] nkcksbZ&391110

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%13]

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa çeq[k

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

7143461

M/s. Kirloskar Brothers

Submersible Pumpsets

05.05.2014

254/1 Chharodi Village,

IS 8034:2002

Sanand Ahmedabad Viramgam Highway,

Ahmedabad-382170

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

ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3071.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%&&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykbZlsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'khœZd

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx

vuq

oœZ

la[;k

dh frfFk oœZ@

la[;k

ekg

2891677

09-06-2014

,dfll lksyw'kul izk- fyfeVsM

,Dliyksflo ,VekslfQ;lZ

vkbZ

2007

IykV uacj 324] jksM uacj 5]

ikVZ 1 bD;wiesaV izksVsD'ku ck;

,l@vkbZ

th vkbZ Mh lh] dkBokMk]

QyseizqQ ,udyksllZ ^^Mh**

bZ lh

vgenkckn&382430

60079

2892477

16-06-2014

dsaVe IykLV

DyksfjusfVM ih oh lh iksVscy

15778

2007

85 ls 90 f'ko 'kfDr ,LVsV

ikbZi Qkj gkWV rFkk dksYM

oh Vªku uh xyh] ukjksy Økl jksM]

okVj fMfLVªC;w'ku lIykbZl

ukjksy] vgenkckn

2892073

17-06-2014

Qksj ds fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IykV uacj 19&,] dqleikdZ]

iSdtM uspqjy feujy okVj½

xkao vVd ikjMh]

rk- oylkn&396001

2892275

18-06-2014

Dykfld iEi

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

3@,] ijs'k ,LVsV]

lksfu;k fljkfeDl ds lkeus]

vfuy LVkpZ jksM] ujksMk jksM]

vgenkckn&380025

2892376

20-06-2014

xaxk okVj

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

63] xaxks=h dkEiySDl] ekulk ds lekus

iSdtM uspqjy feujy okVj½

th vkbZ Mh lh] rk- ekulk]

xka/khuxj&382845

2897790

20-06-2014

Jh fuyksldj iEil

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

263 rFkk 264] 'kqHk baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

lh ,y fo|ky; ds ikl]

dkBokMk flaxjok jksM]

vgenkckn&382430

7536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2892578

22-06-2014

veh feujy okVj

iSdtcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IykV uacj ,&1&163] th vkbZ Mh lh ,LVsV] iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

vadys'oj] ,V xkao vadys'oj] Hkk:p]

vadys'oj&393002

2892679

23-06-2014

,M ykbZQ bathfu;lZ

vksiu oSy lceflZcy iEilSV

14220

1994

ch@6] izdk'k baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

jhVk uxj ds ikl] oL=ky jksM]

vgenkckn&382026

2892982

23-06-2014

ek:fr ikfyelZ

dkaM;wV~l Qkj bySfDVªdy

9537

1983

,@29] xksYMu ikdZ] th vkbZ Mh lh dMh

baLVkys'ku

dyksy jksM ds lkeus]

esglkuk&382715

10-

2893277

30-06-2014

t; ckykth bySfDVªdYl

ih oh lh balwysfVM dscYl

694

1990

'kSM uacj 123] vk'khZokn baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%11]

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa çeq[k

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

Part

Sec

Year

No.

2891677

09.06.2014

Axis Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Explosive atmospheres

IS/IEC

2007

Plot No. 324, Road No. 5,

part 1 equipment

60079

GIDC Kathwada,

protection by flameproof

Ahmedabad-382430

enclosures "d"

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

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

2892275

18.06.2014

Classick Pump

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

3/A, Paresh Estate,

Opp. Soniya Ceramic

Anil Starch Road, Naroda Road,

Ahmedabad-380025

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7537

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

2892679

23.06.2014

Add-Life Engineers

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

B/6, Prakash Ind. Estate,

pumpsets

Nr. Rita Nagar, Vastral Road,

Ahemedabad-382026

2892982

23.06.2014

Maruti Polymers

Conduits for electrical

9537

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

ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3072.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼5½ ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

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

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la-

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y&

3780370

eSllZ fjyk;sal jcj baMLVªht

vkWVkseksfVo foghdyl & V~;wCl QkWj U;weSfVd Vk;lZ

30-06-2014

'kSM uacj lh&1@602] th vkbZ Mh lh lkjhxke]

vkbZ ,l&13098%1991

rk- vacjxke]

fM oylkn&396155

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%13]

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa çeq[k

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

3780370

M/s. Reliance Rubber Industries

Automotive Vehicles - Tubes for

30.06.2014

Shed No. C-1/602. G.I.D.C. Sarigam,

pneumatic Tyres

TA. Umbergam,

IS 13098:1991

Dist. Valsad-396155

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

7538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

'kqf)i=

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3073.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk Hkkjr ds jkti=]

ns[ksa ,l-vks- 1877 bZ] fnukad 19 tqykbZ 2014 ds Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks fofu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½

ds vuqikyu esa Hkkjr ds jkti= vlk/kkj.k] Hkkx II] [kaM 3 ds

mi[kaM ¼ii½ esa izdkf'kr miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx] [kkn~; ,oa

lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky; ds varxZr Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk

esa fuEufyf[kr la'kksèu djrk gS %&&

¼i½ vf/klwpuk dh iafDr 3 esa & ^^ekudksa ds fooj.k] ;fn

dksbZ gksa] tks dkye ¼4½ esa fn, x, g®] tks dkye ¼5½

esa n'kkZbZ xbZ frfFk dks jí fd, tk;saxs**A dks ^^ekudksa ds

fooj.k** ;fn dksbZ gksa] tks pkSFks dkye esa fn, x, g®] dks

Hkh tc rd fd ikWpos dkye esa muds lkeus n'kkZbZ xbZ

frfFk dks jí ugha fd;k tkrk gS] rks os orZeku esa Hkh tkjh

jgsaxs**] ls izfrLFkkfir djsaA

¼ii½ vuqlwph ds dkye ¼5½ esa & ^^30 tuojh 2015** dks

^^19 tqykbZ 2014** ls izfrLFkkfir djsaA

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;kW Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud

Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h;

dk;kZy;ksa ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk

'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa %vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq

miyC/k g®A Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in

}kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ % ETD 16@1 Gen@2014]

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

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 :

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)

'kqf)i=

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3074.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk Hkkjr ds jkti=]

,l-vks- 1175 fnukafdr 15 ekpZ] 2014] }kjk Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

fu;e] 1987] ds Hkkjr ds jkti= ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½

ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqikyu esa Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II] [kaM

3] mi&[kaM ¼ii½ esa izdkf'kr miHkksDrk] [kkn~; ,oa lkoZtfud

forj.k ea=ky; ¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½ ds varxZr Hkkjr ljdkj

dh vf/klwpuk esa fuEufyf[kr la'kksf/kr djrk gS %

vuqlwph ds dkye 5 ds Øekad ¼1½&&^^15 ekpZ 2014** dks

^^15 ebZ 2015** ls izfrLFkkfir djsaA

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;kW Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud

Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h;

dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk

'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq

miyC/k g®A Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in

}kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ % PUB/STD-1]

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

CORRIGENDUM

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)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7539

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2014

dk- vk- 3075.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud ¼dks½ esa la'kksèu fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s g®A

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksfèr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

la'kksèu dh la[;k

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

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

vkSj frfFk

vkbZ ,l 302 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2008

la'kksèu la[;k 3 tqykbZ 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

vkbZ ,l 807 % 2006 ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

vkbZ ,l 1084 % 2005 ¼ikapok iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 2 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

vkbZ ,l 1180 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 1989 ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 2 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

vkbZ ,l 1180 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1989 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

vkbZ ,l 1321 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2003 ¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

vkbZ ,l 1321 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2003 ¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 2 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

vkbZ ,l 1417 % 1999 ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 5 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3009 % 2002 ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 2 tqykbZ 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

10-

vkbZ ,l 4084 % 1978 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 3 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

11-

vkbZ ,l 4558 % 1995 ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

12-

vkbZ ,l 6349 % 1981 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 2 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

13-

vkbZ ,l 8674 % 2013@vkbZ ,l vks

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

1969 % 2004 ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

14-

vkbZ ,l 9308 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 3½ ¼Hkkx 1½

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

% 1987 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

15-

vkbZ ,l 9308 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 3½ ¼Hkkx 2½

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

% 1987 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

16-

vkbZ ,l 9308 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 3½ ¼Hkkx 3½

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

% 1987 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

17-

vkbZ ,l 9308 ¼Hkkx 4½ % 1999

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

18-

vkbZ ,l 12948 % 1990

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

19-

vkbZ ,l 13501 %1992

la'kksèu la[;k 1 flrEcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

20-

vkbZ ,l 14439 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1998

la'kksèu la[;k 3 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

21-

vkbZ ,l 14812 % 2005 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

22-

vkbZ ,l 16176 % 2014

la'kksèu la[;k 1 vDrwcj 2014

28 vDrwcj 2014

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;kW Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh]

7540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k g®A Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk

tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ % PUB/GN&1% 4]

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

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

IS 302 (Part 1) : 2008 Safety of

Amendment No. 3 July 2014

28 October 2014

Household and Similar Electrical

Appliances Part 1 General Requirements

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)

IS 1084 : 2005 Textiles - Manila

Amendment No. 2 October 2014

28 October 2014

Ropes - Specification (Fifth Revision)

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)

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)

IS 1321 (Part 1) : 2003 Sisal Ropes

Amendment No. 1 October 2014

28 October 2014

Part 1 Untarred Varieties (Fourth Revision)

IS 1321 (Part 1) : 2003 Sisal Ropes

Amendment No. 2 October 2014

28 October 2014

Part 1 Untarred Varieties (Fourth Revision)

IS 1417 : 1999 Gold and Gold Alloy,

Amendment No. 5 October 2014

28 October 2014

Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and

Marking - Specification (Third Revision)

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)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7541

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)]

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3076.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Ø- la-

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ tks

jí gksus dh

dh la[;k oœZ vkSj 'khœZd

fd jí gksus gSa] vxj gSa]

frfFk

dh la[;k oœZ vkSj 'khœZd

vkbZ,l 7620 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 1986 fpfdRldh;

26 uoEcj] 2014

fo|qr midj.k Mk;kXuksfLVd ,Dl&js midj.k

Hkkx 1 ;kaf=dh; ,oa fo|qr lqj{kk vis{kk,a

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½ 3 la'kks/ku ds lkFk

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh]

dksydÙkk] p.Mhx<+] psUuS] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;EcÙkwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] iVuk]

iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ % PUB/GN-1/E]

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

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

IS 7620 (Part 1) : 1986 Medical

26 November, 2014

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)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7543

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3077.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ls dks;yk vfHkizkIr gksus

dh laHkkouk gS(

vkSj mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ds {ks= esa varfoZ"V djus okyk js[kkad la[;kad vkjbZoh@10@2014] rkjh[k 07 twu] 2014 dk fujh{k.k

lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx½] njHkaxk gkml] jkaph&834029 ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k egkizca/kd] lsaVªy

dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] vjxìk] ftyk gtkjhckx ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k mik;qDr] ftyk gtkjhckx] >kj[k.M ;k egkçca/kd ¼[kkst

çHkkx½ vkjvkbZ&III] lsaVªy ekbu Iykfuax ,.M fMtkbu bULVhP;wV fyfeVsM] xksanokuk Iysl] dkads jksM] jkaph ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k

dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV dksydkrk&700001] ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k

djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gSA

mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr&&

¼i½

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ {kfr ;k laHkkfor {kfr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds

v/khu fdlh uqdlkuh ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( ;k

¼ii½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu lekIr gks xbZ iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds laca/k esa ;k mDr vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu lekIr gks x, [kuu iV~Vs ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh èkjk

13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa ds laca/k esa mixr O;; dks minf'kZr djus ds fy, mDr Hkwfe

ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVks± vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks lqiqnZ djsxk(

bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] vjxìk] ftyk

gtkjhckx ¼>kj[k.M½ ;k egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx ] njHkaxk gkml] jkaph&834029 ¼>kj[k.M½ dks lqinZ

djsxkA

vuqlwph

pkuks fjdck foo`r ifj;kstuk

ftyk&prjk] >kj[k.M

¼js[kkad la[;kad vkjbZoh@10@2014] rkjh[k 7 ebZ] 2014½

lHkh vf/kdkj

Ø-

xzke

Fkkuk

ftyk

{ks= ,dM+ esa

{ks= gSDVs;j+ esa

fVIif.k;ka

la-

la[;k

¼yxHkx½

[kfi;k

ek.Mw

gtkjhckx

615-32

249-12

Hkkx

dqjk

ek.Mw

gtkjhckx

628-24

254-35

Hkkx

fjdck

ek.Mw

gtkjhckx

433-85

175-65

Hkkx

dudh

ek.Mw

gtkjhckx

50-19

20-32

Hkkx

dqy {ks= % 1727-60 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½+

;k 699-44 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½

lhek o.kZu %

d&[k&x&?k

js[kk] fcUnq ^d* ls vkjEHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke] dqjk] fjdck] [kfi;k vkSj dudh ds Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA

?k&M+&p

js[kk] fcUnq xzke] dudh [kfi;k] ds Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^p* ij feyrh gSA

p&N&t&>

js[kk] fcUnq xzke] [kfi;k] dqjk] fdjck ds Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^>* ij feyrh gSA

>&d

js[kk] fcUnq xzke] [kfi;k] dqjk ds Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjfEHkd fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh gSA

[Qk- la- 43015@9@2014&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

7544

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

District

Area in acres

area in hectares

Remarks

No.

number

(approximately)

Khapia

Mandu

Hazaribagh

615.32

249.12

Part

Kura

Mandu

Hazaribagh

628.24

254.35

Part

Rikba

Mandu

Hazaribagh

433.85

175.65

Part

Kanki

Mandu

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7545

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3078.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 86@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y&22012@105@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 86/2013

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-504231

....Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Nil

For the Respondent:

Nil

AWARD

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

"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.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3079.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 42@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y&22012@8@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

7546

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated : The 9th September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 42/2013

Between:

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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Party in person

For the Respondent:

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

Vijaya Laxmi P., Advocates

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 :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri

Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating

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.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3080.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 28@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y&22012@244@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7547

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 28/2013

Between:

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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Party in person

For the Respondent:

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

Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri,

Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/244/2012-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 :

SCHEDULE

"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.

2. Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

3. At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim

statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving

fair opportunity, Petitioner is not taking interest in the

proceedings and is not making any claim. In the

circumstances, taking that petitioner got no claim to be

made, 'Nil' Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3081.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 80@2012½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@200@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

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)]

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 13th August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 80/2012

Between:

The President,

(Bhandari Satyanarayana)

Telengana Trade Union Council (TNTUC)

H.No. 5-295, Indiranagar,

Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,

Adilabad-504208

.... Petitioner

7548

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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Party in person

For the Respondent:

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

Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri,

Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/200/2012-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 :

SCHEDULE

"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.

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3082.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 79@2012½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@201@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

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.

[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

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,

Presiding Officer

Dated : the 13th day of August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 79/2012

Between:

The President,

(Bhandari Satyanarayana)

Telengana Trade Union Council (TNTUC)

H.No. 5-295, Indiranagar,

Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,

Adilabad-504208

.... Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur,

Adilabad District-504303

....Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Party in person

For the Respondent:

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

Vjaya Laxmi P., Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/201/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 30/11/2012

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

SCHEDULE

"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

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3083.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 37@2012½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@101@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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,

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-22012/101/2012-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

The 9th day of September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 37/2012

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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Party in person.

For the Respondent:

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

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

"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.

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3084.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 36@2012½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@99@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,

Presiding Officer

The 9th day of September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 36/2012

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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Party in person.

For the Respondent:

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

Vjaya Laxmi Panguluri,

Advocates

AWARD

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

"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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7551

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3085.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 35@2012½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y&22012@98@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,

Presiding Officer

The 9th day of September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 35/2012

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,

Adilabad District-504292

....Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Party in person.

For the Respondent:

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

Vjaya Laxmi Panguluri,

Advocates

AWARD

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

"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

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

7552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3086.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 34@2012½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y&22012@103@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi,

Presiding Officer

The 9th day of September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 34/2012

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,

Adilabad District-504292

....Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Party in person.

For the Respondent:

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

Vjaya Laxmi Panguluri,

Advocates

AWARD

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

"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

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3087.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 4@2012½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@155@2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 12th November 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2012

(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)

BETWEEN

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

Appearance:

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

Union

Advocates

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

Advocate

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.

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.

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.

4. For the foregoing reasons, the reference is answered

against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Part/Petitioner Union

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

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3088.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- lh- lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 19@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@180@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 16th September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 19/2012

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.,

Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad

District-504231.

....Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Party in person

For the Respondent:

Party in person

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,

SCHEDULE

"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?"

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.

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.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3089.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-,l-ch-

ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; u0 2] /kUckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

47@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 42012@80@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

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.

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

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 regular

7556

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.

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.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3090.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 10@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@164@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 10/2014

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,

Adilabad District-504292.

….Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

NIL

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/164/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 9/12/2013

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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,

SCHEDULE

"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 ?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.

10/2014 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.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3091.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 9@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@163@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

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

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. 9/2014

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.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231

Adilabad District

….Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

NIL

AWARD

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

"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)]

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.

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3092.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 7@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@166@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

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 :

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

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

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

"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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3093.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj,l- lh- lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 8@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@167@2013&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

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. 8/2014

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,

Adilabad District-504292.

….Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

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

"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.

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

7560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3094.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@169@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

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. 5/2014

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

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

NIL

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/169/2013-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

"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.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3095.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 6@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@168@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

S.O. 3095.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

ANNEXURE

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. 6/2014

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

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

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.

SCHEDULE

"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 ?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.

6/2014 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.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3096.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 4@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@162@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

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)]

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 7th day of August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2014

BETWEEN

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

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

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.

SCHEDULE

"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.

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.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3097.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

150@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@24@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

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.

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

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT: SRI PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 150 OF 1999

PARTIES: The management of Nimcha Colliery, Satgram

Coalfields Ltd., ECL.

Vs.

Sri Sitaram Nonia

REPRESENTATIVES :

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

Dated : 11.11.2014

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-

22012/24/99/IR(CM-II) dated 31.08.1999 / 08.09.1999 has

been pleased to refer the following dispute for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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?"

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.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute

existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3098.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@158@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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,

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

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

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

Party in person

For the Respondent :

Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

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

"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)]

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3099.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@161@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

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. 2/2014

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

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

Party in person

For the Respondent :

Sri V. S. V. S. R. K. S.

Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

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

"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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7565

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3100.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@156@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 16th day of September, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 1/2014

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.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri

Adilabad District-504231.

….Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

Party in person

For the Respondent :

Party in person

AWARD

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

"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.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3101.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- lh- lh- ,y-

7566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

105@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@160@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

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. 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

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

Party in person

For the Respondent :

Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad,

Advocate

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

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"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.

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3102.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

103@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012@157@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

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. 103/2013

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

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

Party in person

For the Respondent :

Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad,

Advocate

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,

SCHEDULE

"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 ?"

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.

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3103.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

102@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012@150@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

7568

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. 102/2013

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

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

Party in person

For the Respondent :

Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad,

Advocate

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,

SCHEDULE

"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?"

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.

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3104.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

16@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@187@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

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)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 16 of 2005

PARTIES : The management of Lacchipur Colliery under

Kajora Area, ECL

Vs.

Late Ramnath Mahato

REPRESENTATIVES :

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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 'Khand

7570

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))."

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

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7571

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3105.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- lh- lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 95@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@104@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

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. 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

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/104/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 3/9/2013

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

"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.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3106.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

42@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@141@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

7572

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

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

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

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.

SCHEDULE

'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?'

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

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

Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no

dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for

information and needful. The reference is accordingly

disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3107.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

27@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@317@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2014

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 27 OF 2001

PARTIES :

The management of Jambad Colliery under

Kajora Area, ECL

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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.

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.

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 employee

7574

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7575

the workman concerned will be entitled to get only 20%

of the back wages.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

information and needful. The reference is accordingly

disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3108.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lqjxqtk {ks=h;

xzkehu cSad izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼325@99½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@23@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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

AWARD

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

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?"

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 paid

7576

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.

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

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7577

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3109.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e?; jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 252@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&41011@22@89& Mh&2 ¼ch½&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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

President,

Rashtriya Chaturth Rail Mazdoor Congress,

Central Office, 2/236,

Agra

.....Workman/Union

Versus

Assistant Engineer,

Central Railway,

Agra

.....Management

AWARD

(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 party

7578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

REASONS

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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.

(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

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

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3110.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

c®d ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd

vfèdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 100@99½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12012@334@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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

(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 Notification

7580

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?

"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?

(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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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.

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.

(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

ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3111.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 1947 dk

14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ ,u th oS';

c®d fy- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2006½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2014 izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@234@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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:

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

---Petitioner

7582

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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:

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.

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:

I. Whether the action of Management of M/s. ING

Vysya Bank Ltd., Hyderabad in dismissing Sri J. Anand

7584

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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 arrived

7586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

WW1: Sri J. Anand Gupta

MW1: Sri T.S. Krishna

Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

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

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3112.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj /kuy{keh cSad

fy- ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

24@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@11@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@11@ 2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7587

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014

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.

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?"

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.

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 as

7588

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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.

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

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

Appointment letter No.DLB/HR/610004 dated

04.06.2010 issued by the Senior Vice President-

HR, Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd., Thrissur to the

workman

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

Copy of Exit Management Process

Copy of letter dated 08.10.2010 addressed to

the Assistant Central Labour Commissioner,

Kakkanad, Ernakulam by the workman

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

Copy of the Minutes of Conciliation

Proceedings held on 29.12.2010 with the

management bank and the workman

Exhibits for the management

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

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 workman

7590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

Copy of the e-mail communication dated

14.09.2010 from Shri Sreekanth T V to Shri

Jimmy Dominic

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

Copy of the e-mail communication dated

21.08.2010 from Shri Jimmy Dominic to the

workman

Copy of the the e-mail communication dated

21.08.2010 from the workman to Shri Jimmy

Dominic

Copy of the e-mail communication dated

21.08.2010 from Shri Jimmy Dominic to the

workman and another

Copy of the e-mail communication dated

14.08.2010 from Shri Jimmy Dominic to the

workman

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

ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3113.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZvkjlhVhlh

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k

dksydrk ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼64@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@11@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@46@ 2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 64 of 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

IRCTC, Regional Office

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

….Presiding Officer

Appearance:

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7591

ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3114.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phdekxyj

dksMkxq xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

78@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@11@2014

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@70@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2014

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)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Sri S Lokesh Kumar,

The Chairman,

S/o Sri N Swamy Gowda, Chikmagalur Kodagu

No. 18/71, Sudarshan

Grameena Bank,

Extension,

P B No. 111, I G Road,

MADIKERE - 571 201.

CHICKMAGALUR - 577 101.

Appearances

I Party

Shri D P Prasanna

Advocate

II Party

Shri N Srinivasa Rao

Advocate

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:

SCHEDULE

"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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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."

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

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.

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?

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7593

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.

REASONS

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

ORDER

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.

(Typed to my dictation by U D C, corrected and

signed by me on 17th November 2014)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE - I

Witnesses examined on behalf of II Party:

MW 1 - Chandrakanth Nayak, Enquiry Officer

Witnesses examined on behalf of I Party:

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

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

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

Ex M-14

Letter dated 30.12.1997 from Manager,

madikeri Branch

Ex M-15

Copy of the folio Nos. 142, 143, 144 and

145 of Register of Cheques and drafts

received for collection at Madikeri Branch

7594

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-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

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

Ex M-29

Photostat copy of SB Account opening

form and SB specimen signature card of

Account No. 2849

Ex M-30

Letter dated 20.03.1998 submitted by Sri

D A Ramachandra Murthy, Officer,

Inspection Department

Ex M-31

Cash Credit Challan No. 203210 dated

20.02.1998 for credit of SB Account No.

2849 in the name of Sri J Ravi at Madikeri

Branch

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 :

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3115.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ ,u th

oS'; cSad fy- ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2007½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12012@156@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED

10th November, 2014

PRESENT

Shri S N NAVALGUND,

Presiding Officer

C R No. 01/2007

I Party

II Party

Shri M A Suryanarayana

The Vice President,

Shastry, S/o M S

ING Vysya Bank Limted,

Anatharama Shastry,

22, M G Road,

"Sree Rama Krupa",

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

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

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?"

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 following

7596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

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

ORDER

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

ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3116.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSd ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 04@2003½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@182@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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,

Regional Zonal Office,

M. G. Road Branch,

No. 48, Church Street,

Bangalore - 560 001.

Appearances :

I Party

Shri Muralidhara

Advocate

II Party

Shri J. Satish Kumar,

Advocate

AWARD

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:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of State Bank of India

is justified by imposing the punishment of reduction

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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 and

7598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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.

REASONS

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7599

ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3117.—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

gsoh bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds çca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 62@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@31@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

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)

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

AWARD

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.

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.

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:

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

Nil

7600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

'kqf)&i=

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3118.—dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy ¼i- caxky½ }kjk ikfjr lanHkZ la[;k

88@2000] fnukad 05-08-2014 dk Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk 12-

09-2014 dks vf/klwfpr fd, x, iapkV dks mDr vfèkdj.k

ls izkIr lanHkZ la[;k 88@vkbZ- Vh- lh- ¼2000½] fnukad 29-

10-2014 ds 'kqf)i= ds lkFk layXu fd;k tkrk gSA

[la- ,y&22012@88@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANYAPUR, ASANSOL

Ref. No. 88/ITC(2000)

Date : the 29th October, 2014

Ref: Ministry's order No. L-22012/88/2000-IR(CM-II)

This office Ref. No. 88/2000 (a copy of award

enclosed)

SCHEDULE

"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

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.

Now the 2nd para of last page of the award will be

read as :—

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

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

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

'kqf)&i=

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3119.—dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy ¼i- caxky½ }kjk ikfjr lanHkZ la[;k

129@2005] fnukad 02-07-2013 dk Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk

13-08-2013 dks vf/klwfpr fd, x, iapkV dks mDr vfèkdj.k

ls izkIr lanHkZ la[;k 129@vkbZ- Vh- lh- ¼2005½] fnukad

02-09-2014 ds 'kqf)i= ds lkFk layXu fd;k tkrk gSA

[la- ,y&22012@40@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

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.

[No. L-22012/40/2005-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Ref. No. 129/ITC(2005)

Date : the 2nd September, 2014

Ref: Ministry's order No. L-22012/40/2005-IR(CM-II)

This office Ref. No. 129/2005 (a copy of award

enclosed)

SCHEDULE

"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?"

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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"

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.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information

and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3120.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dikl

çkS|ksfxdh ij vuqla/kku ds fy, lsaVªy baLVhV~;wV ds izcaèkra=

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh&2@25 vkWQ 2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@302@2010&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/25 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

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

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?"

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

7602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether the action of first party in

terminating the services of the

second party is legal and proper?

If not, whether the second

party is entitled to be reinstated

in service with full back wages?

What relief the workman is

Compensation

entitled to?

of Rs. 96,000

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. 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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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."

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:

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3121.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jk"Vªh;

lqj{kk ifj"kn~ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 2]

eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh&2@55 vkWQ

2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

01@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@54@2010&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

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

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.

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

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;

"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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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

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

(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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3122.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dikl

çkS|ksfxdh ij vuqla/kku ds fy, lsaVªy baLVhV~;wV ds izcaèkra=

7606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh&2@29 vkWQ 2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@301@2010&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

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

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Mr. Suresh Kumar,

Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN

: Mr. M. B. Anchan,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 7th October, 2014.

AWARD

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?"

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

Whether the action of first party

in terminating the services of the

second party is legal and proper?

If not, whether the second

party is entitled to be reinstated

in service with full back wages?

What relief the workman is

Compensation

entitled to?

of Rs. 96,000

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.

Neither workman was served with notice nor notice pay

and one month's wages and retrenchment compensation

was paid to her.

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

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."

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:

7608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(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:

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3123.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsUnzh; fo|kky; laxBu vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2007½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@11@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@37@2007&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

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

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:

The Asstt. Commissioner,

Kendriya Vidyalan Sangathan,

Regional Office,

Pragati Vihar Colony,

PO-Mancheswar,

Bhubaneswar-751 017,

Odisha

The Principal,

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3,

PO-Mancheswar,

Bhubaneswar-751 017,

Odisha

…1st Party-Management

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:

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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)]

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 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.

Issue No. 2

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

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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.

Issue No. 3.

In view of the above remarks, it is ordered that the

Management No. 2 (Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3,

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3124.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

ch- lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1]

èkuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58 dk 2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@115@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda

Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

7612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri U. N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, 10th November, 2014

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 :

SCHEDULE

"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?"

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3125.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

ch- lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1]

/kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 115 dk 1992½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@342@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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. 115 of 1992

Employer in relation to the management of Sendra

Bansjora Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, 10th November, 2014

AWARD

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

"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?"

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3126.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 102 dk 1992½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@1@1992&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

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. 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

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

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:

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?"

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3127.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-

lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1]

/kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 30 dk 2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@130@2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

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

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. 30 of 2012

Employers in relation to the management of

Govindpur Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

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

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?"

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.

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.

4. There is no illegality found from the submission

of management and belated claim regarding date of Birth

is not also accepted.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3128.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

ch- lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1]

/kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 92 dk 1992½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@348@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 92 of 1992

Employer in relation to the management of

Angarpathra Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 12th November, 2014

AWARD

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

"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?"

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7615

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3129.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

ch- lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1]

/kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 86 dk 1992½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@336@1991&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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. 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

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri U. N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 12th November, 2014

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:

SCHEDULE

"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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3130.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

ch- lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1]

èkuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 161 dk 1990½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@334@1989&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D.

Act, 1947.

Ref. No. 161 of 1990

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 Officer

7616

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

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:

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3131.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 97 dk 1992½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@360@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

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

Employer in relation to the management of Nirsa Area,

M/s. ECL,\

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT : Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 7th November, 2014

AWARD

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

"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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7617

presumed that the disputes between parties have been

resolved in the meantime. Hence, No dispute Award is

passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3132.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 225 dk 1994½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@188@1994&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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

Ref. No. 225 of 1994

Employer in relation to the management of Karo

Project, M/s. CCL,

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 5th November, 2014

AWARD

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:

SCHEDULE

"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?"

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3133.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 98 dk 1992½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@414@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

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)]

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. 98 of 1992

Employer in relation to the management of Bodjna

Calliery, M/s. ECL,

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 5th November, 2014

7618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

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:

SCHEDULE

"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?"

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3134.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

ch- lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1]

èkuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49 dk 2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@29@2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 49 of 2011

Employer in relation to the management of Bassuria

Calliery Kusunda Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman :Shri R.R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 24th October, 2014

AWARD

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

"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.

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.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7619

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3135.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

ch- lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1]

èkuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15 dk 2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@93@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 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

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : Shri D. Kumar, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 27th October, 2014

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

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

"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.

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.

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."

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.

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 Officer

7620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3136-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@1992) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@258@1989&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

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

Employer in relation to the management of

Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri D.Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 3/11/2014

AWARD

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

“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.

Sri Modi Bhuiya

Late Latlu Bhuiya

Kharsari

Shivsona

Jamui

Munger

Sri Nivash Ray;

Shri Muktinay Ray

Housing colony Hirapur Dhanbad

Dhanbad

Sri Chhtri Yadav

Riphan Yadav

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

Sri Shiv Narayan Yadav

Tilu Yadav

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

Prem Yadav

Tilu Yadav

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

Sri Panchu Yadav

Balo Yadav

Lakdahi

Padvara

Guruaa

Gaya

Sri Ram Prasad Ravani

Domdi Rawani

Makhdumpur (Darar)

Navinagar Road

Navinagar

Aurangabad

Sri Muni Ravani

Domdi Rawani

Makhdumpur (Darar)

Navinagar Road

Navinagar

Aurangabad

Sri Shumbhu Thakur

Harkheet Thakur

Maneedhar

Dhanbad

Govind Hemram

Ishvar Hemram

Kohagora

Bhendara

Navadeeh

Girideh

Smt Chameli Kamin

Kishor Bhuiya

Ganeshdih

Kusunda

Kenduadih

Dhanbad

Sri Ashray Ansari

Usak Ansar

Aina Colliery

Dhansar

Jhariya

Dhanbad

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7621

Sri Ashphak Ansari

Usak Ansar

Aina colliery

Dhansar

Jhariya

Dhanbad

Sri Yogendra Ram

Gulab Ram

Piro Vigha

Sikandarpur

Jhahanabad

Gaya

Sri Shiv Narayan Ravidash Madho Ravidash

Sherpur

Guruaa

Gaya

Sri Nandu Vishkarma

Karu Mistri

Kaura

Partapur

Hazaribag.

Sri Ragnath Vishkarma

Rambaran Mistri

Jamuara

Bake Bazar

Gaya

Smt Tule Devi

Banshi Chauhan

Matapa

Kutumba

Aurangabad

Sri Vrijnandan Prasad

Tiloki Ram

Pipra

Sighrava

Chaupas

Hajaribag

Sri Kailash Paswan

Sarguy Paswan

Nauna

Nalanda

Sri Kamti Kamin

Bhagwat Nanniya

Simrdhamni

Chanpur

Mali,

Aurangabad

Shantu Kamin

Ram Prasad Chauhan

Barba

Kari Mandih

Sd-

Plamu

Shresh Pasvan

Kamaldev Pasvan

Sherpur

Gurua

Gaya

Ydu Saw

Bhuneshwar Saw

Gerud

Gurua

Gaya

Indrav Saw

Prameshwar Saw

Kasim

Raphigang

Aurangabad

Sahadev Saw

Rameshwar. Saw

Phatehpur

Jmuaa Kla

Gaya

Bhulendra Paswan

Shibu Paswan

Brare

Mananpur

Lkhisray

Munger

Praja Paswan

Karu Paswan

Yanaradh

Chanan

Bela

Gaya

Bijay Paswan

Masudi Paswan

Sankurha

Amarth

Jmui

Munger

Md. Liyakt

Md. Rahmali

Pakrikla

Dhashrathpur

Surynama

Varansi

Kari Kamin

Lakhpti Bhuiya

Brarikop

Kendua

Kedua

Dhanbad

Viphan Yadav

Ajit Madav

Mayapur

Navadih

Hantergang

Hajaribag

‘Kripan Prasad

Jhagnu Prajapat

Navadih

Tilaiya

Aamas

Gaya

Shri Dharmdev Prasad.

Koim Yadav

Lakradho

Paduhara

Gurua

Gaya

Shri Rajkumar Prajapti

Jsheshwar Prajapti

Sherpur

Gurua

Gaya

Kameshwari Kamin

Ramchandra Chauhan

Budhan Bihga

Aamas

Aurangabad

Dineshwar Mahato

Mahendra Mahato

Bhuli Basti

Bhuli

Bankmor

Dhanbad

Karu Mahato

Dular Mahato

Sherpur

Gurua

Gaya

Lal bag Ram

Dhwarika Ram

Balba

Karai

Sarmera

Nalanda

Indradev Ram

Ganesh Ram

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

Keshwar. Ram

Sudheshwar Ram

Lahari

Makhra

Barun

Aurangabad

Yashoda Kamin

Nakul Nonida

Barma

Prariya

Gaya

Raju Bhuiya

Tulsi Bhuiya

Agahra

Jamui

Munger

Rajendra Ram

Ishwar. Prasad.

Sherpur

Gurua

Gaya

Mansur Ansari

Karim Mastan

Pratappur

Jamui

Munger

Nasir Ansari

Mo Gulam Raghul

Mungo

Gunardih

Navadih

Tiveni Paswan

Raghu Nandan Padwanb

Magrama

Baliya

Gaya

Kendu Prasad

Ramlal Prasad

Thakur Bari

Sariya

Griridih

Sakhichand Chaudhri

Bhdhu Chaudhri

Mamapur

Navadihpnari

Hantergang.

Hazanbagh

Rampati Chaudhri

Budhu Chaudhri

Pirma

Baliya

Gurua

Gaya

Guru Charan Chaudhri

Sarena Chaudhri

Parsama

Bake Bazar

Gaya

Gulab Chand Chaudhri

Phovari Choudhri

Ghira

Halsi

Munger

Suneshwar Chaudhri

Doman Chaudhri

Kusbha Basdiha

Pariya

Kuvumba

Aurangabad

Daroga Bhuiya

Mithu Bhuiya

Chandmari Colliery

Dhansar

Haso Paswan

Sukhdev Paswan

Chandmari Colliery

Dhansar

Ghanshyam Ram

Baijnath Ram

Nasib Bigra

Kasibpur

Barun

Aurangabad

Shambu Prasad.

Birbal Prasad.

Jhikriya

Madanpur

Aurangabad

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)]

Debmuni Prasad Rawani

Sarphra Prasad Ravani

Nsib Bigha

Kasipur

Barun

Aurangabad

Gauri Shankar Prasad

Phirangi Prasad

Nasib Bigha

Kasipur

Barun

Aurangabad

Dhuarika Prasad yadav

Pokhan Yadav

Chotki Sriya

Sriya

Griridih

Ganesh Prasad Rawani

Domari Prasad Rawani

Makhdumpur

Nvinagar Road.

Nvinagar

Aurangabad

Ram Bijay Kumar.

Nageshwar. Prasad.

Samsher Nagar

Dheu Nagar

Aurangabad

Indrajeet Singh

Jaynath Singh

Samsher Nagar

Smsher Nagar

Daud Nagar

Aurangabad

Surendra Singh

Ram Prasad Singh

Hasanpur

Sd-

Aobra

Aurangabad

Shivnarayan Singh

Bisheshwar. Singh

Hasanpur

Sonwarsa

Aobra

Aurangabad

Ramshish Kumar

Jaydish Mahato

Chan Mruni

Sariya

Giridhih

Surendra Singh

Balgovind Singh

Sam sair Nagar

Sariya

Aobra

Aurangabad

Braj Prasad Malakar

Motialal Malalkar

Chand Mourni

Sariya

Giridhih

Shankar Prasad Malakar

Motialal Malalkar

Chand Mourni

Sariya

Giridhih

Buneshwar Noniya

Ramdev Noniya

Chaunokhar

Bara

Navinagar

Aurangabad

Kuldeep Noniya

Ramvilas Noniya

Sd-

Balai

Navinagar

Aurangabad

Jeetendra Chauhan

Ramkhelavan Chauhan

Barki Bodhai

Phokhraha

Aurangabad.

Aurangabad

Tpeshwar Beldar

Mandal Beldar

Ratnuaa

Phopra Bgahi

Kutumba

Aurangabad

Phagu Noniya

Nageshwar Noniya

Leduka

Kutma

Sd-

Plamu

Tetri Beldaron

Ramji Beldar

Godhar

Kusunda

Kusssunda

Dhanbad

Baleshwar Chauhan

Ram Bilat Chauhan

Kharonda

Belhari

Majhiyama

Plamu

Rajendra Noniya

Jagdeesh Noniya

Kasturi Chanokar

Poldih

Japla

Plamu

Raj Kumar Chauhan

Bilash Chauchan

Sd-

Prairiya

Sd-

Aurangabad

Indradev Ram

Chaman Ram

Makhadumpur

Navinagar Road

Aurangabad

Mahendra Naniya

Jaymangal Noniya

Prajpur

Baliya

Kutumba

Aurangabad

Tpeshwar. Chauhan

RamdasChauhan

Makdupur Braj

Nvinagar

Aurangabad

Ramchandra chauhan

Ramlita Chauhan

Simridhmni

Chainpur

Mali

Aurangabad

Raj kumar. Noniya

Jaymangal Noniya

Poraspur

Baliya

Kutumba

Aurangabad

Kanti Kamin

Devent Naniya

Simridhomni

Chainpur

Mali

Aurangabad

Jay Prakash Kumar

Shri Ramavtar Kumar

Sonvarsha

Bihpur

Bhagalpur

Sunil Kumar.

Shri Ramavtar Kumar

Sonvarsha

Bihpur

Bhagalpur

Bipin Kumar.

Shri Ramdev Saw

Barajiktika

Primari

Karpit

Gaya

Ram Prakash Ray

Kamdev Ram

Sd-

Suresh Prasad.

Madho Prasad Ravidas

Sherpur

Gurua

Gaya

Nvin Kumar

Shri Ram Lakhan Kumar. Sonvarsha

Sonversha

Bihpur

Bhagalpur

Sakil Ahmad

Sd-

Dhanbad

Ram Prevesh Dusad.

Lochi Dusad

Drar

Navinagar

Aurangabad

Barti Beldarin

Mhendra Beldarin

Noniya Bigha Drua

Sd-

Japla

Plamu

Laldev Chauhan

Mahavir Chauhan

Bilaspur

Tarva

Navinagar

Aurgabad

Lakhan Chauhan

Ramchandra Chauhan

Knouda

Haidharnagar

Palmu

Ramjeet Chauhan

Besar Chaudhri

Ghira

Sd-

Naresh Chauhan

Ramkaran Chauhan

Chamlpur

Phag

Gauh

Aurangabad

Sikendra Dadhi

Kririt Dadhi

Bholva

Barki Bholba

Sarmera

Nalanda

100

Bihari Beldar

Bukhun Beldar

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7623

105

Sampat Biskarma

Mahabir Bishvkarma

Itar

Timura

Raphigamg

Aurangabad

106

Ramchandar Prasad

Shiv Prasad.

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

Dhanbad

110

Krishna Mahato

Devnath Mahato

Jabalpur

Shamve

Barsligang

Navada

111

Lakshaman Buiya

Klesar Buiya

Bramchak

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

Gaya

115

Jalim Bhuiya

Manlu Bhuiya

Bramchak

Aams

Gaya

116

Sundri Kamin

Lalan Chauhan

Batrwa

Karimandih

Mohangang

Plamu

117

Binod Chauhan

Chanari Chauhan

Chain Bigta

Rnor

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

Gaya

123

Dharmraj Ram

Ganpat Ram

Sherpur

Gurua

Gaya

124

Damadhar Ram

Tilu Ram

Sd-

Aamas

Gaya

125

Reshmi Kamin

Ramchandra Chauchan

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

Giridih

130

Harihar Mandal

Ramlal Mandal

Thakur Tala

Sariya

Giridih

131

Ram Kishun Mandal

Gopnath Mandal

Kushari

Kusavari

Sariya

Giridih

132

Umesh Mandal

Jaynath Mandal

Keswori

Sariya

Giridih

133

Shri Sahadev Mandal

Lochand

Chotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

134

Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh

Ram Prasad Singh

Hasanpura

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

Giridih

138

Shri Bijay Mandal

Shukar Mandal

Chotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

139

Maldev Turi

Madhu Turi

Chandanan Colliery

Dhansar

Dhanbad

140

Shri Somar Paswan

Lakhan Paswan

Chandmari Colliery

Dhansar

Dhanbad

141

Shri Gurupad. Rawani

Mdhu Rawani

Chandmanri Colliery

Dhansar

Dhambad

142

Shri Dhanu Turi

Rama Turi

Chandmari Colliery

Dhansar

Dhanbad

143

Shri Ranchu Yadav

Mukund Yadav

Chandmari Colliery

Dhansar

Dhanbad

144

Shri Sipahi Singh Yadav

Bangali Singh Yadav

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

Halsi

Munger

148

Shri Mangal Bhuiya

Mohan Bhuiya

Ghira

Halsi

Munger

149

Aanand Hajra

Madan Hajra

Sd-

Dhanbad.

150

Shri Tulsi Umar

Nathun Ravidas

Bhudhal

Rphigang

Aurangabad

7624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

151

Champa Devi

Churka Bhuiya

Kusunda Colliery

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

Dhanbad

155

Shri Kuldeep Singh

Munarika Singh

Nadho

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

Dhanbad

158

Shri Lakshman Singh

Chabu Singh

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

Madanpur

Aurangabad

165

Satnarayan Pd. Rawani

Sita ram Pd. Rawani

Surjan Vigadh

Nanmateeya

Navinagar

Aurangabad

166

Shri Prabhu Bhuiya

Mangar Bhuiya

Banda

Phetahpur

Gaya

167

Shri Ramdev Pd.

Ramprasad

Kandeeh-4

Bas jora

Loyabad

Dhanbad

168

Tilak Pd.

Munarik Noniya

Kandeeh

Sd-

Palamu

169

Dhwarika Singh

Bhuledhar Singh

Hajaribag Road Station

Sariya

Giridih

170

Ramjatan Chaudhri

Sardar Chaudhri

Kusbhabasdeeha

Pariya

Kutumba

Aurangabad

171

Puni pasi

Jagdhri Pasi

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

Mali

Aurangabad

175

Indradev Ram

Ramchndra Ram

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

179

Ramdukar Prasad.

Kamdev Pd.

Bariya

Mali

Aurangabad

180

Upendra Ram

Ramprasad. Ram

Karmari

Gosaidih

Nvinagar

Aurangabad

181

Shankar Mandal

Ramlal Mandal

Thakur Bari

Sanya

Giridih

182

Koshal Kishor Ray

Maksudan Ray

Balvakabhari

Baskupi

Madhupur

Dumka

183

Ram Naresh Bhagat

Mahavir Bhagat

Bairiya

Mali

Aurangabad

184

Dev Kumar

Kamdev Kumar

Bairiya

Mali

Aurangabad

185

Ramadhar Ram

Shivnarayan

Sairpur

Gurua

Gaya

186

Mulendar Pd.

Modho Pd.

Dhambad

Dhanbad

187

Sahdev Paswan

Doman Paswan

Pathra

Sd-

Makhdumpur

Jhanabad

188

Karu Mahto

Modho Mahto

Dhanbad

189

Nepali Ram

Sakhora Ram

Kanchan pur

Kashipur

Barum

Aurangabad

190

Dharmraj Ram

Shiv Narayan Ram

Shairpur

Gura

Gaya

191

Sushila Devi

Sudama Chauhan

Kastunri Chankar

Poldih

Japla

Plamu

192

Umesh Hansda

Hemraj Hasda

Bhuli Basti

Bankmor

Dhanbad

195

Laldev Ram

Chaman Ram

Makhdumpur

Navin Nagar

Aurangabad

196

Mandeep Prasad

IndradevGurua

Dagbar

Kutumba

Aurangabad

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7625

197

Sarita Devi

Indrav Nonia

KusumaBasdiha

Badriya

Kutumba

Aurangabad

198

Viphan Noniya

Bigan Noniya

Victry Colliery

Dhansar

Dhanbad

199

Savitri Devi

Prakash Chauhan

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

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

Gaya

207

Khopri Bhuiya

Chalitru Bhuiya

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

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

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.

Aurangabad

219

Tpeshwar Bhuiya

Mna Bhuiya

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

Munger

223

Baleshwar Bhuiya

Lat Bhuiya

Khadsar

Shivsona

Jamui

Munger

224

Rajendra Bhaiya

Karu Bhaiya

Gushan Gang

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

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

Navada

233

Bhuneshwar Kumar

Dhashai Ram

Atithi

Sd-

Rohtash

234

Rampti Chauchan

Dukhan Chauchan

Chunahata

Nauiata

Rohtash

235

Bhulel Chauchan

Vukhan Chauhan

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

Aurangabad

240

Jaykant Prasad

Kardhani Mandal

Kusumdiha

Prariya

Simra

Aurangabad

241

Saryug Beldar

Charitri Beldar

Dhanbad

Dhanbad.

Dhanbad

242

Shyam Sundar Paswan

Modi Paswan

Dhanbad

7626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

243

Kailash Paswan

Lakhan Paswan

Dhanbad.

Dhanbad

244

Shiv Kumar Paswan

Sd-

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

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

Gaya

252

Ajay Ram

Ram Pravesh Ram

Chauram

Dhaunagar

Aurangabad

253

Bijay Prasad.

Titai Prasad

Maryanri(Mokhra)

Maryanri(mokhra) Barun

Aurangabad

254

Doman Bouri

Modhubauri

Dhanbad

255

Suresh Mandal

Nirmal Mandal

Chtki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

256

Saryug Mhato

Prameshwar Mahto

Manitad

Dhanbad

Giridih

257

Laljeet Paswan

Videshi Paswan

Dhansar

Hisua

Navada

258

Amir Paswan

Bideshi Paswan

Dhansar

Hisua

Navada

259

Munilal Chauhan

Ramwat Chauhan

Chamalpura

Phay

Ghoh

Aurangabad

260

Bhagwati Rajvansi

Bijay Rajwansi

Sd.

Dhanbad

261

Rambali Prasad

Judagir Prasad

Tara

Dhaudnagar

Aurangabad

262

Mahendra Kr. Saw

Baijnath Saw

Kalhua

Bandri Bagar

Sd-

263

Bhagwan Thakur,

Gomni Thakur

Sjajan

Beni

Japla

Plamu

264

Bnarso Prasad.

Jamuna Ray.

Chapra Shalanpur

Sd-

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

Dhanbad

268

Mithilesh Kumar

Radheshyam

Mhuyari

Makhra

Barun

Aurangabad

269

Sohan Saw

Jhodhan Saw

Kaladara

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

Dhanbad.

278

Sarjug Noniya

Guruyan Noniya

Raghu Bighha

Simra

Nvinagar

Aurangabad

279

Panchu Saw

Saryu Saw

Sd-

Dev

Aurangabad

280

Munarik Saw

Harihar Saw

Sd-

Kusunda

Kenduadih

Dhanbad

281

Bangali Singh

Banbari Singh

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

282

Aanand Singh

Bhagirath Singh

Khaira Mnoram

Chiraila

Kasma

Aurangabad

283

Bhismbhar Bhagat

Bhimal Bhagat

Chandmari Colliery

Dhansar

Dhanbad

284

Bijay Paswan

Devi Paswan

Chandmari Colliery

Dhansar

Dhanbad

285

Ramjanm Ram

Chandra Ram

Jain Bihga

Rona

Rophigang

Aurangabad

286

Ravindra Yadav

Bhagwat Yadav

Jhajha

Jhaja

Munger

287

Anurdh Noniya

Modi Noniya

Akbarpur

Bad

Sd-

288

Munna Khaira

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7627

289

Lakhan Noniya

Nankuh Noniya

Devipur

Bailiya

Chunhora

Sd-

290

Ramshiv Pasi

Ramkhelawan Pasi

Gaura

Bigna

Sd-

291

Rasulal Gaudh

Ramchapit Godh

Kusunda

Kenduadih

Dhanbad

292

Dhaneshwar Noniya

Kodil Noniya

Kusma Basliha

Prariya

Simra

Aurangabad

293

Munna Noniya

Sundar Noniya

Sona

Haidarnagar

Plamu

294

Surendra Mahto

Kishun Mahto

Manitand

Dhanbad

295

Kpil Noniya

Magru Noniya

Kusma Basdiha

Prariya

Kutumba

Aurangabad

296

Kabutri Devi

Nashiv Chauhan

Kanauda

Haidarnagar

Plamu

297

Pravesh Ram

Mahjar Ram

Khori

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

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

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

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

Aurangabad

324

R.B. Rajak

Prameshwar. Rojak

Gobindpur

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

Aurangabad

7628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

335

Prakash Chauhan

Late Vriksh Chauhan

Budhva Baryama

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

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

Aurangabad

342

Mithitesh Kumar Singh

Dharam Singh

Chotki 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

Hazaribagh

347

Kova Chauhan

Munarik Chauhan

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

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

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

Aurangabad

362

Israr Aalam

Mo Rahuk Aalam

Kachanpur

Jagdhishpur

Barun

Aurangabad

363

Mo Kamal Miya

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

Aurangabad

368

Madan Paswan

Kamaldev Paswan

Sherpur

Gurua

Gaya

369

Laldev Khaira

370

Ramkhelawan Prasad

Bhudhan Prasad

Parsabad

Bardi

Hajaribag

371

Balkishun Pashwan

Kameshwar Pashwan

Khankhna

Karma Pandi

Raphigang

Aurangabad

372

Sahdev Sav

Sukhi Sav

Lakhi Saray

Munger

373

Brijnandan Prasad

Jnani Ran

Sd-

Sanjhauli

Rohtash

374

Bimlesh Prasad

Radheshyam Prasad

Mahuyari

Makhra

Barun

Aurangabad

375

Ramadhesh Prasad

Tilu Tyare Prasad

Gamhariya

Amash

Gaya

376

Rasba Yadav

Budhan Yadav

Kala Dhar

Uchak

Hajaribag

377

Banli Yadav

Nathu Yadav

Toiya

Salhara

Choparan

Hajaribag

378

Naresh Prasad Khaira

Surenda Prasad

Dhanbad

379

Budheshwar Prasad

Ramdin Prasad

Badki Ganv

Sundragang

Baurn

Aurangabad

380

Rajendra Prasad

Chaube Prasad

Badka Ganv

Sundragang

Baurn

Aurangabad

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7629

381

Ganori Prasad

Kailuray

Chapra Sahalanpur

Sd-

Samastipur

382

Ramchandra Chauhan

Mangal Chauhan

Kurma Budhan Bigha

Aobra

Aurangabad

383

Arjun Rabidas

Bhunesvi Rabidas

Janghira

Barachato

Gaya

384

Savili Kamin

Rameshwar Beldar

Sd-

Kusunda

Kendua Area

Dhanbad

385

Kripali Kumar

Basdev Chaurasya

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

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

Halsi

Munger

395

Saman Bhuiya

Jethu Bhuiya

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

Giridih

401

Arjun Paswan

Somaru Paswan

Kharvada

Kunda

Aurangabad

402

Ajeet Baai

403

Devnandan Noniya

Ramchandra Noniya

Kanoda

Haidarnagar

Haidarnager

Plamu

404

Ajay Prasad

Dhashrath Prasad

Bumer

Barachati

Gaya

405

Baban Prasad

Jagdeesh Prasad

Thakur Bari Tola

Sariya

Giridih

406

Manikchandra Chauhan

Rambilash Chauhan

Kusma Basdiha

Prariya

Kutumba

Aurangabad

407

Naranyan Chauhan

Saheram Chauhan

Lomolap Gamhriya

Navinagar

Aurangabad

408

Ramjit Prasad

Jawahar Prasad

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

Rohtash

412

Sadhu Chauhan

Rajkumar Chauhan

Kanauda

Haidarnagar

Plamu

413

Suthir Kumar

Narayan Das

414

Laldev Yadav

Rampati Yadav

Sd-

Giridih

415

Nidev Kumar

Gobind Sav

Lakhisaray

Munger

416

Pravesh Prasad

Chitamani Mandan

Chhotki 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

Giridih

420

Mahabir Yadav

Chanarik Yadav

Sd-

Udhampur

Kasma

Aurangabad

421

Shyam Pyare

Shri Tilu Pyare

Gamyriya

Aamas

Gaya

422

Ramdhni Sav

Jodhan Sav

Kaladar

Uchak

Hajaribag

423

Naveli Devi

Basant Chauhan

Kandi

Plamu

424

Tuntun Kumar

Bisun Mandal

Thakur Bari

Sariya

Giridih

425

Karu Bhuiya

Mahabir Bhuiya

Sahrashpura

Jamui

Munger

426

Ghan Shyam Bhuiya

Bishun Bhuiya

Sahrashpura

Jamui

Munger

7630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

427

Raman Bhuiya

Moti Bhuiya

Dima

Jhajha

Jamui

Munger

428

Maherdra Prasad

Prasadi Mandal

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

429

Surel Prasad

Budhan Mandal

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

430

Ram Prasad

Nirmal Mandal

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

431

Arjun Kumar

Nirmal Mandal

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

432

Madan Yadav

Jitan Yadav

Manitad

Dhanbad

433

Visheshwar Rawani

Saudagar Rawani

Khadsari

Shivshona

Jamui

Munger

434

Jagarnath Prasad

Suchit Mahto

Baryarpur

Bakhtiyarpur

Patna

435

Arjun Khaira

Ramchandra Rawani

Daud Nagar

Molabad

Daud Nagar

Aurangabad

436

Madna Yadav

Shabbalak Yadad

Hirapur

Dhanbad

437

Gulel Khaira

438

Amir Chaudhari

Dhashrath Chaudhari

Adhuri

Shyamnagar

Aamas

Gaya

439

Suresh Prasad

Bhupar Mahto

Chandmari

Sariya

Giridih

440

Bijay Prasad

Sanichar Prasad

Kapili

Kaplili

Sariya

Giridih

441

Binay Prasad

Koli Prasad

Chandmari

Sariya

Giridih

442

Mohan Yadav

Satynarayan Yadav

Baniyadih

Naniyadih

Giridih

443

Birdha Prasad.

Kamal Mandal

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

444

Devmuni Prasad

Radheshyam Prasad

Mahuyari

Makhra

Barun

Aurangabad

445

Rajedra Kumar

Soban Mandal

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

446

Prabhu Prasad

Babaji Mahto

Chapra Sharanpur

Javinapur

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

Pariya

Gaya

453

Mithilesh Kr. Singh

Bahapur Singh

Chhotki Sariya

Sariya

Giridih

454

Ramanand Chauhan

Darika Chauhan

Noniya Bigha Druka

Druka

Japla

Plamu

455

Jay Chauhan

Basdev Chauhan

Ubnagar

Posma

Aurangabad

456

Biredra Kr Mista

Yadunandan Mista

Sd-

Baliya

Gurua

Gaya

457

Ram Briksh Ram

Yandan Mishra

Serpur

Gurua

Gaya

458

Darika Das

Ganpat Das

Serpur

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

Giridih

466

Krishna Yadav

—

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7631

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3137-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2010) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@44@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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

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. 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

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri. D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri D.Kumar, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 27/10/2014

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:

SCHEDULE

“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?”

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.

The Short point to be decided in the reference,

whether the workman was allowed to retire prematurely or

not.

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.

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.

It was not his plea anywhere prior to rejoinder that

the workman rendered service at his 12^th years of age.

Hence the plea of the workman is not acceptable and he is

rightly superannuated.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3138-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 63@2005) dks

7632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@19@2005&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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

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. 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

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

AWARD

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:

SCHEDULE

“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?”

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.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3139-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 60@2005) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@3@2005&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st December, 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

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

Employers in relation to the management of

Joyrampur Colliery M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri Pintu Mondal

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 16/10/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/3/ 2005-IR (C-1) dated

19/07/2005, the central Government in the Ministry of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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:

SCHEDULE

“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 ?”

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3140-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 46@2005) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@275@2004&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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

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

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

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

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

“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?”

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3141-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 45@2011) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@23@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2014

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 Officer

7634

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

Employers in relation to the management of

P.B. Area M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 15/10/2014

AWARD

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 :

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?”

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

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3142-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 5@2004) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@205@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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/

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

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. 5 of 2004

Employers in relation to the management of

Kustore Area M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri Manas Chatterjee, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 16/10/2014

AWARD

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

“ 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?”

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7635

ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3143.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

15@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@12@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@414@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 15 OF 2003

PARTIES:

The management of

Benjemehari Colliery, ECL

Vs.

Smt. Bechia Devi

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

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.

SCHEDULE

"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

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

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

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

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. Bechia

7636

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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.

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

hereby set-a-side and it is hereby directed to provide

employment to Smt. Bechia Devi widow of Late Lakhan

Chouhan in place of Late Lakhan Chouhan who died

while he was in service.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

information and needful. The reference is accordingly

disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3144.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

97@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

02@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@363@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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

PARTIES:

The management of J. K.

Ropeways of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Amla Zamadar

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri. P.K. Das Ld. Adv.

For the union

Rakesh Kumar, President of

(Workman):

the union

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated - 10.09.14

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-

22012/363/98-IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 has been pleased

to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"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?"

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.

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.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No

Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3145.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

30@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@12@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@374@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

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

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,

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

PARTIES:

The management of Parascole

Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Shri Bijan Kumar Bhattacharjee

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri. P.K. Das Ld. Adv.

For the union (Workman):

None

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated - 11.09.14

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-

22012/374/99-IR(CM-II) dated 29.02.2000 has been pleased

to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No

Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3146-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@94@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

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

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

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. 34/2011

L-22012/94/2010-IR(CM-II), dated 23.06.2011

Date of Passing Award – 10th of November, 2014

Between:

1. The General Manager,

Ib Valley Area MCL, Po. Brajrajnagar,

Dist. Jharsuguda,

2. The Director Personnel,

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.,

Jagruti Vihar, Burla, At./Po. Burla,

Dist. Sambalpur

...1^st Party-Managements

(And)

Their workman represented through the

Area Secretary, Ib Valley Area MCL,

G.M. Complex, Orissa Collieries Mazdoor Sangh,

At./Po. Brajrajnagar, Dist. Jharsuguda

...2^nd PartyUnion

Appearances:

None

For the 1^st Party-Managements.

None

For the 2^nd Party-Unions.

AWARD

This reference was received in this Tribunal on

11.7.2011. The 2^nd 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 2^nd party-

Union to file the statement of claim, a notice was issued to

it on 04.08.2011 by ordinary post. When the 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd

Party-Union has not filed any statement of claim. Therefore

it appears that either the 2^nd 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 2^nd Party-Union

no adjudication of dispute can take place.

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.

The reference is answered in the above terms.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3147-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

foHkkx] fcykliqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

7640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@37@00) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@313@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/37/00

Shri Nageshwar Rao,

S/o Shri Sudha Rao Jadhav,

Nr. Shiv Hanuman Mandir,

Tilaknagar, Bilaspur

...Workman

Versus

Telecom District Manager,

Telecom Department,

Bilaspur

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 10th day of November, 2014)

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?”

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

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.

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.

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

Termination of

management of Telecom

service of

District Manager, Telecom

workman by

Department, Bilaspur in

IInd party is

terminating the services

not proved.

of Shri Nageshwar Rao,

Driver w.e.f. 16-3-99 is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is

is entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7641

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3148.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;y bafM;k

fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

09@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@11@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@22@98&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

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.

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.

APPEARANCES

For the Workman :

None Appeared.

For the Management :

Mr. S.N. Sarma,

Sr. Advocate.

Mr. A.Jahid, Advocate

AWARD

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

"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?"

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?"

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)]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7643

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

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 ?

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 mere

7644

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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;

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 court

7646

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7647

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3149.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbQ bU'kqjsUl

dkWjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17011@8@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

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.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

SHRI KISHORI RAM

Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 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

APPEARANCES :

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

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

"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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3150.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj pank lhesaV daiuh

fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

37@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@11@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@102@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

7648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

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?"

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written

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.

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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 three

7650

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3151.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj th- lh-

eksgUrk dkaVªsDVj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] HkqousLoj ds iapkV

7652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@22@2013&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

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.

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. 43/2013

L-29012/22/2013-IR(M), dated 14.06.2013

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)

Their workman Shri Bipin Bihari Mallick,

S/o. Shri Damodar Mallick,

At./Po. Ampoloba, P.S. - Sukinda,

Dist. Jajpur - 755 028 Odisha.

…2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-

Management.

None

…

For the 2nd Party-

Workman.

AWARD

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3152.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj th- lh-

eksgUrk dkaVªsDVj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] HkqcusLoj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 46@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@21@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

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

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. 46/2013

L-29012/21/2013-IR(M), dated 18.06.2013

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7653

Date of Passing Award - 20th October, 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.

… 2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management.

None

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman.

AWARD

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3153.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eksgarh

,lksfl,V@Mqaxjh ykbeLVksu dqvkjh vkWQ ch-lh-MCY;w- vkWQ ,-lh-

lh- fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] HkqousLoj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 72@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29011@16@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

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

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. 72/2012

L-29011/16/2012 -IR(M), dated 18.07.2012

Date of Passing Award - 10th of November, 2014

Between:

M/s. Mohanty Associates,

Transport Contractor,

Dungri Lime Stone Quarry of BCW of

ACC Ltd.,

At/PO-Dungri, Dist-Bargarh, Odisha

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:

M. M. Rout

…

For the 1st Party-

Management No. 1

S. K. Rout

…

For the 1st Party-

Management No. 2

K. C. Devsharma

…

For the 2nd Party-

Union.

7654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3154.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l-bZ-

baVjizkbtst ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] HkqousLoj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

31@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@11@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&26012@2@2014&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

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

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:

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:

Shri Bijay Kumar Giri. …

For the 1st

Authorized

Party-

Representative.

Management.

Shri Yudhisthira Patra. …

For himself, the

2nd Party-

Workman.

AWARD

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7655

Settlement in Form-H has already been filed on record,

which has been verified today by the parties present.

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.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3155.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbQ bU'kqjsUl

dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] eqacbZ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 35@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17011@11@2008&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

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.

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

The Sr. Divisional Manager

LIC of India, Mumbai Division-I

Yogashema

Jeevan Beema Marg

Mumbai 400 021.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

The General Secretary

Rashtriya Bima Karmachari Union

98/1, Belgrami Road

Kurla (W)

Mumbai 400 070.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE

Mr. H. K. Bhalerao,

EMPLOYER

Advocate.

FOR THE

Ms. Kunda Samant,

WORKMEN

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 5th September, 2014.

AWARD PART-I

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

Whether the findings of I.O.

are perverse?

No.

REASONS

Issue No.1 :-

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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)]

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.

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 :-

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7659

documentary evidence on record is conclusive and more

than the requirement of preponderance of probability.

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:

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

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3156.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

CysafMax fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 15@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30015@23@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

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/

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

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

M/S. INDIAN OIL BLENDING LIMITED

The Plant Manager

M/s. Indian Oil Blending Ltd.

Trombay

Mumbai 400 074.

AND

Their Workmen

The Secretary General

Petroleum Employees Union

Tel Rasayan Bhavan

Tilak Road

Dadar

Mumbai-400 014

APPEARANCES:

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

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

the Indian Oil Blending?

2. Whether the workmen whose names are

enlisted at Ex-A should be declared as permanent

works and wages and consequential benefits be

paid to concerned workers?"

List of Workmen

S/Shri Yashwant Mane

Mahendra J. Batawale

Raju L. Salve

Dayashankar Mishra

Mohansingh Sonar

Santosh D. Kukamkar

Krishna N. Gowda

Santosh A. Ahwad

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

34.

Vishwas J. Shetty

35.

Kishor K. Kadam

36.

Rajesh B. Poojari

37.

Pradeep S. Das

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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.

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.

Whether contract between the

contractor and management is

sham and bogus as alleged by

second party?

Yes

Whether workmen involved in

this reference as mentioned in

annexure of the corrigendum

require to be declared as

permanent employees of first

party?

Yes

What order?

As per

order below

REASONS

Issue no.1:-

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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;

"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;

"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."

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 :-

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

(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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7665

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3157.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ 'kkiwjth

,oa iYyksath fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 53@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@14@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

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.

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 53/2013

Between:

Shri Manto Kumar,

C/o Peetambar Sahu,

Islampeta Junction, 1st floor,

Nanna Hotel, Visakhapatnam -530011.

….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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

M/s C. Niranjan Rao,

M. Subramanya Sastry

& R. Trinath., Advocates

AWARD

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

"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.

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.

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

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

7666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3158.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ 'kkiwjth

,oa iYyksath fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 54@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@15@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

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.

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 54/2013

Between:

Shri Peetambar Sahu,

C/o Peetambar Sahu,

Islampeta Junction, 1st floor,

Nanna Hotel, Visakhapatnam -530011.

….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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

M/s C. Niranjan Rao,

M. Subramanya Sastry

& R. Trinath., Advocates

AWARD

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

"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.

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.

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

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7667

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3159.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ 'kkiwjth

,oa iYyksath fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@16@2013&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

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.

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 55/2013

Between:

Shri Chumanal Sahu,

C/o Peetambar Sahu,

Islampeta Junction, 1st floor,

Nanna Hotel, Visakhapatnam -530011.

….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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

M/s C. Niranjan Rao,

M. Subramanya Sastry

& R. Trinath., Advocates

AWARD

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

"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.

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.

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

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

7668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3160.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ 'kkiwjth

,oa iYyksath fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 56@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@17@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

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.

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 56/2013

Between:

Shri Sambhu Sahni,

C/o Peetambar Sahu,

Islampeta Junction, 1st floor,

Nanna Hotel, Visakhapatnam -530011.

….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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

M/s C. Niranjan Rao,

M. Subramanya Sastry

& R. Trinath., Advocates

AWARD

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

"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.

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.

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

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7669

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3161.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ 'kkiwjth

,oa iYyksath fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 57@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 21@11@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@18@2013&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

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.

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 57/2013

Between:

Shri Md. Goush,

C/o Peetambar Sahu,

Islampeta Junction, 1st floor,

Nanna Hotel, Visakhapatnam -530011.

….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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

M/s. C. Niranjan Rao,

M. Subramanya Sastry

& R. Trinath., Advocates

AWARD

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

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.

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.

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

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

7670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3162.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 03@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y&20012@562@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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)

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

"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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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

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.

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 of

7672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3163.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

128@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

03@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y&20012@564@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE No. 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

Dated, Dhanbad, the 31st October, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/564/2000 C-I dt.27.04.2001.

SCHEDULE

"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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7673

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

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

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 which

7674

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.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3164.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

88@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

03@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@60@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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 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

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

"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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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

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

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 nature

7676

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.

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.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3165.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

116@1997½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

03@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@265@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE No. 116 OF 1997

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 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

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-

20012/265/96-IR(C-I) dt.24.10.1997.

SCHEDULE

"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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7677

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

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

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 Loading

7678

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).

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)

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3166.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

cM+ksnk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼48@2009½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@12@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@15@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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 record

7680

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.

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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.

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3167.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lkmFk bafM;k

dkjiksZjs'ku fy- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- 25@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 02@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&34012@3@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of July, 2014

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri K. Bala Krishna (Died)

For the Respondent

M/s. Ch. Sanjeeeva Rao &

Ch. Syamasundara Rao,

Advocates

AWARD

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,

SCHEDULE

"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.

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.

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.

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

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3168.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

egkjk"Vªk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-

35@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

02@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@48@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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)]

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

ANNEXURE

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.

AWARD

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:

"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

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: 10.10.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3169.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la- 21@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

02@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@52@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 30th day of October, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21/2008

Between:

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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:

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

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:

I. Whether the action of the Management of Bank

of India, Nuthakki branch, in terminating services of

7686

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?

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.

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

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:

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7687

Ex.W7:

Photostat copy of lr. of Sri B. Ravi Kumar,

customer dt. 21.6.2004

Ex.W8:

Photostat copy of lr. of customers

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3170.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 68@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@12@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@26@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

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

AND

The Asstt. General Manager (HR) :

2nd Party/1st

Indian Bank,

Respondent

HO : HRM Department

66, Rajaji Salai

Chennai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

Sri K. Krishnan, Authorized

Petitioner Union

Representative

For the 2nd Party/

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Management

Advocates

AWARD

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

petitioner in brief are these:

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 of

7688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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?

The Points

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri K. Krishnan

Union

For the 2nd Party/

: MW1, Sri R. Sakthivel

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date

Description

Ex.W1 17.08.2011IBEA(TN) letter to ALC, Chennai

IBEA/GEN/120/2010-13 raising an

Industrial Dispute against outsourcing

of CDPC works

Ex.W2 15.10.2011Reply letter by Indian Bank Management

to the above letter dated 17.08.2011

Ex.W3 02.06.2005Provisions of 8th Bipartite Settlement

under Para-31 with regard to com-

puterization/mechanization

and

technological upgradation with reference

to types of works that can be outsourced

On the Management's side

Ex.No. Date

Description

Ex.M1 06.12.2005Reserve Bank of India Guidelines on

outsourcing for financial services by

Banks

Ex.M2 02.06.2005Extract from 8th Bipartite Settlement

Clause-31 on Computerization/

Mechanization and Technological

upgradation.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3171.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la- 233@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

02@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@44@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2014

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/233/99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Praveen Kumar Yadav,

S/o Babulal Yadav,

Sanwara road, Burhanpur,

Distt. East Nimar (MP)

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Bank of India,

Head Office, Express Towers,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of September 2014

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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

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.

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.

(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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3172.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

cM+kSnk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la- 152@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

02@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@161@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

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

Regional Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Vidarbha & Marathawada,

West High Court, Dharampeth,

Nagpur

: Management

AWARD

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?"

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 15] 1936

7693

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?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is

is entitled to?"

not entitled to

relief as

prayed

REASONS

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3173.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

egkjk"Vªk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la- 64@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

02@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@140@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

7694

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

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

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.

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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.

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

any relief.

REASONS

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 preliminary

7696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2014/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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.

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:—

(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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3174.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;w Vh

vkbZ,,e lh fy- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- 57@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 02@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@70@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

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.

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:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Ms. Nandini Menon,Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the14thAugust, 2014.

AWARD

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?"

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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)]

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:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

Date: 14/08/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3175.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vfjdlu

vkSj fjpMZ~l eqacbZ] vfjdlu vkSj fjpMZ ¼losZ{kd½ çkbZosV

fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-

27@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

02@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&31011@3@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/27 of 2012

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

(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

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

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

1. Omprakash Pisat

2. Pankaj A. Shinde

3. Gopalkrishnan Nair

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

ANNEXURE-II

1. Pandharinath G. Hase

2. P. Mahalingum

3. Altaf Ansari

4. Paris M. Kothare

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3176.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

flafMdsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼28@2009½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@12@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@04@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

CASE NO. I.D. No. 28/2009

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

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.

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.

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3177.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj v/;{k ,oa

izcaèk funs'kd] LdwVlZ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 07@2010½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@12@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Shri RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 07/2010

Ref. No. L-42012/12/2010- IR (DU) dated : 15.04.2010

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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

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.

The reference under adjudication is:

"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

unjustified and he be re-instated with consequential

benefits including full back wages.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 6] 2014@vxzgk;.k 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 voluntary

7708

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.

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."

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

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).

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

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.