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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 481-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYYkh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 3

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fuEufyf[kr vijk/kksa] vFkkZr~µ

d&¼i½ fof/k fo#) f«Ø;kdyki ¼fuokj.k½ la'kks/ku

vf/kfu;e] 2008 ¼2008 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 35½

¼ii½ fof/k fo#) f«Ø;kdyki ¼fuokj.k½ la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e]

2012 ¼2013 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 03½ ds rgr naMuh; vijk/kksa rFkk

[k&mi;qZDr vijk/kksa esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izjs.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa

rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, vFkok mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh

vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa dh tkap djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk dks fofufnZ"V djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 228@64@2014&,ohMh&II]

lq'khy dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2015

S.O. 481.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby

specifies the following offences to be investigated by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:—

(a) Offences punishable under:—

(i) The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment

Act, 2008 (Act No. 35 of 2008)

(ii) The Unlawful Activites (Prevention) Amendment

Act, 2012 (Act No. 3 of 2013) and

(b)

Attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation

to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and

any other offence or offences committed in course of the

same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F.No. 228/64/2014-AVD-II]

SUSHEEL KUMAR, Under Secy.

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 11]

ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 8—ekpZ 14] 2015] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 17—iQkYxqu 23] 1936

No. 11]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 8—MARCH 14, 2015, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 17—PHALGUNA 23, 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

995 GI/2015

(1227)

1228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 482-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973

¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi&/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk

iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼dsñvñ

C;wjks½ dh vksj ls ekeyk lañ vkjñlhñ 02 ¼,½@2006@,lh;w& IX/ubZ

fnYYkh ¼usoy okj :e yhd dsl½ rFkk vkjlh&04¼,½@2006@

,lh;w&IX/ ubZ fnYyh ¼vkWQ 'kwV dsl½ ,oa ekuuh; fnYyh mPp

U;k;ky; esa vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa ;k muls lEc) vU; ekeyksa rFkk

blds vuq"kafxd ekeyksa ds lapkyu ds fy, Jh jktho eksgu]

vf/koDrk dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 225@65@2014&,ohMh&II]

lq'khy dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2015

S.O. 482.—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 Rajiv Mohan, Advocate as Special Public

Prosecutor for conducting trial cases RC. 02(A)/2006/ACU-

IX/New Delhi (Naval War Room Leak Case) and RC. 04(A)/

2006/ACU-IX/New Delhi (Off Shoot case) before the Trial

Court at Delhi on behalf of (CBI) Delhi Special Police

Establishment and appeals/revisions or other matters

connected therewith and incidental thereto in the Hon'ble

Delhi High Court, New Delhi.

[F.No. 225/65/2014-AVD-II]

SUSHEEL KUMAR, Under Secy.

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kkn~; vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 483-—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

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

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir

Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ tks fd

jn~n gksus dh frfFk

la[;k

¼dksa½ dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

frfFk

jn~n gksus gSa] vxj gSa] dh la[;k o"kZ

vkSj 'kh"kZd

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

vkbZ ,l 1783 ¼Hkkx 1½% 2014

12 tuojh 2015

vkbZ ,l 1783 ¼Hkkx 1½%

12 vizSy 2015

¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½

1993 ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 2113% 2014 ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

12 tuojh 2015

vkbZ ,l 2113% 2002

12 vizSy 2015

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 4572% 2014@vkbZ ,l vks

12 tuojh 2015

vkbZ ,l 4572% 1992

12 vizSy 2015

1140%2012 ¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½

¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 13334 ¼Hkkx 2½% 2014

12 tuojh 2015

vkbZ ,l 13334%

12 tqykbZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

¼Hkkx 2½% 1992

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 15197% 2013

12 tuojh 2015

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

12 tuojh 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

15197% 2003

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

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

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

[ lanHkZ% ih;wch@,lVhMh-2:1]

izHkkdj jk;] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1229

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015

S.O. 483.—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 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. No. & Year of the Indian

Date of

No. & Year of the

Date of cancellation

Standards Established

Establishment

Indian Standards to

be cancelled, if any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS 1783 (Part 1): 2014 Drums Large, Fixed

12 January 2015

IS 1783 (Part 1): 1993

12 April 2015

Ends-Specification Part 1 Grade A Drums

(Third Revision)

(Fourth Revision)

IS 2113: 2014 Assayning Silver in Silver

12 January 2015

IS 2113: 2002

12 April 2015

and Silver Alloys-Methods

(Second Revision)

(Third Revision)

IS 4572: 2014/ISO 1140: 2012 Fibre

12 January 2015

IS 4572: 1992

12 April 2015

Ropes-Polyamide-3-4-8 and 12-Strand

(Third Revision)

Ropes (Fourth Revision)

S 13334 (Part 2): 2014 Skimmed Milk

12 January 2015

IS 13334 (Part 2): 1992

12 July 2015

Powder-Specification Part 2 Extra Grade

(First Revision)

IS/ISO 15197: 2013 In Vitro Diagnostic

12 January 2015

IS/ISO 15197: 2003

12 January 2015

Test System-Requirements for Blood-

Glucose Monitoring System for Self-Testing

in Managing Diabetes Mellitus (First Revision)

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110 002 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/STD-2:1]

PRABHAKAR RAI, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 484-—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

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud ¼dks½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSaA

1230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

la'kks/ku dh la[;k

dkWye ¼3½ ds

dkWye ¼3½ esa n'kkZ;s

la[;k

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

vkSj frfFk

la'kks/ku dh

x, vuqlkj og

izfrLFkkiu frfFk

ftl frfFk rd

ekud fcuk la'kks/ku

ds Fkk ykxw jgsxh

vkbZ ,l 745 % 2003

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 747 % 1991

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

nwljk iqujh{k.k

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 854 % 1991

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 860 % 1987

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

igyk iqujh{k.k

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 1014 % 1956

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 2190 % 2010

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

pkSFkk iqujh{k.k

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 2867 % 1964

la'kks/ku la[;k 3

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 2868 % 1964

la'kks/ku la[;k 3

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 2869 % 1964

la'kks/ku la[;k 3

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3245 % 1965

la'kks/ku la[;k 3

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3246 % 1976

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3247 % 1976

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3248 % 1993

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3500 % 1996

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3501 % 1966

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3547 % 1976

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1231

vkbZ ,l 3880 % 1976

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

igyk iqujh{k.k

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3881 % 1993

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

igyk iqujh{k.k

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3882 % 1966

la'kks/ku la[;k 3

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3883 % 1993

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 3884 % 1993

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 4624 % 1978

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 4625 % 1968

la'kks/ku la[;k 3

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 4626 % 1978

la'kks/ku la[;k 4

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 4627 % 1968

la'kks/ku la[;k 4

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 4628 % 1978

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 4935 % 1968

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 4936 % 1968

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 5339 % 2004

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

tuojh 2015

vkbZ ,l 5383 % 2006

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

tuojh 2015

vkbZ ,l 5800 % 2003

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 5861 % 1993

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 6356 % 2001

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

uoEcj 2014

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

la'kks/ku dh la[;k

dkWye ¼3½ ds

dkWye ¼3½ esa n'kkZ;s

la[;k

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

vkSj frfFk

la'kks/ku dh

x, vuqlkj og

izfrLFkkiu frfFk

ftl frfFk rd

ekud fcuk la'kks/ku

ds Fkk ykxw jgsxh

1232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkbZ ,l 6608 % 2004

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

tuojh 2015

vkbZ ,l 7032 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 8½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1986 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 7032 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 8½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1986 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 7032 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 8½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1986 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 7032 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 8½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1986 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 7032 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 8½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1986 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 7032 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 8½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1986 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 7032 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 8½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1986 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 7032 ¼Hkkx 1 ls 8½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1986 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 7732 % 2003

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 7749 % 1975

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 8713 % 2003

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 8786 % 1978

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 9245 % 1994

la'kks/ku la[;k 4

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

tuojh 2015

vkbZ ,l 9339 % 1988

la'kks/ku la[;k 5

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

tuojh 2015

vkbZ ,l 9789 % 1981

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 9790 % 1981

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

la'kks/ku dh la[;k

dkWye ¼3½ ds

dkWye ¼3½ esa n'kkZ;s

la[;k

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

vkSj frfFk

la'kks/ku dh

x, vuqlkj og

izfrLFkkiu frfFk

ftl frfFk rd

ekud fcuk la'kks/ku

ds Fkk ykxw jgsxh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1233

vkbZ ,l 9791 % 1981

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 9811 % 1981

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 9812 % 1981

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 9822 % 1981

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 9823 % 1981

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 10252 % 1982

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 10253 % 1982

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 10999 % 1999

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

tuojh] 2015

vkbZ ,l 13369 % 1992

la'kks/ku la[;k 3

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 14266 % 1995

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 14267 ¼Hkkx 1½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1995

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 14267 ¼Hkkx 2½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1995

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 14267 ¼Hkkx 3½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1995

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 14267 ¼Hkkx 4½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

1995

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 14665 ¼Hkkx 4@

la'kks/ku la[;k 6

15 ekpZ 2015

vuqHkkx 6½% 2001

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 14665 ¼Hkkx 4@

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

vuqHkkx 7½% 2001

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 14703 % 1999

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

la'kks/ku dh la[;k

dkWye ¼3½ ds

dkWye ¼3½ esa n'kkZ;s

la[;k

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

vkSj frfFk

la'kks/ku dh

x, vuqlkj og

izfrLFkkiu frfFk

ftl frfFk rd

ekud fcuk la'kks/ku

ds Fkk ykxw jgsxh

1234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkbZ ,l 15088 % 2001

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15089 % 2002

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15095 % 2002

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15153 % 2002

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

uoacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15273 % 2003

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15549 % 2005

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15608 % 2005

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

vDVwcj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15688 % 2006

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15689 % 2006

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15690 % 2006

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 tuojh 2015

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15698 % 2006

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 15796 % 2008

la'kks/ku la[;k 2

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 16018 % 2012

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

fnlacj 2014

vkbZ ,l 16103 ¼Hkkx 1½%

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

15 ekpZ 2015

2012

fnlacj 2014

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002

{ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk dksfPp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ% ih;wch@th,u&1% 2]

izHkkdj jk;] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

la'kks/ku dh la[;k

dkWye ¼3½ ds

dkWye ¼3½ esa n'kkZ;s

la[;k

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

vkSj frfFk

la'kks/ku dh

x, vuqlkj og

izfrLFkkiu frfFk

ftl frfFk rd

ekud fcuk la'kks/ku

ds Fkk ykxw jgsxh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1235

New Delhi, the 15th March, 2015

S.O. 484.—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 eˆ 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 of

Date till which the

No.

Indian Standards

the amendment

Establishment of the

Standard without

Amendment at

amendment as

column (3)

mentioned at

Column

(3) shall remain in

force

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS 745: 2003 Textiles-

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Handloom Cotton

December 2014

Bedsheets-Specification

IS 747: 1991 Handloom

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Cotton Bunting Cloth,

December 2014

Dyed-Specification

(Second Revision)

IS 854: 1991 Handloom

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Cotton Turkish, Honey-

December 2014

comb and Huckaback

Towels and Towelling

Cloth-Specification

IS 860: 1987 Specification

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

for Handloom Cotton

December 2014

Sponge Cloth, Grey,

Striped or Checked

(First Revision)

IS 1014: 1956 Specification

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

for Bone-Meal, Steamed

December 2014

IS 2190: 2010 Selection,

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Installation and Main-

December 2014

tenance of First-Aid

Fire Extinguishers - Code

of Practice

(Fourth Revision)

IS 2867: 1964 Specification

Amendment No. 3

15 March 2015

of Canned Mangoes

December 2014

IS 2868: 1964 Specification

Amendment No. 3

15 March 2015

of Canned Pineapples

December 2014

IS 2869: 1964 Specification

Amendment No. 3

15 March 2015

for Canned Orange

December, 2014

Segments

1236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IS 3245: 1965 Specification

Amendment No. 3

15 March 2015

of Canned Peas

December, 2014

IS 3246: 1976 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Okra (Bhindi)

December 2014

(First Revision)

IS 3247: 1976 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Bitter Gourd

December, 2014

(Kerala) (First Revision)

IS 3248: 1993 Canned

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

Tomatores-Specification

December, 2014

(First Revision)

IS 3500: 1966 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Mango Chutney

December, 2014

IS 3501: 1966 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Pickles

December, 2014

IS 3547: 1976 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Mango Nectar (First

December, 2014

Revision)

IS 3880: 1976 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Mango Pulp

December, 2014

(First Revision)

IS 3881: 1993 Tomato

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

Juice - Specification

December, 2014

(First Revision)

IS 3882: 1966 Specification

Amendment No. 3

15 March 2015

for Tomato Ketchup

December, 2014

IS 3883: 1993 Canned

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

Tomato Concentrate

December, 2014

Tomato Puree -

Specification

IS 3884: 1993 Canned

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

Tomato Concentrate -

December, 2014

Tomato Paste -

Specification (First Revision)

IS 4624: 1978 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Dehydrated Peas

December, 2014

(First Revision)

IS 4625: 1968 Specification

Amendment No. 3

15 March 2015

for Dehydrated Carrots

December, 2014

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1237

IS 4626: 1978 Specification

Amendment No. 4

15 March 2015

for Dehydrated Potatoes

December, 2014

(First Revision)

IS 4627: 1968 Specification

Amendment No. 4

15 March 2015

for Dehydrated Cabbage

December, 2014

IS 4628: 1978Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Dehydrated Okra

December, 2014

(Bhindi) (First Revision)

IS 4935: 1968 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Synthetic Syrups

December, 2014

IS 4936: 1968 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Fruit Squashes

December, 2014

IS 5339 : 2004 Skin Powder

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

for Infants - Specification

January 2015

(Second Revision)

IS 5383 : 2006 Tooth Powder -

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Specification

January 2015

(Second Revision)

IS 5800 : 2003 Orange Juice

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Preserved Exclusively by

December 2014

Physical Means - Specification

(First Revision)

IS 5861 : 1993 Jams, Jellies

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

and Marmalades -

December 2014

Specification (First Revision)

IS 6356 : 2001 Toothpaste -

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Specification (Third Revision)

November 2014

IS 6608 : 2004 Skin Creams -

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Specification

January 2015

(Second Revision)

IS 7032 (Parts 1 to 8) : 1986

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Physical Methods of Test for

December 2014

Uncut Indian Jute, Mesta and

Bimli Part 1 General (First Revision)

IS 7032 (Parts 1 to 8) : 1986

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Physical Methods of Test for

December 2014

Uncut Indian Jute, Mesta and

Bimli Part 2 Reed Length

(First Revision)

IS 7032 (Parts 1 to 8) : 1986

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Physical Methods of Test for

December 2014

Uncut Indian Jute, Mesta and

Bimli Part 3 Root Content

(First Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IS 7032 (Parts 1 to 8) : 1986

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Physical Methods of Test for

December 2014

Uncut Indian Jute, Mesta and

Bimli Part 4 Defects (First Revision)

IS 7032 (Parts 1 to 8) : 1986

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Physical Methods of Test for

December 2014

Uncut Indian Jute, Mesta and

Bimli Part 5 Foreign Matter

(First Revision)

IS 7032 (Parts 1 to 8) : 1986

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Physical Methods of Test for

December 2014

Uncut Indian Jute, Mesta and

Bimli Part 6 Bulk Density

(First Revision)

IS 7032 (Parts 1 to 8) : 1986

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Physical Methods of Test for

December 2014

Uncut Indian Jute, Mesta and

Bimli Part 3 Bundle Strength

(First Revision)

IS 7032 (Parts 1 to 8) : 1986

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Physical Methods of Test for

December 2014

Uncut Indian Jute, Mesta and

Bimli Part 8 Fineness (First Revision)

IS 7732 : 2003 Apple Juice

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

15 March

Preserved Exclusively By

December 2014

Physical Means - Specification

(First Revison)

IS 7749 : 1975 Specification

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

for Walnuts

December 2014

IS 8713 : 2003 Mango Juice

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Preserved Exclusively By

December 2014

Physical Means - Specification

(First Revision)

IS 8786 : 1978 Sepcification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Okra (Bhindi) Canned in

December 2014

Tomato Sauce

IS 9245: 1994 Nail Polish

Amendment No. 4

15 March 2015

(Nail Enamel) - Specification

January 2015

(First Revision)

IS 9339 : 1998 Specification

Amendment No. 5

15 March 2015

for Pomades and Brilliantines

January 2015

(First Revision)

IS 9789 : 1981 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Apricot

December 2014

IS 9790 : 1981 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned French Beans

December 2014

IS 9791 : 1981 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Tinda

December 2010

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1239

IS 9811 : 1981 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Kundri

December 2014

IS 9812 : 1981 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Spianch

December 2014

IS 9822 : 1981 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Parwal

December 2014

IS 9823 : 1981 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Potatoes

December 2014

IS 10252 : 1982 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Carrot in Brine

December 2014

IS 10253 : 1982 Specification

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

for Canned Papaya in Syrup

December 2014

IS 10999 : 1999 Kum Kum

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

Powder - Specification

January 2015

(First Revision)

IS 13369 : 1992 Stationary

Amendment No. 3

15 MArch 2015

15 March 2015

Lead-Acid Batteries (with

December 2014

Tubular Positive Plats) in

Monobloc Container - Specification

IS 14266 : 1995 Canned

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Msuhrooms - Sepcification

December 2014

IS 14267 (Part 1) : 1995 Quick

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Forzen Vegetables -

December 2014

Specification Part 1 Quick

Frozen Peas

IS 14267 (Part 2) : 1995 Quick

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Frozen Vegetables -

December 2014

Specification Part 2 Quick

Frozen Cauliflower

IS 14267 (Part 3) : 1995 Quick

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Frozen Vegetables -

December 2014

Specification Part 3 Quick

Frozen Spinach

IS 14267 (Part 4) : 1995

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Quick Forzen Vegetables -

December 2014

Specification Part 4 Quick

Forzen Beans

IS 14665 (Part 4/Section 6) :

Amendment No. 6

15 March 2015

2001 Electric Traction Lifts

December 2014

PArt 4 Components Section 6

Lift Doors and Locking

Devices and Contect

IS 14665 (Part 4/Section 7):

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

2001 Electric Traction Lifts

December 2014

Part 4 Components Section 7

Lift Machines and Brakes

IS 4703 : 1993 Vinegar -

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Specification

December 2014

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IS 15088 : 2001 Lemon Juice

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Preserved Exclusively by

December 2014

Physical Means - Specification

IS 15089 : 2002 Pineapple

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Juice Preserved Exclusively

December 2014

By Physical Means -

Specification

IS 15095 : 2002 Concentrated

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Pineapple Juice Preserved

December 2014

Exclusively By Physical

Means - Specification

IS 15153 : 2002 Face Pack -

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Specification

November 2014

IS 15273 : 2003 Concentrated

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Orange Juice Preserved

December 2014

Exclusively by Physical

Means - Specification

IS 15549 : 2005 Stationary

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

29 March 2015

Valve Regulated Lead Acid

December 2014

Batteries - Specification

IS 15608 : 2005 Cream Bleach-

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Specification

October 2104

IS 15688 : 2006 Canned

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Bamboo Shoot - Specification

December 2014

IS 15689 : 2006 Bamboo

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Shoot in Brine - Specification

December 2014

IS 15690 : 2006 Dry Salted

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Bamboo Shoot - Specification

December 2014

IS 15698 : Dehydrated

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Bambool Shoots - Specification

December 2014

IS 15796 : 2008 Automotive

Amendment No. 2

15 March 2015

Vehicles ) Horn-Installation -

December 2014

Requirements

IS 16018 : 2012 Wheeled Fire

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Extinguishers - Performance

December 2014

and Construction - Specification

IS 16013 (Part1) : 2012 LED

Amendment No. 1

15 March 2015

Modules for General Lighting

December 2014

Pat 1 Safety Requirements

Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolcatta, 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-1:2]

PRABHAKAR RAI, Director (Foreign Languages & Publications)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1241

'kgjh fodkl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 27 Qjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 485-—fnYyh fodkl vf/kfu;e] 1957 vkSj blds

varxZr cuk, x, fu;eksa dh leh{kk djus vkSj iqu% izk:i cukus]

fodkldrkZ lfgr lqfoèk iznkrk vkSj fofu;ked dh ifjofrZr Hkwfedkvksa

dks fuHkkus ds fy, orZeku lanHkZ esa fnYyh ds 'kgjh fodkl ij dkjxj

<ax ls vkSj dq'kyrkiwoZd /;ku nsus ds fy, dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

fuEufyf[kr lajpuk ds lkFk ,d lfefr xfBr djrh gS%—

¼i½ Jh e/kqdj xqIrk] Hkkñizñlsñ ¼lsokfuo`Ùk½]

v/;{k

¼iwoZ mik/;{k fnñfoñizkñ½

¼ii½ Jh ,lñdsñ VaMu] ¼iowZ lh,y,] fnñfoñizkñ½

lnL;

¼iii½ Jh 'kkjnk izlkn] Hkkñizñ ls ¼lsokfuo`Ùk½]

¼iwoZ vk;qDr] Hkwfe fuiVku] fnñfoñizkñ½

lnL;

¼iv½ Jh dsñihñ y{e.k jko] Hkkñysñ ijh{kk o

lnL;

ys[kk lsok ¼lsok&fuo`Ùk½ ¼iwoZ foÙk lnL;]

fnñfoñizkñ½

¼v½ Jh ,ñdsñ tSu] ¼iwoZ ;kstuk] vk;qDr fnñfoñizkñ½

lnL;

2- mi;qZDr ds vfrfjDr fuEufyf[kr insu gSfl;r esa bl lfefr

ds lnL; gksaxs%

¼i½ vij lfpo 'kgjh fodkl ea=ky;

¼ii½ la;qDr lfpo ¼,yokbZ½ 'kgjh fodkl ea=ky;

¼iii½ eq[; fu;kstd] uxj o xzkeh.k fu;kstu laxBu

¼iv½ lfpo] fnYyh uxj dyk vk;ksx

¼v½ v/;{k] ubZ fnYyh uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~

¼vi½ uxj vk;qDr] nf{k.kh fnYyh uxj fuxe

¼vii½ uxj vk;qDr] mÙkjh fnYyh uxj fuxe

¼viii½ uxj vk;qDr] iwohZ fnYyh uxj fuxe

¼ix½ vk;qDr&lg&lfpo] fnñfoñizkñ&lnL; lfpo

3- v/;{k fdUg… vU; nks lnL;ksa dks bl izfØ;k esa mudh lgk;rk

djus ds fy, ljdkj ls ckgj ds O;fDr;ksa dks fo'ks"kKksa ds :i esa

lg&;ksftr djus gsrq vf/kd`r gSA

4- ;g lfefr dk;Z'kkykvks vFkok ftl Hkh :i esa ;g vko';d

le>s] esa fnYyh fodkl izkf/kdj.k vkSj vU; fgr/kkjdksa ds lkFk

fopkj&foe'kZ dj ldrh gSA ;g 'kgjh fu;kstu vkSj fodkl izfØ;k

dks loksZÙke laHko i)fr ls vkxs c<+kus ds fy, fnYyh fodkl izkfèdj.k

dks leFkZ cukus gsrq ns'k ds Hkhrj vFkok fons'k esa blh izdkj ds

lafofè;ksa ds loksZÙke izko/kkuksa@i)fr;ksa ij Hkh fopkj dj ldrh gSA

;g lfefr blds xBu dh rkjh[k ls rhu eghuksa ds Hkhrj ljdkj ds

fopkjkFkZ izk:i vf/kfu;e@fu;e izLrqr djsxhA

5- bl lfefr ds laca/k esa Hkkjr ljdkj ds lsokfuo`Ùk vf/kdkfj;ksa

dks vafre osru fudklh esa ls isa'ku dks ?kVkdj izkIr 'ks"k /kujkf'k dh

nj ls izkfjJfed feysxkA bl dk;Z ds fu"iknu ds fy, ikfjJfed

vkSj ifjogu] dk;Z'kky&lqfo/kk bR;kfn tSlh vU; lqfo/kkvksa dh

O;oLFkk@Hkqxrku fnYyh fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk fd;k tk,xk] tks bl

izfØ;k ds fy, ,d lfpoky; dk xBu djsxk vkSj i;kZIr la[;k esa

LVkQ dh rSukrh djsxk tSlk fd bl lfefr }kjk bldh lgk;rk djus

ds fy, okafNr gksA

[Qkñ lañ ds&11011@37@2014&MhMh II ]

,l- ch- izlkn] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2015

S.O. 485.—In order to re-visit and re-draft the Delhi

Development Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder, to

address the urban development of Delhi effectively and

effeciently in the current context to play changing roles of

facilitator and regulator along with developer, the Central

Government hereby constitutes a Committee with the

following composition:—

(i)

Shri Madhukar Gupta, IAS (Retd).

(Former Vice-Chairman, DDA)

- Chairman

(ii)

Shri S. K Tandon,

(Former CLA, DDA)

- Member

(iii)

Shri Sharda Prasad, IAS (Retd),

(Former Commissioner, Land

Disposal, DDA)

- Member

(iv)

Shri K.P. Laxman Rao, IA&AS (Retd).

(Former Finance Member, DDA)

- Member

(vi)

Shri A. K. Jain (Former Commissioner

of Planning DDA)

- Member

2. Besides the above, the following will be members of

the Committee in ex-officio capacity:—

(i) Additional Secretary, Ministry of Urban

Development

(ii) Joint Secretary (L&E), Ministry of Urban

Development

(iii) Chief Planner, Town and Country Planning

Organization

(iv) Secretary, Delhi Urban Art Commission

(v) Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council

(vi) Municipal Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal

Corporation

(vii) Municipal Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal

Corporation

(viii) Municipal Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal

Corporation

1242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ix) Commissioner-cum-Secretary, DDA-Member

Secretary

3.Chairman is authorized to co-opt any olther two

members as experts from outside the Government to assist

him in carrying out the exercise.

4. The Committee may hold interactions with DDA and

other stakeholders in workshops or whatever format it may

consider necessary. It may also consider the best

provisions/proactices in similar statutes within the country

or abroad for enabling DDA to carry out the urban planning

and developent exercise in the best possible way. The

Committee shall submit the draft Act/Rules for

consideration of the Government with three months from

the date of its constitution.

5. The retired officials of the Government of India on the

Committee will get remuneration at the rate of last pay drawn

minus pension. The remuneration and other facilities like

transport, workshop facilitation, etc., for carrying out this

task will be organized/paid by DDA, which will constitute

a Secretariat for this exercise and post adequate number of

staff as may be desired by the Committee to assist it.

[F. No. K-11011/37/2014-DD II]

S. B. PRASAD, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 486-—nf{k.k fnYyh uxj fuxe }kjk pquko ds

QyLo:i] ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh lrh'k

mik/;k;] E;wfufliy ik"kZn] okMZ lañ 161 fnYYh fodkl vfèfu;e]

1957 ¼1957 dk 61½ dh èkjk ¼3½ dh mi èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼³½

ds rgr rRdky izHkko ls fnYyh fodkl izkfèdj.k ds lnL; gksaxsA

og 31 fnlEcj] 2016 rd vFkok ml frfFk rd tc oks nf{k.k

fnYyh uxj fuxe ds ik"kZn ds in dks NksM+rs gSa] tks Hkh igys gks

izkfèdj.k ds lnL; gksaxsaA

[Qkñ lañ ds&11011@21@2004&MhMh1,]

,lñ chñ izlkn] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2015

S.O. 486.—Consequent upon election by South Delhi

Muncipal Corporation, it is hereby notified that Shri Satish

Upadhyay, Municipal Councillor, Ward No. 161, will be a

member of Delhi Development Authority under clause (e)

of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Delhi Development

Act, 1957 (61 of 1957) with immediate effect. He will be a

member of the Authority upon 31st December, 2016 or until

the date on which he ceases to be a Councillor of South

Delhi Municipal Corporation, whichever is earler.

[F. No. K-11011/21/2004-DD1A]

S.B. PRASAD, Under Secy.

lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;

¼nwjlapkj foHkkx½

¼jktHkk"kk izHkkx½

ubZ fnYYkh] 12 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 487-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼laè ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksfèr] 1987] 2007

rFkk 2011½ ds fu;e 10¼04½ ds vuqlj.k esa eq[; egkizcaèd]

iatkc ifjeaMy ds varxZr] dk;kZy; ofj"B egkizcaèd

¼,uñMCY;wñvksñ½ lh,eVh,l] p.Mhx<+] ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd

deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

2- ;g vfèlwpuk jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA

[lañ bZ&11016@01@2015&jktHkk"kk]

lqjs'k pUnz 'kekZ] mi egkfuns'kd ¼lhñ,.M ,ñ½

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Telecommunications)

(O. L. Unit)

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2015

S.O. 487.—In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the Official

Languages (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules

1976 (as amended 1987, 2007 and 2011), the Central

Government hereby notifies the Office of the Senior General

Manager (N.W.O.) CMTS Chandigarh under the

administrative control of Chief General Manager, Telecom

Circle, Punjab, where more than 80% staff have acquired

working knowledge of Hindi.

2. This notification shall come into force from the date

of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[No. E-11016/1/2015-O.L.]

SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA, DDG (C.&A.)

ukxj foekuu ea=ky;

¼,,vkbZ vuqHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 488-—Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku vkfFkZd fofu;ked

izkfèdj.k vfèfu;e] 2008 ¼2008 dk 27½ esa iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh ,lñ ePNsUnjukFku] vkbZ,,l

¼Vh,u% 79½ ¼lsokfuo`Rr½ dks muds }kjk dk;Zxzg.k djus dh frfFk ls

ikap ¼5½ o"kZ dh vofè vFkok mudh 65 o"kZ dh vk;q iwjh gksus rd

vFkok vkxkeh vkns'kksa rd] buesa tks Hkh igys gks] ` 80]000@&

¼fu;r½ ds osru eku esa Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku vkfFkZd fofu;ked

izkfèdj.k ds vè{k ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ ,ohñ 24015@1@2014&,Mh]

;wñ dsñ HkkfV;k] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1243

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

(AD Section)

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2015

S.O. 488.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

section (2) of section 4 of the Airports Economic Regulatory

Authority of India Act, 2008 (27 of 2008), the Central

Government hereby appoints Sh. S. Machendranathan, IAS

(TN. 79) (Retired) to the post of Chairperson, Airports

Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) in Pay Scale of

Rs. 80,000/- (fixed) for a period of five (5) years from the

date of assumption of charge or till he attains the age of 65

years or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[No. AV-24015/01/2014-AD]

U. K. BHATIA, Under Secy.

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;

¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½

'kqf)i=

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 489-—dsUnz ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij ;Fkk&la'kksfèr

Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼a1956 dk 102½ dh

izFke vuqlwph esa mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½ ds

varxZr ^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼izlwfr ,oa L=h jksx½* vgZrk ds fy,

^ejkBokM+k fo'ofo|ky;@MkWñ ckcklkgsc vEcsMdj ejkBokM+k

fo'ofo|ky;* ds rgr ^,lvkjVhvkj esfMdy dkWyst] vacktksxbZ*

esa izf'kf{kr Nk=ksa ds fy, dkWye ¼3½ esa ikB~;Øe dks ekU;rk iznku

fd, tkus ds o"kZ dks ^vizSy] 1993 esa ;k mlds ckn* ds cnys ^vizSy

1983 esa ;k mlds ckn* ds :i esa i<+k tk,A

[Qkñ lañ ;wñ 12012@70@2006&,ebZih&II]

lqèhj dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health & Family Welfare)

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O. 489.—In the First Schedule to the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), as amended from time to

time by the Central Government under sub-section (2) of

section 11 of the said Act, for the qualification 'Doctor of

Medicine (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)' for students trained

at 'SRTR Medical College. Ambajogai' under the

'Marathwada Unversity/Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

Marathwada University' in the column (3), the year of

recognition of the course may be read as 'on or after April,

1983' instead of 'on or after April, 1993'.

[F. No. U. 12012/70/2006-MEP-II]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 490-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ

iksLV~l 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;y;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2011½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,yñ 40012@88@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2015

S.O. 490.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D No.28/2011) 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 Department of Posts and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 03/03/2015.

[No. L-40012/88/2010-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 25th February, 2015

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 28/2011

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between

the Management of Superintendent of Post Offices and

Another and their workman]

BETWEEN

Sri S. Raja

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Superintendent of Post

2nd Party/

Offices Department of Posts,

1st Respondent

Dindigul Division

Dindigul-624001

2. The Senior Superintendent

2nd Party/2nd

of Post Offices Deptt. of Posts,

Respondent

Kovilpatti Division (ADA)

Kovilpatti-628501

1244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

M/s. R. Malaichamy,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd

Sri B. Sekar, CGSSC

Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/88/2010-IR (DU)

dated 28.03.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Senior

Superintendent of Post Offices, Kovilpatty Division

and Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul in

terminating the services of their workman Sri S. Raja

w.e.f. 28.02.2007 is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 28/2011 and issued notices to both sides.

Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel

and filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder in reply to the Counter

Statement filed by the Respondents.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are as below:

The petitioner was appointed as Branch Post Master

at Nellore Branch Post Office on 30.10.1995. The

petitioner had been discharging his duties in a

satisfactory manner. While so, the petitioner was

placed under off-duty on 06.01.2005. Thereafter the

petitioner was served with a Charge Sheet by the

Second Respondent. It is alleged in the charge sheet

that the petitioner did not credit a sum of Rs. 9,000/-

purportedly to have been accepted from one

Ponnathal for opening a 4-Year Time Deposit

Account, to the account of the Post Office, though a

receipt was given to the depositor. An enquiry was

conducted against the petitioner on the charge and

the Enquiry Officer found that the charge is proved.

On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer the

petitioner was removed from service by order dated

28.02.2007. The appeal preferred by the petitioner

against the order was rejected by order dated

24.08.2008. The Enquiry Officer has committed error

in entering a finding that the charge against the

petitioner is proved. The petitioner has not committed

any misconduct as alleged in the charge. An order

may be passed directing the Respondents to

reinstate the petitioner in service.

4. The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

The Counter Statement is filed on behalf of the First

Respondent also. While the petitioner was working

as Branch Post Master at Nellore Branch he had

accepted Rs. 9,000/- on 01.08.2003 for opening a Time

Deposit Account from one Ponnathal. He did not

bring the deposit in the Post Office Accounts. He

issued the foil portion of Pay-in-Slip Deposit Form

duly signed and stamped by him to the depositor to

make her believe that he has opened One Time

Deposit Account in her name. A charge memo was

issued against the petitioner under Rule-10 of GDS

(Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. The

petitioner denied the charge against him by his

representation dated 09.07.2005. The Inspector of

Posts, Kodaikanal Division was appointed as Enquiry

Officer and an enquiry was conducted on the charge

against the petitioner. On enquiry it was found that

the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved

beyond doubt. A copy of the report was served on

the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted his

representation on the enquiry report. On going

through all the relevant documents the First

Respondent had imposed the penalty of removal from

service on the petitioner by order dated 28.02.2007.

The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the

said order was rejected. In the Written Statement

given by the petitioner on 06.01.2005 he has admitted

receipt of Rs. 9,000/- from Smt. Ponnathal and he had

credited Rs. 9,620/- under classified receipt at

lyyampalayam Post Office on 06.01.2005. The

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. In the rejoinder the petitioner has denied the

contentions in the Counter Statement and reiterated his

case in the Claim Statement.

6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W3 and

Ext.M1 to Ext.M12.

7. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action of the First Respondent in

terminating the service of the petitioner w.e.f.

28.02.2007 is justified?

(ii) What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

8. The petitioner who was working as Branch Post

Master in Nellore Branch Office was removed from the

service of the Postal Department by the First Respondent

by order dated 28.02.2007. The petitioner had allegedly

received Rs. 9,000/- from one Ponnathal for opening a One

Time Deposit Account but had failed to credit the amount

to the account of the Post Office. The depositor had

preferred a complaint against the petitioner and a charge

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1245

memo was issued to the petitioner after a preliminary

enquiry. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into

the charge against the petitioner. The charge having been

found proved the First Respondent had removed the

petitioner from service.

9. Though the petitioner is challenging the report of the

departmental enquiry against him in this dispute, he has

not produced the documents required to adjudicate on the

matter. None of the three documents produced by the

petitioner pertain to the enquiry proceedings.

10. The Respondents have produced the enquiry report

and also some other documents including the foil portion

of the pay-in-slip for Rs. 9,000/- said to have been issued

by the petitioner to Smt. Ponnathal on her making one time

deposit with the petitioner who was working as the Post

Master of the concerned Branch Post Office. The charge

memo also is produced by the Respondents. On going

through the report of enquiry it is seen that four witnesses

were examined by the Management in the enquiry. Nine

documents are seen marked also. However, the copies of

documents except the copy of the pay-in-slip or the copies

of the depositions are not produced. So there is constraint

in adjudicating the matter.

11. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted a written

argument referring to the documents produced in the

enquiry proceedings and also the deposition of the

witnesses. It is clear from this that all these material required

for adjudication of the case are with the petitioner. In spite

of that the petitioner has not produced them. In the absence

of these documents it is difficult to probe into the veracity

of the claims made by the petitioner through the written

argument submitted on his behalf.

12. In spite of the above constraints, on going through

the enquiry report I find that there was sufficient

justification for the Enquiry Officer for entering a finding

that the charge against the petitioner is proved. It is seen

from the enquiry report that Ponnathal who had deposited

Rs. 9,000/- as one time deposit was examined in the enquiry

proceedings. The Enquiry Officer has referred to the pay-

in-slip issued by the petitioner to Ponnathal examined as

SW1 in his enquiry report. He has also referred to the

statement made by the petitioner admitting that he had

issued counterfoil of the pay-in-slip to the depositor with

date stamp impression of Nellore Branch on 01.08.2003.

SW3 seems to have deposed before the Enquiry Officer

that the petitioner had given statement admitting that pay-

in-slip was issued by him. It was on the basis of such

evidence the Enquiry Officer has entered a finding against

the petitioner. On going through the enquiry report I do

not find any reason to differ from the finding arrived at by

the Enquiry Officer.

13. It is a case where the petitioner, a responsible

Government employee had committed the misconduct of

failing to credit the amount that was entrusted with him to

the account and even trying to cheat the depositor by

making her believe that the amount has been credited. The

petitioner has failed in his duty and responsibility as a

public servant. The punishment of removal from service

awarded to him by the First Respondent commensurates

with the gravity of the offence committed by him. So there

is no necessity to interfere with the punishment imposed

on the petitioner as well. The petitioner is not entitled to

any relief.

14. In view of my discussion above, the reference is

answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri, S. Raja

For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd

None

Management

Documents Marked

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

19.07.2005

Petition by C. Ramar with

acknowledgement

Ex. W2

19.07.2005

Petition by C. Jayagopal with

acknowledgement

Ex.W3

26.07.2005

Representation by the petitioner

On the Management's side

Ex.M1

—

Counter affidavit filed by the 2nd

representation

Ex.M2

01.08.2003

Foil portion of pay in slip (SB-

103) for Rs. 9,000/-

Ex.M3

29.06.2005

Supdt. of Post, Dindigul Divn.

Memo No. F1/4/2004-05

Ex.M4

01.07.2005

Acknowledgement for the

receipt of Charge Memo

Ex.M5

09.07.2005

Representation of the petitioner

denying the charge

Ex.M6

23.11.2005

Inquiry Office Report

Ex.M7

01.02.2007

Representation of the petitioner

for the Inquiry Officer report

Ex.M8

28.02.2007

Proceedings of Sr. Supdt. of POs,

Kovilpatti Division in Memo No.

F1/4/04-05

Ex.M9

29.02.2008

Proceedings of Director of Postal

Services, O/o Postmaster

1246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

General, Southern Region,

Madurai-625002 in Memo No.

VIG/15-10/07-08

Ex.M10

11.11.2009

Withdrawal of OA 791/2008

Ex.M11

06.01.2005

Statement of the petitioner given

before the Assistant

Superintendent of Post Offices,

Nilakottai Sub-Division

Ex.M12

06.01.2005

ACG 67 Receipt No. 38 of

lyyampalayam Sub-Post-Office

for Rs. 9620.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 491-—vkS|ksfxdh fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fganqLrku ,jksukWfVDl

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[;k 12@2009½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ 42011@72@2008&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 491.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No.12/2009) of the Central

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 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and

their workmen,

which was received by the Central

Government on 09/03/2015.

[No. L- 42011/72/2008-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOVV

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR,

Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 12/2009

Ref. No. L-42011/72/2008-IR(DU) dated 18.05 2009

BETWEEN

The President

Korva Safai Karmchari Union

HAL Korva, Amethi

Sultanpur.

AND

The General Manager

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Korva, Amethi

Sultanpur —227412.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42011/72/2008-IR(DU) dated 18.05.2009

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between the President, Korva Safai

Karmchari Union, HAL Korva, Amethi, Sultanpur and the

General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Korva,

Amethi, Sultanpur for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the demand of the Korva Safai Karmchari

Union that order made by The Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central) on 27/07/2004 for payment

of wages equal of the wages at the minimum of the

scale of wages paid to regular unskilled workers of

hal, Korva and other benefits and service conditions

should be implemented in full by the management of

Hal, Korva, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief

the workmen concerned are entitled to?"

3. The case of the workmen's union, in brief, is that

the workmen under dispute are engaged as Safai

Karmchari with the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.

Korva through some contractor for the last 20-25

years. It is submitted by the workmen's union that at

present said contract is with Shri Shambhu Nath

Shukla and prior to him it was owned by some other

various contractors from time to time. It has

specifically been submitted by the union that the

contractors kept on changing but the workmen did

not change and they kept on working under different

contractors; but various responsibilities in respect

of them i.e. salary ESI, PF and uniform etc. were borne

by the HAL. It is alleged by the union that the

management of HAL adopted the practice of

engagement through contractor just to deprive the

workmen from the benefits available to other regular

employees available in other units of HAL.

It is submitted by the union that the Labour

Commissioner, UP vide their order dated 28.04 1989

has required that the employees engaged on

contract with the HAL should be given same

salary and benefits which are available to other

unskilled employees, recruited directly by the HAL. The

management preferred a writ against order dated 28.04.1989,

which was rejected by Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1247

The SLP too was rejected; and accordingly, the

management of HAL is paying all the contract labours at

the rate of unskilled labours in their Lucknow unit. The

union moved a writ before Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow

Bench, Lucknow for payment at par with the unskilled

labours who are engaged on contract at Lucknow unit and

subsequently approached the Labour Commissioner as per

directives of Hon'ble High Court. The Labour Commissioner,

UP too directed for making payment and giving other

benefits at par with other units of HAL to unskilled labours.

It is submitted that on determination of appropriate

government in respect of HAL is the Central Government

the matter was taken up with Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central) who vide their order dated

27.07.2004 directed that the worker engaged though

contractor for cleaning work in HAL, Korva should be paid

same wages as to the unskilled employees employed

directly. The management of HAL preferred a writ before

Hon'bie High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow but Hon'ble

High Court neither stayed the order dated 27.07.2004 of

Dy. CLC (C) nor passed any interim orders. The union has

also filed a writ before Hon'ble High Court to enforce the

orders of Dy CLC (C) w.e.f. 01.02.2003 or from the date the

workmen are engaged but in that writ too Hon'ble High

Court has not passed any order. Accordingly the workmen's

Union has prayed that the order of the Dy. CLC(C) be

directed to be implemented in total.

4. The management of the HAL has denied the claim of

the workmen's union by filing its written statement; wherein

it has submitted that the workmen whose case is espoused

by the union are not employees of HAL, Korva, which is

only their principal employer; rather they are employees of

a sanitation contractor and wages are being paid to them

by the contractor being their employer. The said contractor

is liable to make payment under PF Act, Gratuity Act and

CLRA Act etc. It is specifically submitted by the

management that the issue regarding implementation of

order dated 27.07.2004 of the Dy. CLC(C) is sub-judice

before Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow then

the same matter cannot be adjudicated by the lower court,

particularly when the same is agitated by the union also. It

is also submitted that the union itself has moved a writ

with respect to order dated 27.07.2004, therefore, it cannot

ask for its implementation. The management has also

challenged the validity of the reference; and accordingly,

has prayed that the claim of the workmen's union be rejected

being devoid of merit.

5. The workmen's union has filed its rejoinder wherein it

has reiterated the averments already made in the statement

of claim.

6. The parties have filed documentary evidence in

support of their respective claim. The union has examined

Shri Jai Prakash; whereas the management has examined

Shri Om Prakash Singh, Asstt. Engineer, Shri Dharam Pal,

Sr. Manager (HR), Shri A.K. Bajpai, Engineer (Civil) and

Shri Pramod Kumar, Human Resource Officer in support of

their respective claim. The parties availed opportunity to

cross-examine the witnesses of each other apart from

forwarding oral arguments.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival

contentions of the authorized representatives of the parties

and perused the entire evidence available on record in light

thereto.

8. The authorized representative of the workrnan has

argued that the Hon'ble High Court has neither stayed nor

quashed the order dated 27.7.2004 of the Dy. CLC (C); hence,

the same holds good and stupid be implemented and the

workmen should be payment wages equal to the wages at

the minimum of the scale of wages paid to the regular

unskilled workers of HAL, Korva and other benefits. The

union has relied upon:

(i) Madan Kumar Singh vs. Distt. Magistrate,

Sultanpur & another in Civil Appeal No. 5165 of 2009

decided on 07.08.2009.

(ii) M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Federal

Motors Pvt. Ltd. In Civil Appeal No. 7988 of 2004 decided

on 10.12.2004.

9. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the reference order its

self is bad in the eye of law as the conciliation officer

submitting its report before appropriate Government for

reference is subordinate to the Dy. CLC (C) who has passed

the order dated 27.7.2004 and the same is sub-judice before

Hon'ble High Court; hence the same cannot be referred for

adjudication. It has also argued that since the order dated

27.7.2004 has been challenged by both the parties before

Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, therefore,

the issue of its implementation cannot be decided by the

lower court.

10. On merits of the case, the workmen's union has come

up with a case that since there is no stay or interim order

has been passed by Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench,

Lucknow on the order dated 27.7.2004, therefore, the

management is duty bound to implement the order dated

27.7.2004; and accordingly, they should be paid wages equal

to the wages at the minimum of the scale of wages paid to

the regular unskilled workers of HAL, Korva and other

benefits.

11. Per contra, the management's sole contention is that

the reference is bad in eye of law and the order dated

27.7.2004 being agitated by both the parties before Hon'ble

High Court, cannot be taken up for implementation by this

Tribunal.

12. The witnesses of the parties in their evidence have

tried to corroborate their respective pleadings. Thus, the

matter for consideration before this Tribunal, firstly, as

1248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

regards validity of the reference order and secondly, as to

whether the order dated 27.7.2004 of the Dy. CLC (C) can

be implemented when two writs are pending before Hon'ble

High Court against said order.

13. The appropriate Government has referred the present

industrial dispute for adjudication 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 to

this Tribunal. Accordingly, this Tribunal has to give its

answer to the reference made to it. This Tribunal cannot sit

in appeal over the administrative order passed by the

Central Government, referring the matter to the ndustrial

tribunal for adjudication. Had the management had any

grievance regarding admissibility or legality of the reference

order then it was open for the management to move to the

High Court to quash the present reference order or to get

the proceedings stayed before this Tribunal. There is no

iota of evidence to indicate that the management has even

adopted any of the course either to get the reference order

quashed or proceedings stayed before this Tribunal stayed.

Therefore, this Tribunal has to proceed into the matter

referred to it for adjudication.

14. Admittedly, both the parties have challenged the

order dated 27.7.2004 of the CLC (C); whereby it has held

the workmen entitled for wages equal to the wages at the

minimum of the scale of wages paid to the regular unskilled

workers of HAL, Korva and other benefits. The workmen's

union has filed a writ petition No. 1213 (s/s) of 2005 before

Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow for

amending the date of implementation of the order from an

earlier date; whereas the management of HAL filed a writ

petition No. 7347 of 2004 challenging the order dated

27.7.2004 with prayer to quash the order dated 27.7.2004/

stay the implementation/execution of the order. Hon'ble

did not pass any interim order on the above two writs.

Moreover, Hon'ble High Court neither quashed the order

dated 27.7 2004 nor stayed the implementation/execution

of the order dated 27.7.2004. Hence, in view of the admitted

facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated

27.7.2004 of the Dy. CLC (C) still holds good having all its

impact upon the parties for the want of any stay from the

Hon'ble High Court on the order dated 27.7.2004.

Further, neither there is any pleading in this regard nor

any evidence has been moved by either parties that the

proceedings before this Tribunal in the present industrial

dispute has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court or

other appropriate forum.

15. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case

and discussions made here in above, I am of considered

opinion that the order passed by the Dy. CLC (C), the

competent authority, on 27.7.2004 is legal and justified and

binding on parties and the management of Hindustan

Aeronautics Limited, Korva is liable to make payment of

wages equal to the wages at the minimum of the scale of

wages paid to the regular unskilled workers of HAL, Korva

and other benefits w.e.f. 01.02.2003.

16. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

17. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

15th January, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 492-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xSfjlu bathfu;j

¼;wfVfyVh½] cfBaMk fey LVs'ku] cfBaMk dSaV ds izca/k ra= ds lac)

fu;kstdk— 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

paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 772@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&13012@14@99&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 492.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No.772/2005) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court No.II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Garrison Engineer (Utility),

Bathinda Mill Station, Bathinda Cantt. and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

09/03/2015.

[No. L-13012/14/99-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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. 772/2005

Registered on 5.9.2005

Sh. Mohan Singh, S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh, Village

Fatehpurgarhi, PO: Jhansla, Tehsil: Rajpura, Patiala.

Petitioner

Versus

1. The Garrison Engineer (Utility), Bathinda Mill Station,

Bathinda Cantt.

Respondents

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1249

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Kailash Sharma, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Harjeet Singh, Adv.

Award

Passed on 5.1.2015

Central

Government vide Notification No.

L-13012/14/99/IR(DU) Dated 17.2.2000, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of MES in

terminating the services of Sh. Mohan Singh, S/o

Sh. Gurbachan Singh is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled and

from which date?"

In the statement of claim the workman pleaded that he

was appointed as Switch Board Attendant w.e.f. 12.4.1983

on daily wage basis and his services were terminated w.e.f.

January, 1987 without giving him any compensation or

serving one month notice and termination of his services

is in violation of Section 25F of the Act.

It is further pleaded that management terminated the

services of about 70 daily wage employees including the

workman w.e.f. January, 1987. They filed separate

applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in 1990 which were

dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.8.1992. Some

of the workmen filed SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and the order dated 19.8.1992 was set aside with the

direction to the management to consider the case in

accordance with the law laid down in State of Haryana Vs.

Piara Singh. In pursuance of the said judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the management reinstated all the

employees except the workman. Since the order of the

Central Administrative Tribunal dated 2.9.1996 was set aside,

the management was to reinstate the workman also.

Since the termination of the services of the workman is

illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated on the ground of

parity also and therefore, he be reinstated in service.

Management filed written reply admitting the

appointment of the workman w.e.f. 12.4.1983 and termination

of his services w.e.f. January, 1987, and further pleaded

that the Office of the Assistant Garrison Engineer, Bathinda

was a temporary establishment created for completing

construction work and after the completion of the work the

office was wounded up and the services of the workman

were terminated. It is further pleaded that workman was

not party in the SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and as such his case was not considered. It is further

pleaded that he did not complete 240 days in any calendar

year and he also did not fulfill other requisite qualifications

and experience to continue in the service and as such, he is

not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.

In support of its case, workman appeared in the witness

box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as set out in

the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. Indal Prasad and Sh. Narinder Singh who 'filed their

respective affidavits supporting the case of the respondent

management as pleaded in the written statement and further

deposed that the workman did not complete 240 days of

service in any calendar year.

Narinder Singh has further deposed that workman

worked for 42 days in 1982, 165 days in 1983, 111 days in

1984 and 99 days in 1985.

I have heard Sh. Kailash Sharma counsel for the

workman and Sh. Harjeet Singh, counsel for the

management and perused the file.

The workman has specifically pleaded in para 1 of the

statement of claim that he was engaged on 12.4.1983 on

daily wage basis and his services were terminated w.e.f.

January, 1987. The respondent management did not

controvert this fact in para 1 of the written statement and

rather admitted the same and it is only pleaded in para 4 on

merits that he did not complete 240 days in any calendar

year. Since the management itself admit that the workman

worked from 12.4.1983 to January, 1987, it is for the

management to prove by leading cogent evidence that the

workman did not complete 240 days in a calendar year prior

to the termination of his services. Narinder Singh has

deposed about the days the workman worked during the

year 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 but he did not utter a single

word about the days workman worked in the year 1986 and

therefore it cannot be said that the workman did not

complete 240 days in a calendar year preceding the

termination of his services in January, 1987. Thus it is to be

held that he completed 240 days of continuous service,

prior to the termination of his services. No retrenchment

compensation or notice was issued to him as specified

under Section 25F of the Act, and as such, his termination

is held to be illegal.

It is also not denied that services of the 70 employees

including the workman were terminated in January, 1987.

All of them filed OAs before the Central Administrative

Tribunal which were dismissed by common order dated

19.8.1992. The workmen, but not the present workman,

preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court who set

aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal with

a direction to the management to consider the case in

accordance with law laid down in State of Haryana Vs.

Piara Singh vide order dated 2.9.1996. In pursuance of the

1250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

said order, the management reinstated the other employees.

Since the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was

set aside, it was for the management to consider the case

of the present workman also. But no step was taken by the

management in this direction. It was contended that there

is a delay in raising the industrial dispute which is sufficient

to hold that claimant cannot claim any relief in the present

reference. Suffice it to say that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

passed the order in 1996 and thereafter the co-workers,

who were admittedly similarly situated as the present

workman, were reinstated. The workman raised the industrial

dispute and the reference was received in the year 2000.

Thus there is an inaction not on the part of the workman

but on the part of the management and the workman initiated

tle proceedings without any inordinate delay.

Therefore on the ground of parity and the fact that

termination of his services is not legal and he is entitled to

be reinstated in service. Since he did not file SLP before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and only raised the present dispute,

he cannot claim back wages for the period he remained out

of service. Moreover there is nothing on the file to suggest

that he did not remain gainfully employed during the period

of his discontinuance of service and he himself is totally

silent about this fact when appeared in the witness box.

Thus he is to be reinstated in service but without back

wages.

In result, it is held that termination of the services of

workman is illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated in

service but without back wages. The management is

directed to reinstate him in service within 2 months from

the publication of the award. The reference is accordingly

answered in favour of the workman. Let hard and soft copy

of the award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 493-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

fyfeVsM ,aM vkWFklZ ds izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 315@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 09@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@83@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 493.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 315/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court

No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 09/03/2015.

[No. L-40012/83/2013-IR(DU)]

P.K.VENUGOPAL, 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. 315/2013

Registered on 18.2.2014

1. Sh. Brij Pal, S/o Sh. Amir Chand, House No.8, Vivek

Vihar, Part-2, Bapu Nagar, Dehradun.

Petitioner

Versus

1. The General Manager, BSNL, Patel Nagar, Dehradun.

2. M/s. Terrior Security, 42. Chakrata Road, Dehradun.

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Gobind Singh, A.R.

For the Management

Ex parte.

AWARD

Passed on 30.1.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/83/

2013 [IR(DU)] Dated 21.1.2014, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of BSNL,

Dehradun and M/s. Terrior Security in terminating

the services of Sh. Brij Pal without complying with

provisions of Section 25F, G and H of the ID Act is

unjustified? If so, to what relief workman is entitled

to?"

In response to the notice, workman submitted statement

of claim pleading that he worked with Respondent No.1 as

Security Guard through Vijayant Security in January, 2005.

The contract with the said security remained up to

December, 2006. The contract for security was given to

Uttarakhand Security in 2007 and the name of the workman

was entered in the muster roll of the said security service,

where he worked up to December, 2009. Thereafter, the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1251

contract for security was given to Terrioer Security-

Respondent No. 2 in January, 2010 and the name of the

workman was entered with the said security. It is alleged

that he was not paid minimum wages as well as wages in

lieu of vacations/holidays and he raised the dispute with

Respondent No. 1 and 2 for giving him proper wages. That

his services were illegally terminated by Respondent No. 2

w.e.f. 1.8.2012. That he be got paid a sum of Rs.90,035/- as

well as he be reinstated in service.

A letter dated 17.2.2014 was received from the Terrior

Security-Respondent No. 2, wherein, it is mentioned that

relief has been given to the workman by the Regional Labour

Commissioner, Dehradun and similar facts have been stated

in the letter dated 26.3.2014 of the respondent No.1. The

said letter shows that respondent No.1 and 2 have notice

about the proceedings. But they did not choose to come

present to contest the claim of the workman and were

proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 15.4.2014.

The workman led ex parte evidence and himself appeared

in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the

case as set out in the claim petition to the effect that he

worked with respondent No.2 as Security Guard from

January, 2010 to 31.7.2012 and his services were terminated

without serving him any notice. His statement remains

unrebutted on the file showing that his services were

terminated by respondent No.2 without paying him any

retrenchment compensation or serving him any notice as

required under Section 25F of the Act.

Perusal of the order passed by the Regional Labour

Commissioner, Dehradun, the copies of which were sent

by respondent No.1 and 2 along with their letters, shows

that the workman was paid certain wages and the question

of the termination of his services was not decided there.

Therefore the said settlement has no effect on the

proceedings of this case. Though, the workman has made

several averments regarding less payment of wages, but

the same is not to be decided in the present reference which

is only regarding the termination of his services.

Since the services were terminated in violation of the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act, and therefore, the

same is illegal.

Now, the question is whether the workman be reinstated

in service or be paid compensation. It may be added that

respondent No.2 has been doing the work on contract with

respondent No.1 and in the circumstances; the only remedy

available is to pay compensation to the workman.

According to the workman, he was getting pay of Rs.4200/

- per month. Considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, the workman is awarded Rs.2,00,000/- as

compensation which he is entitled to recover from

respondent No.2.

In result, it is held that the action of respondent No.2 i.e.

M/s Terrior Security in terminating the services of the

workman is unjustified and he is entitled to recover

Rs.2,00,000/- from respondent No.2 by way of

compensation. However the workman has no claim against

respondent No.1. The reference is answered accordingly

in favour of the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the

award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 494-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ+ iksLV]

yqfè;kuk 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

215@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@87@2003&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 494.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 215/2011) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No.II,

Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Department of Post, Ludhiana and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 09/03/2015.

[No. L-40012/87/2003-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, 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.215/2011

Registered on 5.10.2011

Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, H.No. 31, Narain

Nagar, Basti Sheikh Road, Jalandhar.

Petitioner

Versus

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of

Post, Post Office, Ludhiana.

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Ex parte.

For the Management

Sh. Vikram Bajaj, Adv.

1252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on 12.1.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/87/

2003-IR(DU) Dated 19.9.2011, by exercising its powers under

Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Postal

Department in terminating the services of Sh. Rajesh

Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, Ex-Stamp Vendor w.e.f.

17/9/2002 without any notice and without any

payment of retrenchment compensation is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to and

from which date?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared through

counsel but neither the workman nor his counsel appeared

on 19.12.2014 and he was ordered to be proceeded against

ex parte. Thus, the workman did not file any statement of

claim challenging the termination order passed by the

management and therefore, it cannot be said that the action

of the management in terminating his services with effect

from 17.9.2002 is illegal and unjustified. Therefore, the

reference is answered against the workman and he is not

entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award

be sent to the Central Government for further necessary

action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 495-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds fjDr in gsrq ¯yd

vfèdkjh ds :i esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k&lg&Je

U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds ihBklhu vfèdkjh Jh ,lñ ,uñ uoyxq.M dks

N% ekg dh vofè rd vFkok fu;fer inèkj.k dh fu;qfDr gksus rd

vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks rc rd ds fy,

vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj lkSairs gSaA

[lañ ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]

,lñ dsñ ¯lg] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2015

S.O. 495.—The President is pleased to entrust the

additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad to Shri S. N. Navalgund Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore for a period of six months or till the post is filled

on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is the

earliest.

[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]

S.K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 496-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 1947 dk

14 dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad

izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

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

dksydÙkk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@23@2000&vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 496.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2000) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Bharatiya Reserve Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

09/03/2015.

[No. L-12011/23/2000 - IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 41 of 2000

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Ltd.,

Midnapore (W.B.)

AND

Their Workmen

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

....Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the management

Mr. M.R.

Sarbadhikari, Ld.

Counsel.

On behalf of the workmen

Mr. D.C. Roy, Ld.

Counsel with Mr. B.

Mukherjee, Id.

Counsel and Mr. S.K.

Ghosh, Ld. Counsel.

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Banking.

Dated: 19th February, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/23/2000/1R(B-I) dated 29.09.2000

Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1253

powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Bharatiya

Reserve Bank Note Mudran Limited, Salboni, Distt.

Midnapore (W.B.) in not classifying the job of

industrial workers employed in 5 different grades and

5 different pay scales and not paying them the equal

pay for equal work is justified. if not, to what relief

the concerned workmen are not entitled?"

2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the case of the union

is as follows:

Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Limited

(B.R.B.N.M. Ltd. in short), after observing all formalities

viz. Publishing advertisement, conducting interview of the

candidates etc. recruited industrial workmen in four different

Grades (i.e., Grade-I to Grade-IV) in four different pay scales.

But after introduction of modern technology, the workmen

of all the grades were compelled to do the same work as the

jobs of the workmen were not classified; as a result the

workmen of all the grades have to do equal work against

different pay scales. The matter was brought to the notice

of the management but the management did not pay any

heed to it. Accordingly, an industrial dispute was raised

which was ultimately referred to the Tribunal for

adjudication.

3. The management/B.R.B.N.M. Ltd. has contested the

case by filing written statement and thereby denied all the

contentions made in the statement of claim filed by the

union. It is the specific case of the management that as per

the Certified Standing Orders of the Company which is

binding upon all the industrial workmen, the employee will

be assigned any kind or type of work in any department or

section of the Company. It is also contended that as per

the terms of appointment each employee is required to

perform the duty so allocated to him/her without any

demure. According to the management the production

process of the Company is inter-woven and any segmental

approach in going for water-tight job classification will

lead to stoppage of work in different areas affecting the

total process. The management accordingly prays that the

instant reference may be answered in the negative.

4. The union in order to prove its case has examined

four witnesses and proved some documents. The

management has not examined any witness in support of

its case.

5. It has been argued on behalf of the union that initially

the industrial workmen were recruited in four different

grades against different pay scales. But after introduction

of modern technology, the workmen of all the grades are

compelled to do the same work as the jobs of the workmen

were not classified and accordingly the workmen of all the

grades are to do equal/same work against different pay

scales. So the workmen are being deprived from getting

benefits of the doctrine of "Equal pay for equal work".

6. During argument, Ld. Counsel for the union, in

support of the case, has produced the following photo

copy of the decisions:

1. AIR 1999 SC 1734;

2. AIR 1975 SC 2238;

3. AIR 1998 SC 2979;

4. Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11821 of 1996;

5. AIR 1987 SC 2049;

6. AIR 1998 SC 1504;

7. AIR 2008 SC 1028;

8. Supreme Court Writ Petition No. 4676 of 1998;

9. Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4106 of 2004 and

10. High Court of Madras Writ Petition No. 7872 of

1991.

7. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the

management that the management published advertisement

for recruiting the industrial workmen in four different

grades. The requisite qualification and experience for

different grades were different from one another. After

receiving applications from the candidates, suitable

candidates were selected and were recruited after observing

all formalities. Appointment letters were accordingly

issued. It is also contended on behalf of the management

that the process of production process of the Company is

inter-woven and any segmental approach in going for

water-tight job classification will lead to stoppage of work

in different areas which will affect the total process.

Accordingly in case of emergency, i.e., during shortage of

workmen, available workmen of any grade are asked to do

the job meant for other grade in order to keep the production

process active and keeping the said matter in mind,

appointment letters were issued with the terms and

conditions that each employee is required to perform the

duty so allocated to him without any demure. The workmen

after accepting the said terms and conditions joined the

service. It is also argued that the Certified Standing Orders

which is binding on the employees, states that the

employees will be assigned any kind or type of work in any

department or section of the Company.

8. Now, considering the argument of both the parties it

appears that there is no controversy that the jobs of the

workmen of the Company have not been classified. There

appear to be no controversy that the Company/

Management recruited industrial workmen in four different

Grades with four different pay scales. There is also no

controversy that the requisite qualification and experience

for recruitment of the workmen in different grades were

1254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

different from one another. There is also no dispute that

the production process of the Company is inter-woven

and inter dependent.

9. The controversy relates to the question as to whether

all the workmen of the different grades are to perform the

same job every day on regular basis.

10. in this reference case the union has claimed for equal

pay for the industrial workmen on the ground that the said

workmen belonging to different grades are performing equal

work every day on regular basis and such equal nature of

job has the effect of doing away with the artificial

classification. It is the contention of the Company/

management that since the production process of the

Company is inter-oven the machine is required to run

continuously and any stoppage of work may hamper the

production and for the said reason at the time of shortage

of workmen of any grade on account of leave or absence,

other grade of workmen are directed to perform the job of

the said absentee workmen in order to keep the machine in

running condition. The said situation is occurred

occasionally and not on every day.

11. The witness, Shri Amarendra Nath Ghosh (WW-03)

in his evidence-in-chief has stated that if anybody of the

crew takes leave then any industrial workman irrespective

of grades may be posted in the machine by the Section-in-

charge.

12. So the said oral evidence of WW-03 goes to show

that the workmen of all the grades are not performing the

same job on regular basis. On the contrary, from his

evidence it is evident that during absence of the workmen

of any grade, the workmen of another grade are asked to

perform the job of the absentee workmen.

13. There is no reason to disbelieve the said oral

testimony of WW-03. So it appears that the said oral

evidence of WW-03 supports the contention of the

management/company that occasionally on account of

exigency, workmen belonging to one grade are asked to

perform the job of another grade and the industrial workmen

are duty bound to do the same as per the terms and

conditions of their appointment as mentioned in their

appointment letter an also in the Certified Standing Orders

(Exhibits M-02 and M-03 respectively).

14. Now, it is to be considered whether or not the

concerned industrial workmen are entitled to get equal pay,

if, for the sake of argument, it is admitted that all grades of

workmen are compelled to do equal work by the

management.

15. In the instant case, admittedly there are different

grades of industrial workmen with varying qualifications

and experience for entering into a particular grade. The

higher grade is a promotional avenue for the lower grade.

The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' has been

enshrined in Article 39(d) in Part-IV of the Constitution of

India which is one of the directive principles of state policy,

requiring the state to secure 'equal pay for equal work', for

both men and women. Now it is well settled on the basis of

the different judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that

the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has assumed the

status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence, having

regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

16. It is also well settled that mere fact that the nature of

work of two sets of employees are more or less same will

not entitle the workmen in such employment to the same

scale of pay. In State of Haryana & Anr. V. Tilak Raj & Ors.,

reported in 2003-III-LLJ 487 the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed that" 'Equal pay for equal work' is a concept

which requires for its applicability complete and wholesome

identity between a group of employees claiming identical

pay scales and other group of employees who have already

earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay

cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula."

(Paragraph 11)

In Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of India,

reported in AIR 1984 SC 1221 the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed that apart from the nature of work, the pay

structure should reflect many other values and stated that

the employer should follow certain basic principles in fixing

pay scales for various posts and cadres. The degree of

skill, strain of work, experience involved, training required,

responsibility undertaken mental and physical

requirements, disagreeableness of the task, hazard attendant

on the work of fatigue involved, are some of the relevant

factors which should be taken into consideration in fixing

pay scales. The method of recruitment, the level at which

the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service or

cadre, minimum educational and technical qualifications

prescribed for the post, the nature of dealings with the

public, avenues of promotion available and horizontal and

vertical relativity with other jobs in the same service or

outside, are also relevant factors.

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sreenivasa Rao, reported

in 1998-II-LLJ 149 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also

observed that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'

does not mean that all members of a cadre must receive the

same pay packet, irrespective of their seniority, source of

recruitment, educational qualifications and various other

incidents of service.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Fertilizer Corporation of India v. Sarat Chandra Rath,

reported in 1996-II-LLJ 913 that there was no discrimination

in fixing the pay of the two categories of employees, one

who had not acquired the officers' grade and the other who

had already acquired the officers' grade, keeping in view

their designation as well as their pay scales obtaining on

the relevant date, because they were, in different classes.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1255

These two categories were unequal and the claimants could

not, in law, make any grievance if different principles were

adopted in fixing their respective pay scales.

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramashraya Yadav, reported

in 1996-II LLJ 92 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed

that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' will not

apply where the qualifications prescribed, mode of

recruitment and the nature of duties are different for regular

employees and a temporary employees.

17. So, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' can

only be enforced if the claiming persons satisfy the Tribunal

that not only the nature of work is identical but in all other

respects also they belong to the same class and there is no

apparent reason to treat 'equals as unequals'.

18. On perusal of the said decisions it appears that the

decisions reported in AIR 1999 SC 1734, AIR 1975 SC 2238,

AIR 1998 SC 2979 and Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.

11821 of 1996 have got no relevancy in the instant case.

The decisions reported in AIR 1987 SC 2049, AIR 1998 SC

1504, AIR 2008 SC 1028, Supreme Court Writ Petition No.

4676 of 1998, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4106 of 2004

and High Court of Madras Writ Petition No. 7872 of 1991

are also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of

the instant case.

19. In this case, admittedly there are different grades of

industrial workmen with varying qualifications, experience

etc. for entry into a particular grade. So, the industrial

workmen of all the grades cannot be said to be equal.

20. In the instant reference it is the case of the Company/

management that the Company has introduced modern

technology by installing improved machines and providing

modern techniques, system etc. and for that reason during

the absence of any industrial workmen of any grade,

workmen of other grade are asked to do the job of the

absentee workmen to keep the machine in running

condition. It is also the case of the Company that the

production process of the Company is inter-woven and

any segmental approach in going for water-tight job

classification will lead to stoppage of work in different areas

affecting the total process. For the said reason job

classification will make the system slow and production

will hamper which will have a far-reaching consequence.

21. The above contention of the Company has not been

denied by the union.

22. Having regard to the decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court referred to above and the aforesaid

discussions, I am of the considered view that the concerned

industrial workmen are not entitled to get equal pay and

that classification of job of the industrial workmen employed

in different grades is not desirable.

23. The instant order of reference is answered

accordingly.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 19th Feburary, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 497-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos izcaè ra=

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;]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 77@2001½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@20@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 497.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2001) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Central Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 09/03/2015.

[No. L-41012/20/2001-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 77/2001

Ref. No. L-41012/20/2001-IR(B-1) dated 16.05.2001

BETWEEN

Shri Ashok Singh Bhadouriya

S/o Sh. Hira Singh Bhadouriaya

H. No 628/1, Thomson Compound, Sipri Bazar,

Jhansi —284 001.

AND

1. The Divisional Railway Manager (P)

Central Railway

Jhansi —284 001.

2. The Chief Telecom Unication Inspector

(Microwave)

Central Railway

Jhansi - 284 001.

1256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

1. By order No L-41012/20/2001-IR(B-1) dated 16.05.2001

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 Ashok Singh Bhadouriya,

S/o Sh. Hira Singh Bhadouriya, H. No. 628/1, Thomson

Compound, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi and the Divisional Railway

Manager (P), Central Railway, Jhansi & the Chief Telecom

Unication Inspector (Microwave), Central Railway, Jhansi

to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE DIVISIONAL

RAILWAY MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY, JHANSI

IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SHRI ASHOK

SINGH BHADOURIYA W.E.F. 5-5-1982 IS LEGAL

AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?"

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Sri Ashok Singh Bhadouriya, had been engaged as casual

labourer with the opposite parties and had been granted

Monthly Rate Casual Labour (M.R.C.L.) or temporary status.

The details of working in respect of the workman is

endorsed in the casual labour card No. 102339, issued by

the opposite party.

4. It has been submitted by the workman that he had

been engaged w.e.f. 05.04.79 and worked up to 04.05.82 for

approximately 1000 days. The workman has submitted that

he has not been given benefit of regularization schemes,

circulated in the year 1996 and 1997 by the Railway Board.

The workman has alleged that his services have been

terminated without assigning any reason or any notice or

notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation

in violation to the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act.

The workman has submitted that as per Rules contained in

the Railway Establishment Manual, after grant of MRCL/

temporary status, the workman was ought to have been

given 14 days, notice but the management did not comply

the said Rule; accordingly, their action was illegal and

unjust. It is also submitted by the workman that he made

several representations before the railway administration

from 1984 to 1995 but all in vain. Therefore, the workman

has prayed that his termination w.e.f. 05.05 82 be set aside

and he be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

5. The management has denied the allegations of the

workman in its written statement; wherein it has submitted

that it did not terminate the services of the workman at any

point of time; rather it was workman himself who abandoned

his services and did not turn up w.e.f. 05.05.82. Moreover,

the management has also submitted that the workman never

submitted any representation before the railway

administration and the present claim before this Tribunal is

also very stale one, raised after lapse of 18 years without

sufficient explanation. Accordingly, the management has

prayed that there is no violation of any of the provisions

contained in the industrial disputes Act, 1947 or of any

Rule in the Railway Establishment Manual, therefore, the

claim of the workman is liable to be rejected being devoid

of any merit, without any relief to him.

6. The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein apart

from reiterating the averments already made by him in his

statement of claim he has submitted that as per Rule 149 (1)

of the Railway Establishment Rule it is necessary to adopt

legal course before terminating services of an employee

who has attained temporary status. It is also stated that

there is no limitation in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

therefore, the claim of the workman is not time barred, in as

much as the Appropriate Government has referred the

dispute to this Tribunal after examining all aspects, including

delay.

7. The workman has field photocopies of certain

documents in support of his claim vide list dated 24.05.2002,

detailed as under:

(i) Casual Labour Card.

(ii) Representations of the workman dated 4.1.85,

18.2.85, 11.7.86, 24.1.87, 18.3.88, 27.6.89,

13.8.90, 18.9.91, 14.5.92, 17.8.93, 17.11.94,

22.4.95, 19.7.96 and 14.12.97.

(iii) Circular dated 20.11.96 of Railway Board.

(iv) Letter dated 14.10.98 of Central Railway

Mazdoor Sangh.

(v) Letter dated 14.3.96 of Railway.

The management of the railways has not filed any

documentary evidence in support of its claim.

8. The workman has examined himself: whereas the

management has examined Shri Chandra Pal Singh, Head

Clerk in support of their respective stands. The parties

have availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses

of each other apart from forwarding oral arguments.

9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival

contentions of the authorized representatives of the parties

and perused the entire evidence available on record in light

thereto.

10. The authorized representative of the workman has

argued that once the workman had attained MRCL/

temporary status then he was governed by Discipline &

Appeal Rules, 1968; but he had been terminated illegally

without complying with the conditions provided in Railway

Establishment Rules or the provisions contained in the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has relied upon:

(i) Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind co-operative marketing-

cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. & another

1999 LAB IC 1435.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1257

(ii) Sapan Kumar Pandit vs UP electricity Board &

others 2001 (90) FLR 754.

(iii) The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India,

Chief Office, Lucknow vs. B.C. Verma & another

1994 LLR 29.

(iv) Shish Pal Singh & others vs. Union of India &

others 2000 (1) LLR 153.

(v) New Delhi Municipal Council vs. O.P. Sethi &

others 1999 LLR 845.

(vi) Baljit Singh vs. The State of Haryana & another.

1995 LLR 504.

11.

In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the workman had never

been terminated but he himself abandoned the services

and did not come to join the job. The management has also

stressed on the point of delay in raising the present

industrial dispute. The management has relied upon:

(i) Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Prahalad Singh

(2001) 1 SCC 424.

(ii) Award of this Tribunal in 1.D. No. 119/2001.

12. The workman has come up with a case that on having

attained MRCL/Temporary Status, he was entitled for

protection of Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1968. Also, his

termination amounts to retrenchment for having worked

for more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of his

termination, therefore, he was entitled for the protection of

provisions contained in the Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. It is also the case of the workman that

his case is not covered with the limitation as there is no

provision in the Act for this, more so the Appropriate

Government has referred his case for adjudication after

considering all the aspect, including delay, raised before

the conciliating authority.

13. Per contra, the management's sole contention is that

it was the workman himself who deserted the job, therefore,

there was no illegality from the management side as there

was no termination at all. The management has also raised

the issue of delay prominently; apart from disputing the

genuineness of the representation of the workman, alleging

the same to be fraudulent and fabricated one.

14. The workman in his cross-examination has stated

that he was given appointment on 05.4.79 and was not

given any appointment letter. He also stated that he did

not do any work after 05.05 82 and moved application before

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in the year 2000.

He filed his original casual labour card during the course of

cross-examination.

On the other hand, the management witness

Shri Chandra Pal Singh, Head Clerk, verified the

genuineness of Casual Labour Card. In cross- examination,

he stated that the representations filed by the workman

were not received in his office. He admitted that no letter

was served upon the workman regarding termination and

also admitted that no departmental action was taken against

the workman for abandoning his service.

15. After having a close look on the pleading of the rival

parties, documentary evidence relied upon and oral

evidences, the main issue is to be adjudicated upon as to

whether the management terminated the services of the

workman or he himself abandoned the same; and in case of

abandonment what were the administrative/disciplinary

recourse that were to be adopted by the management.

16. Admittedly, the workman had initially been engaged

as casual labour, who had been given MRCL/Temporary

Status subsequently. The entitlement and privileges

admissible to such casual labourers who have attained

temporary status is specified in Rule 2005 of the Railway

Establishment Manual, which reads as under:

"2005. Entitlements and Privileges admissible to

Casual Labour who are treated as temporary (i.e.

given temporary status) after the completion of 120

days or 360 days of continuous employment (as the

case may be). — (a) Casual labour treated as

temporary are entitled to the rights and benefits

admissible to temporary railway servants as laid

down in Chapter xxiii of this Manual. The rights and

privileges admissible to such labour also include the

benefit of D&A Rules."

Further, the above position is reiterated by the Circular

No. E(NG)60CL-13 dated 13.5.1965 which reads as under:

"Casual labour are not governed by D&AR, 1968,

but when such casual labor attain temporary status,

these rules will become applicable to them. Similar is

the case with substitutes."

Hence, from admitted facts of the present case, it is

crystal clear that the workman was entitled of rights and

privileges admissible to temporary railway servants i.e. the

benefits of Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 were available

to the workman and in case of any misconduct on behalf of

the workman, he should have been treated accordingly.

Furthermore, note below Rule 2004 of Railway

Establishment Manual is worthwhile, which reads as under:

"2004. Notice of Termination of service. — Except

where notice is necessary ........... of the day.

Note. — In the case of a Casual Labourer who has

obtained temporary status after completion of prescribed

period of continuous employment, the period of notice will

be determined by the rule applicable to temporary railway

servants."

Thus, when the workman had been granted temporary

status then the period of notice before terminating his

services was going to be determined by the rules applicable

1258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to the temporary railway servants i.e. Discipline and Appeal

Rules, 1968; but the management failed to observe the

requirements of the above Rule. The management has taken

plea that the abandonment of the workman may be treated

as unauthorized absence and from that point of view he is

not entitled any relief. But from that angle too, once the

workman had been given MRCL/temporary status, then

the protection of Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 was

available to him therefore, any stigmatic action against him

could be taken by the management only after adopting the

recourse provided under the Discipline and Appeal Rules,

1968; any deviation from the D&A Rules, 1968 amounts to

violation of principles of natural justice and denial of

opportunity of self defence to the delinquent workman.

17. The management has opposed the claim of the

workman on the issue of delay. In this regard it has relied

upon Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Prahalad Singh (2001)

1 SCC 424; but the facts of the case is different from the

present industrial dispute. In the above case law, Hon'ble

Apex Court up held the award of the Industrial Tribunal

when there was a delay of 13 years, particularly when the

Industrial Tribunal had found that by overstaying the

workman had lost his lien in terms of Standing Orders

applicable to him. Whereas in the present case, the Rules

provide protection to the workman and are favourable to

him as the management did not observe the formalities

when workman did not turn up to his duties.

The reliance of the management on award of this

Tribunal in I.D. No. 119/2001, Rajendera Prasad vs Central

Railway is of no use as the facts of said case are again

different from the present case. The workman in the present

case had been granted MRCL/temporary status, whereas

in the case relied upon by the management the workman

was just a casual labour without temporary status, thus,

his case was entirely different from that of the present

case.

On the issue of delay the workman has tried to explain

his delay by filing the copies of the various representations

moved before the management of the railways. The opposite

party has disputed its genuineness through pleadings as

well as oral evidence. The workman has pleaded that the

reference was made by the appropriate Government after

considering all aspects, including delay, which was under

consideration before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central). He has also contended that there is no limitation

providing in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In this regard the workman has relied upon The Chief

General Manager, State Bank of India, Chief Office, Lucknow

vs. B. C. Verma & another 1994 LLR 29; wherein the question

for consideration before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was

whether inaction or delay in raising industrial dispute by

the workman can be condoned; Hon'ble High Court

observed as under:

"In the present case, Section 10(1) may be read along

with Section 10 (5). Both the sub-sections read

together lead to conclusion that 'at any time' the

Reference can be made in the exercise of the

administrative power by the Central Government

provided there exists an industrial dispute or the same

is apprehended. He use of expression "at any time' in

both the sub-sections clearly indicates that

legislature never intended any limitation to be

imposed for making reference."

In the present case, admittedly there is delay of

approximately 18 years and the workman has tried to explain

the same by filing copies of various representations he

moved before the railway administration; but the

management has disputed their genuineness. Hon'ble Apex

Court in Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-

cum-Processing Services Society Ltd. & another 1999 LAB

/C 1435 where there was admitted delay of seven years has

held that the Court can mould relief by refusing back wages

or directing payment of part of back wages.

18. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case

and the case laws cited hereinabove, I am of considered

opinion that the action of the management of Central

Railway in terminating the services of Sri Ashok Singh -

Bhadouriya who was given MRCL/temporary status w.e.f.

05.05.1982, without complying with the provisions of

Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968, was illegal and

unjustified. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the

workman, Sri Ashok Singh Bhaduriya is entitled for

reinstatement; however, he would be liable for payment of

only 25% of back wages, in view of delay in raising the

present industrial dispute.

19. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

20. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

05th January, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 498-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh

vkWQ bafM;k 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

127@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2-3-2015

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11011@8@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1259

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 498.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. I.D. No. 127/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.

II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 2.3.2015.

[No. L-11011/8/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 127/2013

The General Secretary,

Contract Mazdoor Union, (Regd.)] B-57,

Gali No. 9 Rajapuri, Uttam Nagar,

... Workmen

Versus

1. The Eexutive Director

AAI, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi.

2. The Director,

M/s Aggarwal packers & Movers Pvt. Ltd.

Cargo Complex, IGI Airport,

New Delhi.

3. The Director,

M/s Jac Airways Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Inaternational Cargo Terminal,

Public Aminities Bui,

Ground Floor, IGI Airport,

New Delhi-110037.

...Management

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Lobur vide

notification No. L-11011/8/2013-(IR(M) dated 09.10.2013

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication:—

"Whether the demand raised by the workmen of

M/s. Aggarwal Packers and Movers Ltd., one of the

contractor of Celebi Delhi Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. are

legal and justified? What relief the workmen

concerned are entitled to?"

On 31.10.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal.

Which was registered as ID. No. 127/2013 and claimants

were called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workmen nor management filed

claim statement/Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this Tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings. On the basis of

which none of the party can be directed to adduce its

evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:- 09/2//2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 499-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa eSllZ Mkyfe;k eSXuslkbV dkjiksjs'ku

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2014½ izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2@3@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&27012@02@2013&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rkiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. I.D. No. 37/2014) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Dalmia Magnesite Corporation and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 2.3.2015.

[No. L-27012/02/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 25th February, 2015

Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dsipute No. 37/2014

(In the matter of the dispute of adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

1260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

Management of Dalmia Magnesite Corporation and their

workman)

BETWEEN

Sri L. Balu

1^th Party/Petitioner

AND

The Assistant General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

M/s Dalmaia Magnesite Corporation

Prop. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and

Industries Ltd. Vellakkalpatti,

Karuppur Post

Salem-636012

Appearance

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: Mrs. C.S. Monica,

Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent : M/s.T. Poornam, P.J.

Sriganth, Advocates.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-27012/02/2013-IR(M) dated

02.04.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudicaiton.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s

Dalmia Managesite Corporaiton regarding

termination of service of the petitioner Sri L. Balu

w.e.f 23.07.2011 is justified or not?" If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 37/2014 and issued notices to both sides.

Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and

filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner had joined the service to the Respondent

as an Apprentice in the year 1989. Thereafter he was

appointed as Temporary Mazdoor and was later confirmed

in the service. He has rendered service for about 21 years

in the Respondent Company. the Respondent Management

issued Show Cause Notice dated 16.07.2011 to the petitioner

stating that the petitioner was on unauthorized absence

for a total of 148 days and that he was on unauthorized

absence for 64 days from January 2011 to June 2011. The

petitioner was proposed to be terminated with one month's

notice pay and terminal benefits. The petitioner gave a

detailed explanation for the Show Cause Notice. By Office

Order dated 23.07.2011 the petitioner was imposed with the

punishment of termination from service with immediate

effect. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal against

the order of termination the Appellate Authority upheld

the order. Before passing the termination order, the

Management did not conduct any enquiry. The petitioner

was the Secretary of the Union. The Manatgement has

terminated the petitioner only to get rid of him, he being a

union worker. The petitioner was absent from work due to

health reasons of himself and that of his family. the petitioner

has produced the medical records and has explained the

reason for absence. These were not considered by the

Appellate Authority. The petitioner was not afforded of

opportunity of hearing before passing the order of

termination. An order may be passed holding that the action

of Respondent in terminating the petitioner is unjustified

and also directed the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner

with full back wages and other attendant benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The code of conduct and working of the workman in the

Respondent Organization are governed by the Certified

Standing Orders which are binding on them and their union.

As per Clause-19 (III) of the Certified Standing Orders, if a

workman is absent from work for three months continuously

on account of illness or is absent for any broken period

aggregating to 60 days or more during any period of 6

months, the Management shall have the right to terminate

his service after giving him one month's notice and granting

him all terminal benefits. Even while working as Apprentice,

the attendance of the petitioner was poor. So he not

considered for job and was relieved. Then he gave a written

assurance for regular attendance and was re-appointed as

Apprentice for a period of 6 months. He agreed that the

Management could terminate his services if he was irregular.

During the year 2001 to 2010, the petitioner had worked for

167.250 days out of total 306 working days. During the 6

months from January to June, 2011 he worked for 69 days

only out of the 151 working days. Memos have been issued

to the petitioner on 7 occasions for his absence from duty

and he was warned on one occasion. The decision of the

Respondent to terminate the service of the petitioner is

after providing several opportunities to him. In the appeal

the petitioner has accepted the charge but has requested

for reconsideration of the termination and assured regular

attendance. The petitioner did not dispute in his reply that

he was absent from the period mentioned. The termination

of the petitioner is in accordance with the Certified Standing

Orders. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of documents

marked as Ext. W1 to Ext. W20 and Ext. M1 to Ext M5. No

oral evidence was adduced on either side.

6. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action of the Respondent in

terminating the service of the petitioner is

justified?

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1261

(ii) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

7. The petitioner who was working as Mazdoor in the

service of the Respondent was terminated from service

under clause-19(III) of the Certified Standing Orders of the

Respondent. This clause provides for termination if a

workman is absent from work three months continuously

or is absent for a broken period aggregating 60 days or

more during a period of any 6 months.

8. Before terminating the service of the petitioner, the

Respondent has issued a Show Cause Notice and the same

is marked as Ext. W5. This Show Cause Notice gives the

details of absence of the petitioner from work. Year-wise

details as well as details of authorized leave, sick leave,

loss of pay and unauthorized absence are given. The details

of absence during six months from January to June, 2011

are also given in the Show Cause Notice. This also gives

the details of the memos that were issued to the petitioner

for his absence and also that of the action taken against

him for the absence. Ext. WW6 is the reply given by the

petitioner to the Show Cause Notice. In the reply it is not

disputed that the petitioner was absent during the period

mentioned in the Show Cause Notice. However, the

petitioner has tried to explain why he happened to be absent.

9. As could be seen from Ex. W8, the order of termination

that the petitioner was terminated from service only on

account of his unauthorized absence during the years he

had worked. The argument that is advanced on behalf of

the petitioner is that the Respondent was not justified in

terminating the petitioner without conducting an enquiry.

The counsel for the Respondent has argued that there was

no necessity to conduct an enquiry at all, the petitioner

having admitted his absence and the termination being on

the basis of Caluse-19(III) of the Certified Standing Orders.

The counsel has taken support from the decision of the

Apex Court in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GREATER

BOMBAY VS. P.S. MALAVENKAR AND OTHERS reported

in 1978 II LLJ 168. While considering the Standing Order of

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GREATER BOMBAY, the

Apex Court has held that the Management has the power

to impose punishment for misconduct after a disciplinary

enquiry and also the power to impose punishment for

misconduct after a disciplinary enquiry and also the power

to terminate service of an employee by one calendar month's

notice or pay in lieu thereof under the Standing Order.

Since the workman was terminated because of his

unsatisfactory work record the Apex Court found that the

order of termination was not punitive in character and there

was no necessity of an enquiry. According to the counsel

for the Respondent the termination of the petitioner herein

being on the basis of Clause-19(III) of the Standing Orders,

there was no necessity of an enquiry at all. The counsel

has also referred to the fact that the petitioner has admitted

his absence and for this reason also there was no necessity

for any enquiry. In this respect he has referred to the

decision of the Apex Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs.

KARUNAMOY BANERJEE reported in 1967 2 LLJ 739.

Here it was held that when the workman himself has admitted

his guilt there will be nothing for the Management to

enquire into. When the workman has admitted his guilt

insisting upon Management to let him evidence will be an

empty formality, it was held. Even though in the present

case, unauthorized absence is not alleged as a misconduct,

according to the counsel for the Respondent in view of the

admission of his absence by the petitioner there was no

necessity to conduct an enquiry at all.

10. In reply to the above argument of the counsel for the

Respondent, the counsel for the petitioner has referred to

the subsequent decision of the Apex Court taking a contrary

view. In the decision in D.K. YADAV VS. J.M.A.

INDUSTRIES LTD. reported in 1993 2 LLJ 696, the Apex

Court has held that even if the Standing Order provides for

an automatic removal of an employee on account of

unauthorized absence, such Standing Orders will become

illegal if principles of natural justice are not read into the

same. Even in such cases, employees must be heard before

an order is passed by the employer removing the name of

the workman from the list, it has been held. In the decision

in UPTRON INDIA LTD. VS. SHAMMI BHAN AND

ANOTHER reported in 1998 6 SCC 538 also it was held that

the discretion conferred on the Management to terminate

or not to terminate the services of an employee who

overstays the leave has to be based on objective

consideration of all the circumstances and material which

may be available on records. The employee against whom

action on the basis of the provision proposed to be taken

must be given an opportunity of hearing, it was held. Thus,

it could be seen that in spite of the Standing Orders

providing for termination of the workman from service on

account of unauthorized absence the employer is bound

to conduct enquiry.

11. The Respondent could not rely on the admission of

absence allegedly made by the petitioner also. True, he

has not disputed the case in the Show Cause Notice that

he was absent during the period mentioned in the notice.

However, he had tried to explain his part and justify his

absence on the ground that the absence was under

circumstances beyond his control. Though, he has

elaborated this fact in his reply statement the Management

has not thought it necessary to make an enquiry into the

reasons given by him for his absence. On the other hand,

the Management has terminated the petitioner from service

quoting the particular clause in the Standing Order and

stating that he comes within the clause because of his

absence. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that it is not

only enough that an employee is unauthorizedly absent

from duty but it should be shown that the absence was

willful and deliberate. This has been reiterated by the Apex

Court in the recent decision in CHHEL SINGH VS. M.G.B.

1262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS in Civil Appeal No. 6018/

14 dated 07.07.2014. The petitioner has produced a plethora

of documents pertaining to the treatment of himself and

his wife before this Tribunal. These seem to have been

shown to the Appellate Authority also. He had also wanted

other documents to be summoned but his attempt to justify

himself has not been considered by the Management at all.

In the absence of an enquiry the petitioner was gravely

prejudiced. The order of termination of the Respondent

without any enquiry is not sustainable. The petitioner is

entitled to be reinstated in service.

12. Accordingly an award is passed as follows:

The Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner

in service within a month of the award. The Respondent

shall also pay 50% back wages to the petitioner from the

date of his termination, within a month of the award in

default of which the petitioner is entitled to interest at the

rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

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

Ex.W1

31.05.1990

Office Order issued by the

Respondent Corporation

Ex.W2

25.07.1991

Letter issued by the Magnesite

Labour Union to the Respondent

Corporation

Ex.W3

01.02.1993

Office order issued by the

Respondent Corporation

Ex.W4

27 04.1996

Notice issued to the petitioner

to the Respondent Corporation

Ex.W5

16.07.2011

Show Cause Notice issued to the

petitioner by the Respondent

Corporation

Ex.W6

20.07.2011

Reply to the petitioner to the

Show Cause Notice

Ex.W7

23.07.2011

Approval application of the

Respondent Corporation filed

before the Conciliation Officer,

Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(Central), Chennai

Ex.W8

23.07.2011

Order of termination issued by

the Respondent Corporation to

the petitioner (Tamil Version)

Ex.W9

23.07.2011

Order of termination issued by

the Respondent Corporation to

the petitioner

Ex.W10

23.07.2011

Cheque

issued

the

Respondent Corporation to the

Petitioner

Ex.W11

26.07.2011

Letter to the petitioner to the

Respondent Corporation

Ex.W12

01.08.2011

Attendance details of the

petitioner for the year 2011

Ex.W13

05.08.2011

Notice of hearing before the

Appellate Authority

Ex.W14

08.08.2011

Letter of the petitioner to the

Respondent Corporation

Ex.W15

08.08.2011

Statement of leave pertaining to

the petitioner

Ex.W16

08.08.2011

Proceedings

before

the

Appellate Authority

Ex.W17

10.08.2011

Order of the Appellate Authority

Ex.W18

11.08.2011

Letter of the Respondent

Corporation to the Conciliation

Officer

Ex.W19

24.08.2011

Letter of the Respondent

Corporation to the petitioner

Ex.W20

—

Medical Records

On the Respondent's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

20.07.1991

Letter from Petitioner to

Respondent

Ex. M2

25.07.1991

Letter from Petitioner to

Respondent

Ex. M3

20.07.2011

Letter from Petitioner to

Respondent

Ex. M4

08.08.2011

Letter from Petitioner to

Respondent

Ex. M5

—

Certified Standing Order of the

Respondent

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 500-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ fyfeVsM

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1263

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

45@1992½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@33@91&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D.No.45/1992) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.II,

Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 2/3/2015.

[No. L-30012/33/91-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No.45/1992

Sh. Chand Ballabh

Represented by the General Secretary,

O.N.G.C. Karamchari Union,

87-1/1, Ballupur,

Dehradun-248 001.

Versus

The Management of Chairman

O.N.G.C. Tel Bhawan,

Dehradun.

Ex-parte Award

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-30012/33/91- [1R( VIVIDH)] dated

07.05.92 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:—

I. "Whether Sri Chand Ballabh, Head Draftsman

(Geoscience) of ONCC is a workman under I.D. Act, 1947.

II. "Whether the action of the management of ONCG

Dehradun is not time bound promotion to the post of

Drawing Officer w.e.f. 1.1.90 to Sh. Chand Ballabh, Head

Draftsman (Geoscience) is justified? If not to what relief he

is entitled to?"

On 8.5.92 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which

was reaister as I.D. No. 45/1992 and claimant was called

upon to file clim statement with in fifteen days from date of

service of notice. Which was required to be accompanied

with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Workman filed claim statement on 08.09.92 . Where-in

he prayed as follows:—

a. Sh. Chand Ballabh, Head Draftsman (Geoscience)

a 'workman' under section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947;

b. The action of the management of O.N.G.C.

Dehradun in not giving time-bound promotion to

the post of Drawing Officer with effect from

1.1.1990 to Sh. Cland Ballabh, Head Draftsman

(Geoscience) as illegal and unjustified:

c. Sh. Chand Ballabh, Head Draftsman (Geoscience)

who is Graduate from a recognized University --

B.A. (Arts). a prescribed qualification under R &

P - Regulations, 1947 entitled to the relief of being

treated at par with Q.2.

d. Sh. Chand Ballabh. Head Draftsman (Geoscience).

entitled to the relief of his time bound promotion

to the post Drawing Officer . w.e.f. 1.1.1990.

e. Sh. Chand Ballabh, Head Draftsman (Geoscience)

is entitled to the incidental relief of getting "one-

third relaxation in experience" under the special

scheme of "'the criteria of one-third relaxation in

experience" introduced and implemented in the

beginning of the current year 1992 by the

mamagement of O.N.G.C. Dehradun in

consequence thereof entitled to the advancement

of' date of time-hound promotion 1.1.1990 by one

year-resulting his entitlement to said promotion

w.e.f. 1.1.89 instead of 1.1.90;

f. Sh. Chand Ballabh, Head Draftsman (Geoscience),

entitled to all consequential benefix to such

promotion regarding payment of all arrear that

become due;

g. Payment of interest at market rate on all arrears;

h. Any other relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble Tribunal

may deem fit and proper in the 'facts and

circumstances of the instant dispute to meet the

ends of justice;

Against claim statement management filed written

statement on 18.2.1993. Wherein management prayed as

follows:—

It is respectfully prayed that matter of dispute and legal

objections taken by the opp. party may kindly be decided

in favour of the Opp. Party rejecting the claim of the person

concerned.

Against written statement workman filed rejoinder on

13.10.1993. Where-in workman prayed as follows:—

1264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is. therefore, respectfully prayed that the patently

false and frivolous written statement filed on behalf of the

O.P./Management containing altogether distorted,

fabricated, concocted facts with malafide and motivated

intentions to conceal the fact of "Glaring Disinrimination"

done to the workman concerned Sh. Chand Ballabh may he

rejected forthwith and the claim statement and this

Rejoinder filed on behalf of the representing union be

admitted as true containing facts on record and facts of

law in its true form and shape without any distortion or

change in anv manner whatsoever. It is further prayed that

this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to give its

Award granting reliefs to the workman as prayed for in the

claim statement.

My Ld. predecessors has not framed any issue but

proceed to adjudicate the present reference on the basis of

schedule wherein questions of determination are as

follows:—

I. "Whether Sh. Chand Ballabh, Head Draftsman

(Geoscience) of ONGC is a workman under I.D. Act 1947.

II. Whether the action of the management of ONCG.

Dehradun is not giving time bound promotion to the post

of Drawing Officer w.e.f. 1.1.90 to Sh. Chand Balllabh, Head

Draftsman (Geoscience) is .justified? If not to what relief

he is entitled to?"

Perusal of order sheets makes it crystal clear that several

opportunities to workman were given to adduce his

evidence. But he remain dormant to adduce his evidence.

He has not turned up even to attend proceedings of the

case in this I.D. of 1992. In this background on 31.12.2013

I fixed 14.4.2014 for workman evidence/managemeet

evidence. On 14.4.2014, 3.3.2014 was also fixed for workman

evidence/managemeat evidence.

On 3.3.2014 Ld. A/R for the management Sh. Somi Ram

Sharma expressed his desire that he will adduce the

evidence on behalf of management after closing the right

of evidence of workman . Although affidavit of management

witness have already been filed by management which was

on record. On his submission I passed an order on order

sheet that his right has impliedly been closed. And

management was permitted to file its evidence. So, there

remains no need to pass separate order to close the

evidence of workman. Fixed 7.4.2014 for tendering of

affidavit of management witness which is already on record.

On 7.4.2014 management sought adjournment I fixed

10.07.2011 for tendering of affidavit of management witness.

On 10.07.2014 management again sought adjournment I

fixed 1.8.2014. On 1.8.2014 management sought adjournment

on the ground of conveyance problem which was allowed

and adjourned to 4.9.2014. On 4.9.2014 management sought

adjournment I allowed and adjourned to 30.10.2014 and on

30.10.2014 management again sought adjournment which

was adjourned and allowed to 6.1.2015 On 6.1.2015

management tendered affidavit of his witness MW1

Sh. Virender Pratap Singh. Thereafter, management closed

its evidence and 27.1.15 was fixed for arguments. On

27.1.2015 I reserved the award and permitted the Ld. A/R

for the management to argue pending disposal of award.

Meanwhile Ld. A/R for the management argued. In the

light of his contentions. I perused the pleadings of the

parties and evidence of management on record including

settled law and relevant provisions of law.

In the instant case workman has adduced no evidence

in support of his claim. Moreover, management has adduced

its evidence to prove contents its written statement.

In these circumstances there is no evidence on record

in favour of workman/claimant. So. reference is liable to be

decided against workman/claimant and in favour of

management. Claim statement is liable to be dismissed.

Reference is accordingly decided in favour of

management and against workman/claimant and claim

statement is accordingly dismissed.

Ex-parte is accordingly passed.

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

Dated:- 19.2.2015

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 501-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,eñihñ LVsV ekbfuax

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= 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 ,o Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 132@96½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2@3@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@9@96&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D.No.132/96) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employeres in relation to the

management of MP State Mining Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 2/3/2015.

[No. L-29012/9/96-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1265

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/132/96

Branch Secretary,

MP State Mining Corporation Karmchari Sangh,

Nayapara, Jagdalpur

Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

MP State Mining Corporation Ltd.,

E-5/14, Arera Colony,

Ravindra Nagar,

Bhopal.

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of January, 2015

1. As per letter dated 31-5-96 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-29012/

9/96-IR(Misc). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of M.P. State

Mining Corporation Ltd., Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Jagdish Prasad Srivastava, Ex-

Chowkidar is justified? If not, to what relief is he

entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. On behalf of Ist party workman statement of claim

is submitted by Secretary, MP State Mining Corporation.

Case of workman is that he was appointed as watchman as

per order dated 1-7-85 at Jagdalpur Office of IInd party

Corporation. That co-employees working with him were

regularized and made permanent by the corporation.

Ist party workman was picked out and his services were

put to end. It is further submitted that workman was

suspended on vague allegation that there was shortage of

tin ore of Pushpal camp. The suspension order was silent

who were responsible for the alleged shortage and how

workman was responsible for it. Officer incharge Shri Sanju

was suspended. DE was held against him. Officer was

exonerated with all charges. His suspension was revoked.

Workman was suspended as per order dated 12-4-89. No

chargesheet was issued to him. Any enquiry was not

conducted against him. Vide order dated 19-5-89, he was

reinstated in service.

3. Workman submits that his service record was

unblemished. There was no complaint against him. Any

enquiry was not conducted about misconduct on his part.

His services were discontinued from 25-5-89 just after six

days of his reinstatement. He was removed from service.

That no watchman is available in office at Jagdalpur where

workman was posted. The post is vacant. His appointment

was on regular basis. It is submitted that retrenchment of

workman is unwarranted when post of waterman was lying

vacant. The services of workman could not be discontinued

unless any misconduct is committed by him proved in the

enquiry. The order of removal of workman is high hands.

Higher authorities are playing with his career. Action of

IInd party is illegal, arbitrary. Notice of retrenchment was

not issued to him. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation or pay in lieu of notice. That junior employees

are regularized and his services are discontinued illegally.

On such ground, it is prayed that workman be reinstated

with back wages.

4. Application for impleading Chhattisgarh Mineral

Development Corporation was submitted on 9-5-05 by

counsel for management. It appears said application was

rejected. Written Statement filed by IInd party at Page 15 is

devoted on the point that Ist party workman was working

at Jagdalpur office of MP State Mining Corporation. After

bifurcation of State, the area covers under State of

Chhattisgarh. MP State Mining corporation is bifurcated.

Area comes under Chhattisgarh Mineral Development

Corporation. Workman can pray relief from Chhattisgarh

Mineral Development Corporation.

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 the

management of M.P. State

In Negative

Mining Corporation Ltd.,

Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Jagdish

Prasad Srivastava, Ex-

Chowkidar is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?"

order.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service/

removal from service without enquiry or notice. That Junior

co-employees are regularized and he was picked up for

removal from service.IInd party in its Written Statement

has contented that after bifurcation of MP State, workman

may claim relief from Chhattisgarh Mineral Development

Corporation.

7. As per ordersheet dated 24-7-2012, it is noticed that

Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation is not

present even after notice and as such proceeded exparte.

8. Management despite of repeated chances did not

adduce any evidence. Evidence of management is closed

on 24-6-2014. Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence.

Workman has stated that he was appointed as watchman

at Jagdalpur office as per order dated 1-7-85 Exhibit W-1.

He was terminated from servcie without issuing chargesheet

or conducting enquiry. No notice was issued to him. His

1266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

services were terminated within six months of his

reinstatement revoking order of his suspension. His

services were discontinued on ground that his services

were not required. Workman has produced documents

Exhibit W-1 to W-4. In his cross-examination by advocate

Srivastava, workman says he was woring as watchman at

Village Pushpal. He was not doing digging work. In the

year 2000, MP State was bifurcated and new state of

Chhattisgarh was established. At the same time

Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation was

established. He was working in Chhattisgarh Mineral

Development Corporation. IInd party did not participate in

reference proceeding. Workman was not cross-examined.

Management has not adduced any evidence.

9. Copy of Madhya Pradesh Re-organization Act 2000

is produced at Exhibit W-5.

Section 82 provides-where immediately before the

appointment day, the existing State of Madhya Pradesh is

a party to any legal proceedings w.r.t. any property, rights

or liabilities subject to apportionment between the states

of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh under this Act, the

State, of Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh which succeeds

to, or acquires a share in, that property or those rights or

liabilities by virtue of any provision of this Act shall be

deemed to be substituted for the existing State of Madhya

Pradesh or added as a party to those proceedings and the

proceedings may continue accordingly.

In present case, notice was issued to Chhattisgarh

Mineral Development Corporation. However it failed to

appear and he has been proceeded exparte. Chhattisgarh

Mineral Development Corporation failed to participate in

reference proceeding. I find no reason to disbelieve

unchallenged evidence of workman. his services are

terminated without notice, without issuing chargesheet.

Therefore 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 services of workman is illegal, question arises

whether he is entitled to reinstatement with backwages.

The unchallenged evidence of workman is his services are

terminated and employees junior to him are continued in

service. His affidavit is silent about his gainful employment.

Considering above aspects, termination from service as

per order dated 25-5-89,workman cannot be allowed full

backwages. In my considered view, reinstatement of

workman with 40% backwages 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 M.P. State

Mining Corporation Ltd., Bhopal in terminating

the services of Shri Jagdish Prasad Srivastava,

Ex-Chowkidar is illegal.

(2) IInd party No.2 Chhattisgarh Mineral

Development Corporation is directed to reinstate

workman with continuity of service and 40% back

wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 502-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vk;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 115@05½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2@3@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29015@2@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 502.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D.No.115/05) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 2/3/2015.

[No. L-29015/2/2005-IR(M)]

JOHN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/115/05

Shri Kanhaiya Lal Solanki,

S/o Shri Devendra Solanki,

R/o Sakoor Ka Bagicha, Hanuman Colony,

Guna Distt. Guna (MP)

Workman

Versus

Manager/Deputy Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Khandwa Depot,

Khandwa (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of January, 2015

1. As per letter dated 14-10-05 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-29015/2/2005-IR(M). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by Shri

Kanhaiyalal Solanki against the management of IOCL

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1267

Depot, Khandwa in termination his services w.e.f.

5-8-98 is justified? If not, to what relief Shri

Kanhaiyalal Solanki is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was working as Security

Supervisor with IInd party from 20-6-93. His services were

discontinued without notice from 4-8-98. Asstt. Manager

had issued letter using the work released discontinuing

his service. Workman submits that he completed more than

240 days continuous service during each of the year 93 to

98. His services are terminated without notice. He was not

paid retrenchment compensation. He was not paid pay in

lieu of notice. Termination of his service is illegal. On such

ground, he prays for reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing the relief

claimed by workman. IInd party denied that workman was

appointed by it as Security Supervisor. It is submitted that

the workman was rendering services as security Supervisor

through contractor. That the contractor Mr. Ravi Security

Organisation was engaged for 3 years, Rai services for 3

months. IInd party denies employer employee relationship.

Workman is not entitled to notice. He was not terminated

by IInd party. The workman was discontinued by contractor.

Therefore the letter of release was issued by Officer. The

contractors were sponsored from DGR. In absence of

employer employee relationship, provisions of ID Act would

not be involved. The claim of Ist party workman suffers

from mis-joinder of parties. The claim is not tenable. On

such ground, IInd party prays that reference be answered

in its favour.

4. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating its contentions in

statement of claim.

5. Management filed reply to the rejoinder reiterating its

contentions in Written Statement.

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 IOCL Depot,

In Negative

Khandwa in terminating services

of Shri Kanhaiyalal Solanki by

w.e.f. 5-8-98 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. The dispute is raised by workman challenging

termination of his services by IInd party. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence. Workman has stated that he was

working with IInd party from 20-6- 93 at Khandwa Depot as

Security Supervisor as referred to the experience certificate

issued by the officers. That his services were terminated

from 4-8-98. In his cross-examination workman says on

20-6-93, he was appointed at Bhopal. He did not recollect

name of the employer. Appointment letter was given to him

by IOCL. That before resuming work at Khandwa, he

attended interview. Some questions were asked to him, he

denied that he was engaged by contractors. He also denied

that he did not work as clerk. That his salary was paid by

IOCL. He denied that he filed fake certificate.

8. Management's witness Praveen Kumar Srivastava

filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of

management that workman was engaged through

contractor. In his cross-examination, witness says he was

not working with IOCL in 1993. There was no post of

Security Supervisor with Ilnd party. Work of Security was

entrusted to Security contractors. Management's witness

claims ignorance whether the scheme of employment

through contractor was introduced. But the scheme was

very old. The names of 3 contractors are given in Para-1 of

the affidavit. Any document in that regard is not produced.

Thus witness of management is exposed workman was

engaged through contractor, any document is not

produced. Therefore the contentions of management

cannot be accepted. Management's witness has stated that

the experience certificate issued in favour of workman. The

officers had no authority which shows that workman was

working on establishment of IInd party. The defence of

IInd party that workman was engaged through contractor

is not substantiated by any documents therefore it is clear

that when workman was working on establishment of Ilnd

party and document regarding contractor is not produced,

he becomes employee of IInd party. The services of

workman are terminated without notice, no retrenchment

compensation is paid. The termination of services of

workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

9. Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,

services of 1st party are terminated in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act, question arises whether workman is entitled

for reinstatement with back wages. The evidence on record

shows workman was working form 1992 to 1998 for about 4

years 8 months. There is no evidence that workman was

selected following recruitment procedure. Relief of

reinstatement with backwages would not be justified.

Considering period of working days, compensation

Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate. Accordingly, I record

my finding in Point No. 2.

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

(1) The action of the management of IOCL Depot,

Khandwa in terminating services of Shri Kanhaiyalal

Solanki by w.e.f. 5-8-98 is not proper and legal.

1268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2) Ilnd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. One Lakh 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] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 503-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ,eñ ihñ LVsV ekbfuax

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdkj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 133@96½ izdkf'kr djrh gSa tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 2@3@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@8@96&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 503.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No.133/96) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of MP State Mining Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 2/3/2015.

[No. L-29012/8/96-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/133/96

Branch Secretary,

MP State Mining Corporation Karmchari Sangh,

Nayapara, Jagdalpur

Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

MP State Mining Corporation Ltd.,

E-5/14, Arera Colony,

Ravindra Nagar,

Bhopal.

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of January, 2015

1. As per letter dated 31-5-96 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-29012/

8/96-IR(Misc). The dispute under reference relates to:

" Whether the action of the management of M.P.State

Mining Corporation Ltd., Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Devendra Pratap Bahadur Singh, Ex-

Supervisor is justified? If not, to what relief is he

entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. On behalf of 1st party workman statement of claim

is submitted by Secretary, MP State Mining Corporation at

page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was appointed

as watchman as per order dated 1-11-85 at Jagdalpur Office

of IInd party Corporation. That co-employees working with

him were regularized and made permanent by the

corporation. 1st party workman was picked out and his

services were put to end. It is further submitted that

workman was suspended on vague allegation that there

was shortage of tin ore of Pushpal camp. The suspension

order was silent who were responsible for the alleged

shortage and how workman was responsible for it. Officer

incharge Shri Sanju was suspended. DE was held against

him, officer was exonerated with all charges. His suspension

was revoked. Workman was suspended as per order dated

12-4-89. No chargesheet was issued to him. Any enquiry

was not conducted against him. vide order dated 19-5-89,

he was reinstated in service.

3. Workman submits that his service record was

unblemished. There was no complaint against him, any

enquiry was not conducted about misconduct on his part.

His services were discontinued from 25-5-89 just after six

days of his reinstatement. He was removed from service.

That no watchman is available in office at Jagdalpur where

workman was posted. The post is vacant. His appointment

was on regular basis. It is submitted that retrenchment of

workman is unwarranted when post of waterman was lying

vacant. The services of workman could not be discontinued

unless any misconduct is committed by him proved in the

enquiry. The order of removal of workman is high hands.

Higher authorities are playing with his career. Action of

IInd party is illegal, arbitrary. Notice of retrenchment was

not issued to him. he was not paid retrenchment

compensation or pay in lieu of notice that junior employees

are regularized and his services are discontinued illegally.

On such ground, it is prayed that workman be reinstated

with back wages.

4. Application for impleading Chhattisgarh Mineral

Development Corporation was submitted on 9-5-05 by

counsel for management. It appears said application was

rejected. Written Statement filed by IInd party at Page 15 is

devoted on the point that 1st party workman was working

at Jagdalpur office of MP State Mining Corporation. After

bifurcation of State, the area covers under State of

Chhattisgarh. MP State Mining corporation is bifurcated.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1269

Area comes under Chhattisgarh Mineral Development

Corporation. Workman can pray relief from Chhattisgarh

Mineral Development Corporation.

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 the

management of M.P.State

In Negative

Mining Corporation Ltd.,

Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Devendra

Pratap Bahadur Singh, Ex-

Supervisor is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service/

removal from service without enquiry or notice. That Junior

co-employees are regularized and he was picked up for

removal from service. IInd party in its Written Statement

has contented that after bifurcation of MP State, workman

may claim relief from Chhattisgarh Mineral Development

Corporation.

7. As per ordersheet dated 24-7-2012, it is noticed that

Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation is not

present even after notice and as such proceeded exparte.

8. Management despite of repeated chances did not

adduce any evidence. Evidence of management is closed

on 24-6-2014. Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence.

Workman has stated that he was appointed as watchman

at Jagdalpur office as per order dated 1-11-85. He was

terminated from service without issuing chargesheet or

conducting enquiry. No notice was issued to him, his

services were terminated within six months of his

reinstatement revoking order of his suspension. His

services were discontinued on ground that his services

were not required. Workman has produced documents

Exhibit W-1 to W-3. Termination order is also produced on

record. In his cross-examination by Advocate Srivastava,

workman says he was working as watchman at Village

Pushpal. He was not doing digging work. In the year 2000,

MP State was bifurcated and new state of Chhattisgarh

was established. At the same time Chhattisgarh Mineral

Development Corporation was established, Jagdalpur Area

falls in the area of said Corporation. Officer had orally

directed him to work under Corporation. He was working in

Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation. Ilnd party

did not participate in reference proceeding. Workman was

not cross-examined. Management has not adduced any

evidence.

9. Copy of Madhya Pradesh Re-organization Act 2000

is produced at Exhibit W-5 in Case No- R/132/96.

Section 82 provides- where immediately before the

appointed day, the existing State of Madhya Pradesh is a

party to any legal proceedings w.r.t. any property, rights or

liabilities subject to apportionment between the states of

Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh under this Act, the State,

of Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh which succeeds to, or

acquires a share in, that property or those rights or liabilities

by virtue of any provision of this Act shall be deemed to be

substituted for the existing State of Madhya Pradesh or

added as a party to those proceedings and the proceedings

may continue accordingly.

In present case, notice was issued to Chhattisgarh

Mineral Development Corporation. However it failed to

appear and he has been proceeded exparte. Chhattisgarh

Mineral Development Corporation failed to participate in

reference proceeding. I find no reason to disbelieve

unchallenged evidence of workman, his services are

terminated without notice, without issuing chargesheet.

Therefore 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 services of workman is illegal, question arises

whether he is entitled to reinstatement with backwages.

The unchallenged evidence of workman is his services are

terminated and employees junior to him are continued in

service. His affidavit is silent about his gainful employment.

Considering above aspects, termination from service as

per order dated 25-5-89, workman cannot be allowed full

backwages. In my considered view, reinstatement of

workman with 40 % backwages 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 MP State Mining

Corporation Ltd., Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Devendra Pratap Bahadur Singh,

Ex-Supervisor is illegal.

(2) IInd party No.2 Chhattisgarh Mineral

Development Corporation is directed to reinstate

workman with continuity of service and 40 % back

wages.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 504-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj dksVd efgank vksYM

EU;wP;wvy ykbQ bU'kqjsUl fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

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

dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdkj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] eqEcbZ ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSa tks dsUæh;

ljdkj dks 2@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@31@2014&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

1270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 504.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No.20/2014) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 1,

Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 2/3/2015.

[No. L-17012/31/2014-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1

MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/20 OF 2014

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance. Ltd.

and

Their workman

Appearances:

For the first party/Management:

Mr. Jayesh Patil

Representative

For the second party workman:

None present.

State :

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 2nd day of February, 2015

AWARD

1. The present Reference has been made by the Central

Government by its order dated 6.6.2014 passed 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. The terms of Reference as per the

Schedule to the said order are as under:

"Whether the demand of workman Sh. Kalpesh

Domadia for reinstatement with countinuity of

service with full wages for the period from 6.12.2012

to till date of reinstatement with all order benefits

from the management of M/s. Kotak Mahindra Old

Mutural Life Insurance Ltd. is legal and justified?

what relief the workman is entitled to?

By the order dated 30.6.2014, notice was directed

to be issued to the parties fixing 8.8.2014.

3. On 8.8.2014, when the case was taken up, it was noted

that the notice issued to the first party/Management and

the notice issued to the second party/Workman by

Registered Post AD had been duly served, and the

respective Acknowledgement Cards had been received

back. On the said date, i.e. 8.8.2014 Ms. Vishwala Raut

Desai, Manager (Human Resource Department), M/s. Kotak

Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. was present for

the first party/Management. However, despite service of

notice, none was present for the second party/Workman.

In the circumstances, by the order dated 8.8.2014, the

case was adjourned and 22.9.2014 for filling Statement of

Claim.

On 22.9.2014, Representative for the first party/

Management was present. However, none was present for

the second party/Workman. In the circumstances, by the

order dated 22.9.2014, the case was adjourned and fixed for

17.11.2014 for filing Statement of Claim.

6. On 17.11.2014, Representative for the first party/

Management was present. However, none was present on

behalf of the second party/Workman. In the circumstances,

by the order dated 17.11.2014, the case was adjourned and

fixed for 12.1.2015 for filling Statement of Claim.

7. On 12.1.2015 again, Representative for the first party/

Management was present. However, none was present on

behalf of the second party/Workman. In the circumstances,

by the order dated 12.1.2015, the case was adjourned and

fixed for 2.2.2015 for filing Statement of Claim.

8. Pursuant to the order 12.1.2015, the case is put up

today.

9. Shri Jayesh Patil, Manager - Human Ressources

(Compliance) is present for the first party/Management.

However, none is present for the second party/Workman.

10. From the above narration of facts, it is evident that

despite service of notice on the second party/Workman,

none has been appearing on behalf of the second party/

Workman on any of the dates fixed in the matter. Today

also, none is present on behalf of the second party/

Workman. No Statement of Claim has so far been filed on

behalf of the second party/Workman.

11. Therefore, there is no pleading or evidence filed on

behalf of the second party/Workman is support of the claim

as contained in the above Reference. No relief can,

therefore, be granted to the second party/Workman.

12. The Reference is, therefore, answered by stating

that no relief can be granted to the second party/Workman.

13. Award is passed accordingly.

Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1271

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 505-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhdkWe izkstsDV

WCL Hkksiky ds izca/kr= ds lca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,y lh@vkj 8@96½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@232@94&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2015

S.O. 505.—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/8/96) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Telecom Project, WCL, Bhopal and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 10/03/2015.

[No. L-40012/232/94-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT./LC/R/8/96

Shri Bhimachandra Patel,

S/o Karuji Patel,

Gangu Sahu,

Taj Chowk,

Tetibandh,

Distt. Raipur (CG)

... Workman

Versus

Director,

Telecom Project, WCL,

Ist Floor, F Block,

GTB Complex, T.T. Nagar,

Bhopal.

... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of February 2015

As per letter dated 27-28/12/95 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/

232/94-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Coaxial

Cable Project of Deptt. of Telecommunication

through Divisional Engineer, Coaxial Cable Project,

Shankernagar, Raipur in terminating the services of

Shri Bhim Chandra Patel w.e.f. 31-12-90 is lawful and

justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 15

to 19. Case of Ist party is that he was working with IInd

party at cable work site from 1-11-87 to 31-12-97. He was

working under Asstt. Engineer Project. He was digging,

trenching, laying cables. Identity Card was issued to him

by Asstt. Engineer, Coaxial Project, Shankar Nagar, Raipur.

On 1-1-1991, he was orally terminated. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation. He repeatedly approached

management of IInd party for employment. He was given

assurances that he was not taken on work under the guise

of approval was not received from superior officers. The

other employees similarly working with Ist party are

regularized namely Ramesh Avsare, Ramdayal, Daud Khan,

Tejram Sahare. Workman was not taken on work despite he

worked with devotion, workman, was discontinued. He is

unemployed. On such grounds, workman is praying for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 27 to 29

denying claim of workman. It is denied that workman was

appointed by management on 1-11-87. As per IInd workman

was engaged purely on temporary basis by DET, Raipur

for execution of co-axial cable, trenching etc. It is denied

that management had given assurance to reinstate workman,

it is denied that Shri Daud Khan and Tejram Sahare were

absorbed by IInd party. Those two labours were absorbed

as per order passed by CAT Jabalpur in OA No. 71/91, 196/

190 dated 28-3-96 and 6-9-95. Workman did not approach

CAT, Jabalpur. He approached before ALC in 1996 after

disposal of OA by CAT. It is submitted that workman was

served with notice of retrenchment and retrenchment

compensation was paid to him. that no muster roll showing

payment to workman is available with management.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 45 to 47

reiterating his contentions in Statement 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 the manage-

In Negative

ment of Coaxial Cable Project of

Deptt. of Telecommunication through

Divisional Engineer, Coaxial Cable

Project, Shankernagar, Raipur in

terminating the services of Shri Bhim

Chandra Patel w.e.f. 31-12-90 is lawful

and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?"

order.

1272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of this services

on ground that he was not paid retrenchment compensation.

His services were orally terminated despite he was

continuously working from 1-11-87 to 31-12-90. IInd party

submits that workman was engaged temporarily as casual

employee. He was not continuously working. Workman

was issued notice of retrenchment on 7-1-91 and

compensation Rs. 1073/- was paid to him. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence covering his material contentions

in statement of claim. That he was continuously working

from 1-11-87 to 31-12-90. He worked more than 240 days

during each of the calendar year. He was doing work of

trenching and laying cables. Identity Card was issued to

him by Asstt. Engineer of Coaxial Project. His services were

orally terminated from 7-1-91. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation. He was given assurance of reinstatement.

That the matter was under consideration at higher level.

That Shri Ramesh and Dulchand and workman were not

reinstated, Shri Daud Khan and Tejram Sahare were

regularized. The evidence of workman remained

unchallenged. IInd party fhas not adduced any evidence

despite repeated chances granted. Copy of order passed

in OA 71/93 before CAT is produced. CAT had directed

department to scrutinize the matter from record within two

months from the date of order and if the applications are

put in sufficient number of years of service, they shall be

considered fro being confer of temporary status and if found

eligible for regularization, their service may be regularized

in terms of the decision in he case of Dhanirman Tiwari

and others versus Union of India OA 411 of 1990 decided

on 28-8-95. The copy of application OA No. 74/91 is

produced on record. it shows that said application was

filed by 30 employees including Daud Khan. Copy of

Judgement in OA No. 196/90 is produced. In Para-4 of the

judgment, it was observed that termination of services of

applicant was set aside. Applicant shall be accommodated

against the vacanices available. Since the applicants have

not put in any work during the period 1990 to the date of

this judgment they shall not be entitled to any back wages.

Said application was filed by 13 employees including Tejram,

Daudram. All of those employees are absorbed by IInd

party. No evidence is adduced by IInd party in present

matter about the working days of workman. I find no reason

to disbelieve unchallenged evidence of workman that he

was continuously working from 1-11-87 to 31-12-90. When

employees in OA 71/91 and 196/90 are absorbed absolutely

no reason is submitted by management for denying

abssorption to Ist party workman, action of the management

is illegal.Though IInd party has pleaded that workman was

served with notice and retrenchment compensation was

paid, no evidence is produced in that regard. Therefore I

record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

7. Point No. 2- The terminationof services of workman

is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Employees

in OA 196/90 and 76/91 are absorbed, the denial of

absorption to workman cannot be justified. There fore

workman deserves reinstatment with 40% back wages. The

backwages shall be payable from the date of order of

reference i.e. 28-12-95. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No.2.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Coaxial Cable

Project of Deptt. of Telecommunication through

Divisional Engineer, Coaxial Cable Project,

Shankernagar, Raipur in terminating the services

of Shri Bhim Chandra Patel w.e.f. 31-12-90 is not

legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service. Workman is also entitled to

40% back wages from date of order of reference.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 506-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

mTtSu ds izca/kr= ds lca) 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,y lh@vkj 3@94½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@145@92&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2015

S.O. 506.—In pursuance of Sectin 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/3/94) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Telecom Department, Ujjain and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 10/03/2015.

[No. L-40012/145/92-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/3/94

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1273

Shri Devi Singh,

S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh,

Prakash Nagar Colony,

Near Rani Mandir

PO Nagda, Distt. Ujjain.

... Workman

Versus

The S.D.O. (Telegraph).

Telecom Department,

Ujjain

... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of February 2015

1. As per letter dated 10-1-94 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/

145/92-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the SDP (Telegraph), Telecom

Department, Ujjain in retrenching the services of

Shri Devisingh, s/o Bhanvarsingh, ex-casual labour

w.e.f. 1-1-1989 is justified? If not, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to and from what

date?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties, Workeman submitted statement of claim at page 2/

1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was working as unskilled

labor under Sub Divisional Office of Telephones from

January 1986. He was continuously working till termination

of his service in Sept 1987. He was again engaged by IInd

party in February 1988. His services were discontinued in

May 1988. Again he was taken in service in October 1988.

He was continuously working till 1989. Workman submits

that his services are terminated as per letter dated 30-9-89

at the end of the month. Termination of his service from 1-

11-89 is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. He

had completed 240 days services. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation. Termination notice was not

issued to him, after termination of his service, other person

was engaged by IInd party. Section 25G was not complied.

On such contentions, workman prays for his reinstatement

with back wages.

3. It appears that IInd part had submitted objection

about tenability of reference at Page 6/1. The contention of

IInd party that postal department is discharging soverign

functions of State, it is not an industry.That workman in

Telephone department is holding civil post and not a

workman therefore is not entitled to remedies under ID

Act. Therefore referencer is not tenable.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the establishment of

In Affirmative

IInd party is covered as an

Industry?

(ii)

Whether the action of the SDP

(Telegraph), Telecom

Department, Ujjain in retrenching

the services of Shri Devisingh,

s/o Bhanvarsingh, ex-casual

labour w.e.f. 1-1-1989 is justified

In Negative

(iii)

If not, what relief the workman

is entitled to?"

As per final order.

REASONS

5. Though IInd party has contented that it is discharging

sovereign functions of Government, Ist party workman is

not covered under Section 2(s) of ID Act as workman, the

affidavit of evidence filed by IInd party of Shri S.N. Panse

is silent what kind of soverign functions is carried by IInd

party. Above point was not perused by learned counsel for

IInd party Shri R.S. Khare, there is no dispute that workman

was intermittently engaged as casual unskilled labor.

Management's witness in his affidavit of evidence has

stated that workman was engaged as casual labor unskilled;

from 15-1-86. He was terminated issuing one months notice

dated 17-7-87. Again workman was employed from 11-1-88.

Workman was terminated, he was paid retrenchment

compensation Rs. 2150/- vide Money order No. 1721 to

1723 dated 7.6.90. The casual labor is covered under Section

2(s) of IDAct. In absence of evidence by management's

witness what sovereign functions IInd party was

discharging, I hold that establishment of IIIrd party is

covered as an Industry under Section 2(j) of ID.Act. My

finding on Issue No. 1 is in Affirmative.

6. Point No. 2—Workman filed affidavit of his evidence

supporting contentions in statement of claim that initially

he was engaged from January 1986. His services were

terminated in September 87. He was re-engaged in February

1988 and discontinued in May 1988. Workman was

re-engaged in October 88 and terminated in October 1989.

During above scale of period, he was continuously

working. That he worked for 240 days preceding 12 months

of termination of his service. In his cross-examination,

workman says he was interviewed. Appointment letter

was not given to him, his name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. He was doing work of laying cable

lines. He denies that work he was doing has ended,

7. Management's witness Shri S.N. Panse in his affidavit

of evidence has stated that workman was engaged as

casual labor from 15-1-1986. His services were terminated

by giving notice dated 17-7-87. His service were terminated

from 17-8-87. Workman was engaged temporarily for laying

cables on conditions. Letter dated 11-1-88 is relied.

Management's witness says in affidavit that workman was

paid retrenchment compensation Rs. 2150/- vide Money

1274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

order No. 1721to 1723 dated 7-6-90. Witness of management

in his cross-examination says at the time of termination of

service of workman, one months pay was not paid to him.

Retrenchment compensation was also not paid. He denied

that workman completed 240 days service during preceding

12 months of his termination. That any documents are not

produced. The documents are available in office. The

witness of management was unable to tell reasons by

documents were not produced. As management failed to

produce documents about working days of workman, the

evidence of workman deserves to be accepted that he

completed 240 days continuous service preceding 12

months of termination. He was not served with notice.

Management has failed to produce documents about

payment of retrenchment compensation by Money Order.

Therefore termination of service of workman is in violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act.

8. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri R.S. Khare relied

on ratio held in

"Case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd versus

state of Jharkhand and others reported in 2014(1)

SCC(L&S) 183. Their Lordship held real dispute

between parties was not referred. The reference only

depicting version of one side, the reference was

quashed. It was held further by their Lordship that it

is duty of government to make the reference

appropriately reflective of real exact nature of dispute

between the parties."

In present case, workman has challenged termination of

his service. Terms of reference covers said dispute. The

ratio alleged in the case has no bearing to the case at hand.

It was further relied in ratio held in case of Batala Coop

Sugar Mills Ltd versus Sowaran Singh reported in 2005(8)

SCC 481. Their Lordship held burden of proof about

completing 240 dayd continuous service lies on workman.

In present case, evidence of workman is disclosed.

Management's witness failed to produce any documents.

Workman has discharged the burden of proving completion

of 240 days continuous service during October 88 to

October 89. The services are terminated without notice,

retrenchemnt is not paid to him. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No. 2 in Negative.

9. Point No. 3—In view of my finding in Point No. 1, 2

the services of workman is terminated in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act, question arises whether workman is entitled

for reinstatment with back wages. Learned counsel for IInd

party Shri R.S. Khare relies on ratio held in.

Case of State of Karnataka versus Umadevi reported in

2006(4) SCC-1. Their Lordship dealing with casual labours

temporary employees held such employees do not have

any right to regular/permanent employment further he

added temporary, contractual, casual, adhoc or daily wage

public employment must be deemed to be accepted by the

employee concerned fully knowing the nature of it and the

consequences flowing from it.

The raio held in case does not cover the matter to

termination of service in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act

or relief to be granted for such violation therefore ratio

held in the case cannot be beneficially applied to the present

case.

Reliance is also placed in case of MP State Agro

Industries Development Corporation Ltd and another

versus S.C. Pandey reported in 2006(2) SCC-716. Their

Lordship held daily wager does not hold a post as he is not

appointed following terms and rules and therefore he does

not derive any legal right. Dealing with Section 25-F, their

Lordship held to do coplete justice, instead of directing

reinstatment of services of respondent, appellant employer

is directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation.

The facts of present case are not comparable as

workman has not been reinstated in service by any order

passed earlier. Considering facts and circumstances,

workman was working from 1986 to 1989 with certain breaks,

compensation Rs. 50,000/- would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 3.

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

(1) The action of the SDP(Telegraph), Telecom

Deartpment, Ujjain in retrenching the services of

Shri Devisingh, s/o Bhanvarsingh, ex-casual

labour w.e.f. 1-1-1989 is not proper and legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 50,000/- to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 day 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 realiaation.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 507-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

Hkksiky 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 lhthvkbZVh@

,ylh@vkj@181@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

10@03@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lñ ,y&40011@18@98&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2015

S.O. 507.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1275

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/181/99)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Telecom Department, Bhopal and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 10/03/2015.

[No. L-40011/18/98-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/181/99

The President,

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,

Gulabgali, Chunginaka Road,

Gopalpura, Morena (MP)

... Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road,

M.P. Circle, Bhopal (MP)

Divisional Engineer (Adm.),

Office of the TDM, Morena

... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of February 2015

1. As per letter dated 26-4-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The refernce is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40011/

18/98/IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager Telecom in terminating the services

of Shri Ghanshyam Karan, Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma,

Shri Kailash Chandra and Shri Gajendra Singh Savita

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen

are entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman No. 1 to 5 submitted statement of claim

at page 6/1 to 6/5. Case of workman is that Ist party No. 1

to 2 were working from 23-9-88, No. 3, 4 from April 89 as

Helper. Ist party No. 5 was working from 1-1-1990 as Helper

on daily wages. They were paid minimum wages @ rate of

minimum wages prescribed in Collector Office. Ist party

No. 2 to 5 were working under IInd party No. 1. They were

paid wages by the department. IInd party in conciliation

proceeding contented that work was carried out through

contractor and in certain circumstances payment of wages

was directly made. Ist party workman submits that

employees were working for IInd party should be regularized

for the work they were carrying. Ist party No. 2 & 5 were

not paid wages for December 1996. When they insisted for

payment of wages, they were told that the wages will be

paid by contractor. It is submitted that IInd party has shown

some contractors. Workman claims ignorance about the

security contractor engaged by IInd party. They reiterates

that they were working with IInd party with motive to end

their service, bogus contractor were shown for payment of

wages. As Ist party workman were insisting for

regularization of their services and direct payment of wages,

IInd party got annoyed and orally terminated their services

from 1-1-97. The representations submitted by Ist party

No. 2 to 5. They were given oral assurance for reinstatement

in future. However they were not absorbed by IInd party. It

is submitted that services of Ist Party are terminated in

violation of Section 25-F, N of ID Act. IInd party had not

obtained promotion from Government for retrenchment. 3

months notice is not given to them. On such grounds,

workman prays for their reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party field Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/4. It

is submitted by IInd party that claim of workman is not

genuine. They were not appointed by IInd party on any

post. There is no post of tenchnical helper in IInd party. It

is submitted that in 1988, those employees were engaged

through contractors for exigencies. Contractor was paying

them wages. When wages were not paid properly, IInd

party was supervising the payment of proper wages by the

contractor. It is denied that IInd party was paying wages

through contractor. It is submitted that the contractors

were engaged for carrying work. Payment was made to

contractor as per the directions. The payment of wages by

contractors to the employees is legal. There are no post

technical helper in power plant of IInd party. The employees

cannot be appointed on such post. Workman did not

complete 240 days continuous service at any time.

Therefore notice for termination is not required to be given.

There cannot be any oral termination of employees in the

department. All adverse contentions of workman are denied.

4. Ist party submitted rejoinder at Page 14/2, 14/3

reiterating their contentions in statement 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 the

management of Chief General

Manager Telecom in terminating

the services of Shri Ghanshyam

Karan, Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma,

Shri Kailash Chandra and Shri

Gajendra Singh Savita is legal and

justified?

In Negative

1276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?"

orders.

REASONS

6. The terms of reference does not include Ist party

No. 1 Ganesh Ram Sharma. It appears to be impleaded in

statement of claim as President of Union. Ist party workman

No. 2 to 5 are chanllenged termination of their services for

violation of Section 25-F, N of ID Act. All of them are

claiming that they have completed 240 days continuous

service during their respective period of their engagement.

Identical affidavit of their evidence are filed supporting

their claim in statement of claim. Ist party workman No. 2 to

5 are challenging termination of their services for violation

of Section 25-F, N of ID Act. All of them are claiming that

they have completed 240 days continuous service during

their respective period of their engagement. Identical

affidavit of their evidence are filed supporting their claim in

statement of claim. Ist party No. 2 Ghansham stated that he

was engaged on daily wages from 23-9-88. Kailash Sharma

was engaged from April 89, Vinod from April 89, Gajendra

Singh from 1-1-90 on daily wage basis. All of them claims to

have completed more than 240 days continuous service

during each of the year of their engagement. Their services

were orally terminated. That they were directly paid wages.

They were not engaged by contractor. Ghansham in his

cross-examination says he had not received I Card, no

chargesheet was served on him he was paid Rs. 1500/- per

month increased time to time. He was paid monthly wages.

He was not discontinued from service. The time of his

attending duty was mentioned in the log book signed by

him, he was working on daily wages. He was paid wages

for his working days. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Gajendra Singh

Savita and Kailash Singh Sharma have deposed similar in

their cross-examination. Management's witness Sunil Kumar

Jain filed affidavit covering contentions of IInd party that

those workman were engaged by contractor. The contractor

was paying their wages. There was no question of issuing

notice terminating their services. Management's witness

did not even present for cross-examination. His evidence

was closed. As witness of management failed to remain

present for cross-examination, his evidence cannot be relied.

I do not find reason to disbelieve evidence of Ist party No.

2 to 5. Their services are orally terminated in violation of

Section 25-F, N of ID Act. Therefore I record my finding in

Point No. 1.

7. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,

termination of services of workman is illegal, evidence of

Ist party workman No. 2 to 5 shows that they were engaged

on daily wages. IInd party submits that there is not post of

technical Helper in its establishment. Workmen No. 2 to 5

were not appointed following selection process. They were

working on daily wages. Question arises whether they are

entitled for reinstatement with back wages. On above point,

learned counsel for workman Shri P. Choubey relies on

ratio held in

"Case between Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi versus

Hindalco Industries Ltd. reported in 2014 Legal Eagle

(SC) 317. Their Lordship dealing with the brief period

of contracts with the respondent and finally

terminating the services of workman from 27-7-98

observed very interestingly the periods of service

extends to close to 6 years save the artificial breaks

made by the respondents with an oblique motive so

as to retain the appellant as a temporary worker and

deprive the appellant of his statutory right of

permanent worker status. The aforesaid conduct of

the respondent perpetuates unfair labour practice as

defined under Section 2(ra) of I.D. Act which is not

permissible in view of Section 25 T, 25 U of ID Act

read with SI. No. 10 of Schedule V of I.D. Act. Dealing

with the question of reliefs to be granted, their

Lordship held that termination of service of the

appellant amounts to retrenchment in the light of the

principle laid down by three judge bench decision of

this Court in State Bank of India versus Shri N.

Sundara Money AIR 1976-SC-1111 and attracts

provision of Section 6-N of UP ID Act and also on

the basis of legal principle laid down by this Court,

we hold that the termination of service of the

appellant was illegal and void ab initio. For issue of

back wages to be awarded, it has been held by this

Court in case of Shivnandan Mahto versus State of

Bihar 2013(11) SCC 626 that if a workman is kept out

of service due to fault or mistake of the establishment/

company he was working in, then the workman is

entitled to full back wages for the period he was

illegally kept out of service. On the basis of legal

principle laid down by this court in the Deepali Gundu

Surwase Case, the submission of the respondent that

the appellant did not aver in his plaint of not being

employed, does not hold since the burden of proof

that the appellant is gainfully employed post

termination of his service is on the respondent. The

claim of the respondent that the appellant is gainfully

employed somewhere is vague and cannot be

considered and accepted. Therefore we hold that

the appellant is entitled to full back wages from the

date of termination of his service till the date of his

reinstatement."

Next reliance is placed in case of State of Gujarat

Versus Karsanbhai Jesang by Gujarat High Court.

Reinstatement of workman was directed with 20%

back wages by Labour court was modified to full

back wages from date of award in his actual

reinstatement.

In both the judgements relied by learned counsel for

workman, the point that workmen were engaged on daily

wages was not under consideration.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1277

8. Learned counsel for IInd party Mrs Suman Pandy

relies on ratio held in

Case of Ashwani Kumar and others versus State of Bihar

and others reported in 1997(2) SCC-1. Their Lordship

considering resolution of Bihar Government in Health

Deptt. dated 25-3-83 in respect of recruitment to Class-

III and Class-IV posts under TB programme superseded

only the pervious orders relating to the constitution of

the Recruitment Committee and not the orders relating

to recruitment procedure. Recruitment process-omission

to follow prescribed procedure. Their Lordship further

held candidates appointed in unauthorized manner and

against no existing vacancies-confirmation or

regularization of such appointees held a nullity hence

cannot give protection against future termination of

service. Any training given to such appointees under

the directions of the Govt. would not improve their case."

The facts of above case are entirely different. The

engagement of workman was on daily wages and there

was no question of violation of any Govt. resolution. The

ratio cannot be applied to present case at hand.

Next reliance by counsel for IInd party in Secretary,

State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others

reported in 2006(4) SCC-1. In above cited case, the relief in

case of violation of Section 25-F was not under

consideration of their Lordship as in present case. Therefore

ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.

Incidentally ration held by Apex Court in Case of

Assistance Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation

and another versus Gitam Singh reported in

2013(2)SCC(L&S)369 may be considered. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F & 11-A-daily rated workers

wrongful termination. The relief of compensation and

reinstatement to be granted. Distinction should be drawn

between daily rated worker and worker holding regular post.

Services of daily wager who worked for short period of

240 days only terminated by appellant employer in 1991 in

contravention of Section 25-F. Labour Court directed

reinstatement with 25% back wages. Their Lordship held

exercise of judicia suffers from serious infirmity.

Their lordship held compensation Rs. 50,000 would meet

ends of justice. In present case, workmen were working on

daily wages during 88 to 96 & Ist party workman No. 5 from

90 to 96. In my considered view, considering the length of

working period, compensation Rs. 1 Lakh to Ist party No. 2

to 5 is appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No. 2.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Chief General

Manager Telecom in terminating the services of

Shri Ghanshyam Karan, Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma,

Shri Kailash Chandra and Shri Gajendra Singh

Savita is not legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay Rs. 1 Lakh to

Ist party No. 2 to 5 each workmen within 30 days

of publication 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] 12 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 508-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos 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 v#ukdqye

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12@03@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@08@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2015

S.O. 508.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 27/2013) of the

ERNAKULAM as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Southern Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/03/2015.

[No. L-41011/08/2013-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

(Friday the 27th day of February, 2015/8th Phalguna, 1936)

ID 27/2013

Union

Shri Robert D'Souza, General Secretary

S. Rly Construction Workers Union

H.No. 39/1042

Behind Lakshmi Enterprises

Karakkat Cross Road

Kochi (Kerala)-682016

By Adv. Shri K S Mohamad Hashim

Managements

The General Manager

Southern Railway

Madras Central

Madras (TN)

The Executive Engineer

(Constn.)

Southern Railways

P.O., Thanur

Thanur

1278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Divisional Personnel

Officer

Southern Railway

Palakkad

By Adv. Shri P M M Najeed Khan

(Standing Counsel for the Railways)

This case coming up for final hearing on 27.02.2015 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed

the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

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

Government/Ministry of Labour vide Order No-L-41011/

08/2013-IR(B-I) dated 27.05.2013 referred the industrial

dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Southern

Railway/Dy Chief Engineer Construction, Podanur

in denying the benefits to the 40 workmen who were

working as casual labours in the year 1983-84 as

per Chapter XIII of the Indian Railway Establishment

Mannual (Unrevised)? If not, to what relief they are

entitled?"

After receipt of summons union entered appearance

and filed claim statement with the allegations that the

40 workers whose names and service details are given in

the list attached to it had worked as Khalasis under the

Inspector of works, Open Line, Southern Railway, Podannur,

They had joined the service of the management on various

dates in the year 1983. They have completed 120 days'

service and thereby acquired temporary status in the year

1983 itself. On acquiring temporary status they are entitled

for the benefits provided in Chapter XIII of the Indian

Railway Establishment Manual. But they were denied of

the benefits for the reason that they were engaged in project

works. They were actually engaged in the regular

construction wing of Southern Railway and not as casual

labourers engaged in projects. The question of casual

labourers in project and construction wing of the Southern

Railway was already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in AIR 1982 SC 854 and AIR 1993 SC 188. Those workmen

were denied of the benefits of those judgements and the

same has resulted in this reference. From 1983 onwards

union was making demands to grant the benefits to the

workmen in terms of Chapter XIII of the Indian Railway

Establishment Manual. But the same was not acceded to

by the management. Hence the management is to be directed

to grant all the benefits as per Chapter XIII of the Indian

Railway Establishment Manual to those workers.

4. Managements 1 to 3 entered appearance. But the

second management alone filed written statement. The

contentions put forward are that the claim relates back to

the year 1983 to 1999 and hence the same is to be treated as

stale considering the inordinate delay of about 15 years.

Details of the present position of those workers are not

furnished by the union for verficiation. Consequent upon

their engagement and later absorption in the regular cadre

in Railways they have become regular employees and hence

governed by the service rules framed by the appropriate

government/Ministry of Railways from time to time. Hence

the Central Administrative Tribunals have only got

jurisdiction to redress their grievance and this Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to deal with the same. Casual labourers

other than those engaged in project works will only get

temporary status on completion of continuous service of

120 days and will be able to get pay and allowances of

temporary class IV railway employees as provided in

Chapter XIII of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual

(Unrevised). The workmen involved in this dispute have

completed 120 days of continuous service on the respective

dates shown and hence entitled to those benefits. They

were once project casual labourers. Till 1985 the provision

for granting of temporary status was available to the open

line casual labour only and there was no provision for

granting of temporary status to project casual labour. The

grievance of the project casual labour was raised before

the Apex Court in the year 1985 and during the pendency

of the proceedings the Railway Ministry framed a scheme

making provision for grant of temporary status to project

casual labourers on completion of 360 days of continuous

service. The scheme was approved by the Apex Court with

modification. The Railway Board had issued directions for

implementation of the scheme vide letter dated 11.09.1986.

The grant of temporary status as per the above scheme for

project casual labourers was settled long back and cannot

be reopened. There is no relevance for their claims based

on the judgements reported in AIR 1982 SC 854 and AIR

1993 SC 188. There is no merit in the claim of the union or

the workmen and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Union did not file any replication in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

6. After posting the case for evidence the union remained

continuously absent on all posting dates without adducing

any evidence. Management has also not adduced any

evidence.

7. The points for determination are:

i. Whether the claim has become stale?

ii. Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to

entertain the dispute?

iii. Whether the 40 workmen are entitled to the

benefits as per Chapter XIII of the Indian Railway

Establishment Manual (Unrevised)?

iv. Whether they are entitled to any relief?

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1279

8. Point No. (i):- From the pleadings itself it is apparent

that there is inordinate delay in raising the dispute. It is

after a long lapse of time after the framing of the scheme for

grant of temporary status to project workers and its

implementation the dispute is seen to have been raised by

the union. Union has not adduced any evidence to have a

satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in raising

the dispute. Because of the inordinate delay for raising the

dispute it can be treated that the claim has become stale.

9. Point No. (ii):- The contention as to lack of jurisdiction

is raised by making the plea that the 40 workmen were

already absorbed in the regular service in the Railways and

they have become regular employees and hence the Central

Administrative Tribunals alone have got jurisdiction to

redress their grievance. There is no dispute as to the fact

that they are workmen engaged as casual labours by the

management and the claim is for regularisation by conferring

temporary status. There is nothing on record to show that

they are already absorbed as regular employees of the

management. Even if they are regular employees then also

they are to be treated as workmen in the absence of any

evidence to prove that they are not workmen as defined

under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They are

member of the union which raised the dispute. There is no

case that the union has no right to raise the dispute

representing those workmen. Hence it can reasonably be

held that his tribunal has got jurisdiction to deal with the

dispute.

10. Point No. (iii):- There is nothing on record to satisfy

that the 40 workmen are entitled to the benefits as per

Chapter XIII of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual

(Unrevised). Union ought to have adduced evidence to

prove that they have fulfilled the conditions for acquiring

temporary status. In the absence of any evidence to

substantiate the allegations in the claim statement it is not

in any way possible to enter into a finding that those

workers are entitled to the benefits as per Chapter XIII of

the Indian Railway Established Manual (Unrevised). Hence

it can only be held that they are not entitled to any such

benefit.

11. Point No. (iv):- Since it is found that those workmen

are not entitled to the benefits as per Chapter XIII of the

Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Unrevised), they

are not entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 509-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

/kuckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼185@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[lañ ,y&12012@80@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2015

S.O. 509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby published the Award (Ref. 185/2000) 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 State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 12/03/2015.

[No. L-12012/80/2000-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. 185 of 2000

Employer in relation to the management of State Bank of

India, Muzaffarpur

AND

Their workmen.

Present:-

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers:

Sri S.N. Goswami, Advocate

For the workman:

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Indusrtry: Banking

Dated 27/2/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012/80/2000-IR (B-I), dated. 29.06.2000,

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 State

Bank of India, Patna in terminating the service of the

workman on 1st October, 1983 and not considering

him for re-employment before appointing fresh hands

like Sri Ram Chandra Bhagat, Sri Randir Kumar,

Sri Rajesh Kumar Mahto, Sri Arun Kumar Patel,

1280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sri Sundama Prasad, Sri Bhuneshwar Kumar,

Sri Ganesh Thakur and Sri Ram Swarup Rai is

justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour &

Employment on 02.08.2000. After receipt of reference, both

parties are noticed. The workman files their written statement

on 29.08.2000. The management files their written statement

on 16.05.2001. The workman himself examined as WW-1

and two witnesses has been examined on behalf of the

management.

3. The short point involved in the reference is that,

whether the termination of the workman is just and proper

or not. The workman have been terminated by the

management without assigning any rhyme or reason.

4. The workman who is a bank employee joined as daily

wager prior 1983. But after working for a long period, he

claims for regularization, his service was terminated.

5.The workman approached High Court and brought a

casual order and as such remained relief less. Again in the

year 2000 he brought a reference to this Tribunal, which

has been dragged till today.

6. The workman said that he is still job less and his case

is not forwarded for consideration or kept under carpet.

The workman files series of document that he was working

continuously and it was also observed by High Court.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case.

This Tribunal orders the workman be taken immediately as

daily wager, and be saved starvation and the management

is directed to rgularize him in any lowest grade within 3

months from the date of publication of the award in Gazetter

of India.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 510-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fcykliqj jk;iqj

{ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼162@99½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

Fkk A

[lañ ,y&12012@587@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi the 12th March, 2015

S.O. 510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the Award (Ref. 162/99) of the Cent.Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/03/2015.

[No. L-12012/587/98-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/162/99

Shri Deepak Chatterjee,

C/o A. Pathak,

MIG-II, 356, Awadinagar, HUDCO,

Bhilai (CG).

... Workman

Versus

Chairman

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Dayalband,

Bilaspur (MP)

... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of February, 2015

1. As per letter dated 19-4-99 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/

587/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bilaspur

Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bilaspur in terminating the

services of Shri Deepak Chatterjee, Ex-cashier of said Bank

is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 5/1 to 5/5. Case of workman is that he was working as

cashier in Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Branch

Basoda. Chargesheet was issued to him on 16-1-95 for the

allegation that he received amount of Rs. 3805/- from

Narayanlal Nishad was not deposited in his account but

counterfoil was given. Workman misappropriated the

amount. That workman had received Rs. 5000/- from

Chaitram for depositing in his Saving Bank Account

No. 677. Said amount was not deposited in his account.

Workman made overwriting in accounts book. Workman

received amount of Rs. 300/- for depositing in cash account

was deposited in next month. Counter foil of deposit was

given to him. Workman misusing his official authority had

taken loan from Bank customers. Workman was absent

from duty without prior permission. Workman submitted

that enquiry was not properly conducted. Enquiry was

deliberately fixed on date. Workman can not submit

application. Enquiry was proceeded exparte. That

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1281

punishment of dismissal imposed against him was not

decided by Chairman. He left meeting and in absence,

representative of Govt. decided the appeal is illegal.

Workman submits charges are not proved. He prays for

reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/14.

IInd party submits that there were serious complaints

against workman, preliminary inspections were conducted

by Bank. Chargesheet were issued to workman. enquiry

was conducted. The details of the charges are narrated in

Written Statement. Workman remains absent despite of

repeated intimation given to him. Workman was given full

opportunity for his defence. The charges against workman

are proved. Punishment of dismissal from service is proper.

Appeal filed by workman was dismissed. The Chairman

being Disciplinary Authority did not decide the appeal.

All adverse contentions of workman have been denied. It

is reiterated that for proved charges, workman has been

dismissed from service calls no interference. While

conducting enquiry, principles of natural justice were

followed.

4. Preliminary issue No. 1 was decided by my predecessor

on 21-04-06. Enquiry was found proper and legal.

5. Considering pleadings on record and findings on

preliminary issue, the points which arise for my

consideration and determination are as under. My findings

are recoreded against each of them for the reasons as

below:-

(i) Whether the misconduct

alleged against workman is

In Affirmative

Proved from evidence in

Enquiry proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

dismissal imposed against

In Affirmative

workman is proper and legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

6. In view of my finding in Issue No. 1, enquiry found

proper and legal, question remains whether charges alleged

against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings and punishment of dismissal is proper.

7. The statement of witnesses recroded in Enquiry

Proceedings is clear that workman had received amount of

Rs. 3805/-, Rs. 550/-, Rs. 300/- from customer of the Bank,

counter foils were issued and amount were not credited to

the respective account holders. The statement of witnesses

Pyarelal Sahu, Dhruv Kumar Shukla, Chaitram, Asharam,

Rainbati Bai and Nain Kumar Yadav recorded in Enquiry

Proceedings remained unchallenged, Workman failed to

participate in Enquiry Proceedings. I find no reason to

disbelieve unchallenged evidence of all those witnesses.

Their statement are sufficient to prove charges against

workman. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No. 1 in Affirmative.

8. Point No. 2 the charges proved from evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings are of serious nature receiving

amounts and misappropriated it and taking loan from bank

customers, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said

excessive.No interference is called for in the order of

punishment. I record my finding in Point No. 2 in

Affirmative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Bilaspur Raipur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bilaspur in terminating the services

of Shri Deepak Chatterjee, Ex-casher of said Bank is proper

and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 511-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼1260@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@69@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2015

S.O. 511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1260/2006) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, No. II

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Northern Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/03/2015.

[No. L-41012/69/2005-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1260/2006

Registered on 14.3.2006

1282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Balbir Kaur, Ex-sweeper, wife of late Sh. Kaka Singh, resident

of village Maisar Khana, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District

Bathinda (Punjab).

... Petitioner

Versus

1. Divisional Personnel Officer, DRM Officer,

Northern Railways, New Delhi.

2. Station Master, Northern Railway, Railway Station

Maisarkhana, District Bathinda (Punjab).

... Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Ex parte.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 30.1.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-41012/69/

2005-IR (B-I) Dated 24.2.2006, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Northern

Railway in terminating the services of Smt. Balbir

Kaur w/o Late Sh. Kaka Singh, Ex-Safaiwala w.e.f.

17.12.2003 without any notice and payment of

retrenchment compensation is legal and justified? If

not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to and from which date?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

filed statement of claim pleading that she worked as Safai

Karamchari with the respondent management from 19.7.1986

to 17.12.2003. There were instructions to empanel the

employees who have rendered 120 days of service and a

screening was done in January, 1995 and the persons junior

to the workman were placed in the list for regularization of

services, but her name was not considered. She filed an

application before the Central Administrative Tribunal

which was disposed of vide order dated 28.2.2003 with the

direction to the respondent management to dispose of her

representation. But the management terminated her

services on 17.12.2003 in violation of the provisions of

Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act and she be reinstated

in service.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that workman worked under it as part-time karamchari on

contract basis at the rate of Rs. 5/- per day and she used to

work for one-and-a-half hours daily. In view of the orders

of the Central Administrative Tribunal, her representation

was decided against which she did not prefer any appeal.

She did not approach any court of law and the same has

attained finality. That she herself stopped attending her

duties and her services were not terminated by the

management. Since, she was a part-time daily wage worker,

she was not to be paid any retrenchment compensation.

In support of her case, workman appeared in the witness

box on 25.7.2007 and at that time the management was

ex parte. The ex parte order was set aside vide order dated

25.1.2011 and as such, the said statement recorded on

25.7.2007 is not to be read. Thereafter, workman did not

lead any evidence and was proceeded against ex parte

vide order dated 8.5.2014.

Thus, the workman did not any evidence in support of

her case. The management did not lead any evidence.

I have heard Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the

management.

There is no denial of the fact that the workman worked

as Safai Karamchari with the respondent management from

1.9.1986 to 17.12.2003, but, according to the management,

she was engaged on contract and she was doing the work

for one-and-a-half hours for Rs. 5/- per day. The workman

has never appeared in the witness box to controvert these

averments. It is again pleaded by the management that it is

the workman who stopped attending to her duties and her

services were not terminated. The workman has not stepped

into the witness box to rebut these averments and therefore,

it cannot be said that her services were terminated by the

respondent management. There is no dispute that the

service of the part-time daily wage worker comes to an end

at the end of the day and the same do not amount to

'retrenchment' and no compensation was to be given to the

workman.

In result, it is held that it is not proved that the services

of the workman were terminated by the management and

she was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation

and she is not entitled to any other relief and accordingly

the reference is answered against her. Let hard and soft

copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for

further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 512-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos izca/k

ra= 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] eqEcbZ ds

iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼63@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@84@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1283

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2015

S.O. 512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 63/2013) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II,

Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Western Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/03/2015.

[No. L-41011/84/2013-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/63 of 2013

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

WESTERN RAILWAY & ANR

1. The Chief Workshop Manager

Western Railway

Lower Parel

Mumbai 400 013.

2. The Assistant Sports Officer

Western Railway Sports Association

Old Building, Head Office

Churchgate

Mumbai 400 020.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

The General Secretary

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad

33, Moti Bhaan, 2nd floor

Dr. D'silva Road

Dadar (W)

Mumbai 400 028.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER No. 1:

No appearance.

FOR THE EMPLOYER No. 2:

Mr. Ajay Apte,

Representative.

FOR THE WORKMEN:

No appearance.

Mumbai, dated the 16th February, 2015.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-41011/84/2013-IR (B-I), dated

24.10.2013 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 management of Western

Railway, Mumbai in not giving out of turn promotion/

special increments to Sh. Marathu Pandian, Helper

for his sports achievements of winning Silver Medal

in 85 Kgs. category at Sr. National Weightlifting

Championship held at Vishakhapatanam in December,

2006 is legal, just and proper? To what relief the

workman concerned is entitled?

2. After receipt of the reference notice was sent to both

the parties. Notice sent to the union and served vide Ex-5

and again vide Ex-8. Second party remained absent on all

dates. Sufficient time was given to them. However neither

union remained present nor filed their statement of claim.

As the second party union failed to file its statement of

claim, the reference deserves to be dismissed for want of

prosecution. Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

No order as to cost.

Date: 16.02.2015

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 513-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

dkuiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼46@89½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@31@88&Mh&3&¼,½-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2015

S.O. 513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 46/89) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Bharatiya State Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/03/2015.

[No. L-12012/31/88-D-3-(A) IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

1284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 46 of 89

Between

Sri Jai Govind Tiwari, C/o Sri V. N. Sekhari,

26/104, Birhana Road,

Kanpur.

And

Chief Regional Manager,

Bhartiya State Bank,

Regional Office,

M.G. Marg,

Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Government Mol, New Delhi, vide notification

No. L-12012/31/88-D-3-(A), dated 30.12.88 has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2.Whether the action of the management of SBI

Golagokarannath District Lakhimpur Khiri in dismissing

Sri Jai Govind Tiwari, Ex-Guard, with effect from 01.06.84,

is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled?

3. Brief facts are

4. Admitted facts of the case are that the workman Sri

Tiwari was served a charge sheet dated 22.02.82, copy

exhibit M.3 on seven counts, which will be reproduced

as and when it is required while discussing the findings

of the case. The inquiry into the said charge was

conducted by an officer of the bank Sri R. Chandra. He

gave his finding on 05.01.83, Ext. M-9 is the copy of

finding. He held charges number 3.4.5 and 7 as proved

only. From the inquiry proceedings it appears that the

charge number 6 was not pressed at inquiry stage by the

representative for the bank. The disciplinary authority

by means of his order dated 14.06.83, copy Ext. M-10

agreed with the finding given by the enquiry officer. By

means of his said order he imposed the punishment of

dismissal from service upon to workman accordingly a

show cause notice was issued to the workman Ext. M-11

is the copy of the said letter. Ext.M-12 is the

representation moved by the workman against the show

cause notice. After considering the recommendation the

disciplinary authority finally passed order dated 01.06.83,

copy of which is Ext. M-13 and he confirmed the proposed

punishment of workman's dismissal from service without

notice. However, as regard charge No.5, after considering

the submission made by the workman in his

representation he held that the said charge stood proved

only up to the extend that the workman reported at the

training camp at Kanpur one day later. Against the order

of the punishment passed by the disciplinary authority

the workman preferred an appeal which was dismissed by

the Chief Regional Manager/Appellate authority by

means of his order dated 15.10.84 Ext. M-16.

5. The workman's case is that he was appointed as guard

in the bank in 1971 and confirmed on the said post in 1973.

In March 1979 he was posted at Golagokaran Nath Branch.

Since the branch manager of the said branch was annoyed

with him with a view to victimize him he issued him the

charge sheet in question. According to the workman the

charge sheet was not issued by the competent authority.

The construction of charge sheet was illegal. The

allegations on which he was charged amounted to minor

misconduct. He alleges that he was not supplied with the

copies of the material documents on which the charges

were based. During the inquiry he was not given full

opportunity to defend himself. The findings of the inquiry

officer were perverse as these were not based on material

on record and legal evidence. He further alleges that the

punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him was

highly disproportionate and excessive when looked into

the gravity of charges.

6. He has therefore, prayed that the order of the

punishment dated 01.06.84, be set aside and he be

reinstated in service with full back wages and consequential

benefits.

7. Opposite party has filed with written statement

contending that that the workman joined the service as

guard on 29.07.73 and confirmed on the said post with effect

from 04.03.74. It is stated that while he was posted at

Golagokarannath branch he was served with a charge sheet

dated 20.2.82. It was valid and it was signed by the

competent officer that is the Regional Manager. The

charges were specific. The documents were supplied to

the workman during the inquiry proceedings which were

perused by him. It has been denied that the charges

amounted to minor misconduct. It is stated that the inquiry

as conducted was by following the principles of natural

justice. The workman had fuly participated all along in the

enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer were based

on legal evidence. The finding of the enquiry officer and

the order of the disciplinary authority and appellate

authority were based on material on record which was not

malafide and the punishment awarded to the workman was

quite proportionate having regard to the gravity of the

charges.

8. Workman has also filed rejoinder in which nothing

new has been pleaded by him.

9. My learned predecessor after giving full opportunity

of arguments to the contesting parties and after giving his

anxious consideration to the oral as well as documentary

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1285

evidence on record gave its award on 21.02.91 by exercising

the powers of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, and modified the punishment of dismissal into

reinstatement of workman in the service of the bank with

stoppage of one annual graded increment with cumulative

effect.

10. This award was challenged by the opposite party by

filing writ petition No. 17586 of 91, before the Hon'ble High

Court, Allahabad. The workman was reinstated in the service

of the bank under the interim orders of the Hon'ble High

Court passed on 12.05.93, in the said writ petition.

11. It is submitted by the learned authorized

representative for the workman that the workman was paid

his salary and allowance by the bank under the interim

orders of the Hon'ble High Court on the premises as if he

was never removed from the service of the bank. It was

further contended by the representative for the workman

that the workman continued to work as such till the date of

his retirement under the interim orders of the Hon'ble High

Court. It was also submitted by the authorized

representative for the workman that 50% of back wages

was deposited by the bank with the Tribunal under the

interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad. The

above factual position of the case has not been denied by

the opposite party bank.

12. It is further submitted by the representaive for the

workman that the bank also paid to the workman his entire

retirement benefits after his retirement from the service of

the bank and decided his pension which was continued to

be paid to the workman as per rules of the bank.

13. The said writ petition was ultimately decided by the

Hon'ble High Court on 27.07.04, wherein the award of the

tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded back

to this tribunal for fresh adjudication according to law.

14. After remand of the case by Hon'ble High Court

Allahabad vide order 27.07.04, both the parties were

afforded adequate opportunities to adduce their evidence

in support of their respective case and the tribunal after

considering the evidence and material on record of the

case found charge No. 5 and 7 respectively proved against

the workman and by means of its award dated 04.07.11.

The tribunal has further held charge No. 3 as proved against

the workman and he was denied the relief as claimed by

him. The bank thereafter stopped making payment of

pension to the workman.

15. Being aggrieved by the award the workman

challenged the award dt. 04.07.11, by filing Civil Misc. Writ

Petition No. 10091 of 2013. The said writ petition was finally

decided by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated

26.03.2014. The Hon'ble High Court set aside the award

dated 04.07.11 and again remitted the case to this tribunal

by observing as under—

In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned

award is set aside only to the extent of quantum of

punishment and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal

to consider and decide the quantum of punishment to

the petitioner in the light of the provisions of section

11-A of the Act, the facts and circumstances of the case

and evidence on record the tribunal shall decide the

quantum of punishment as expeditiously as possible

preferably within a period of two months from the date

of certified copy of this order is field by the petitioner.

16. It may be pointed out that none of the contesting

parties have adduced any oral or documentary evidence

on the point of quantum of punishment.

17. The authorized representative for the workman vide

application dated 16.04.2014, paper No. 51/1, has filed

original certified copy of the order of the Hon'ble High

Court, Allahabad, and upon receipt of the order of the

Hon'ble High Court notice was issued to the management

for their appearance on 09.06.2014 for hearing in the case.

18. In the mean time the tenure of my predecessor

completed on 28.05.2004 and he relinquished the charge of

the post of Presiding Officer, of the Tribunal and since

then the matter was kept pending till new Presiding Officer

of the Tribunal is appointed by the Central Government,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

19. I assumed the charge of the post of Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

on 20th October, 2014, and heard the arguments of both

the parties on 02.12.2014, and reserved the award.

20. During the course of arguments both the parties

have confined their arguments only on the point of quantum

of punishment as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court

of Allahabad.

21. Firstly it has been argued by the authorized

representative for the bank that the disciplinary action

against an award staff of the management of State Bank of

India, are regulated through the provisions by the Desai

Award of which para 521 specifically deals with detailed

procedure for initiating disciplinary action against an

delinquent employee of the bank. It is further submitted

that sub para (4) of Para 521 defines the acts of a bank

employee that has been termed as gross misconduct by a

bank employee. Sub para (e), (f), (j) of sub para (4) of Para

521 of Desai Award enumerates the acts of gross

misconduct. On the strength of above provisions it has

been vehemently argued by the representative of the

management that the acts of misconduct committed by the

workman as enumerated in the charge No. 5 and 7 of the

charge sheet clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the

terms of "Gross Misconduct" as the workman has been

found guilty of habitual doing of any act which amounts to

"minor misconduct", willful insubordination or

disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of the

1286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management or of a superior and doing any act prejudicial

to the interests of the interest of the bank, or gross

negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the

bank in serious loss. Therefore, the punishment order

passed by the disciplinary authority, upheld by the appellate

authority as well as by this tribunal in its award dated

04.07.11, need not to be interfered at the hands of this

tribunal as it fully commensurate having regard to the nature

misconduct proved against the workman.

22. It has further been argued by the management that

sub para (5) of Para 521 of Desai Award further postulates

that an employee found guilty of gross misconduct may:

(a) Be dismissed without notice; or

(b) Be warned or censured, or have an adverse remark

entered against him;

(d) Have his increment stopped;

(e) Have his misconduct condoned,

23. By referring the above provisions it was again

stressed that the punishment of dismissal from service

awarded to the workman on the proved misconduct

committed by the workman is just and fair.

24. Needless to mention here that on the same analogy,

the counsel for the bank has argued before the Hon'ble

High Court during the final hearing in writ petition No.

10091 of 2013, but the arguments of the bank were discarded

by the hon'ble High Court and the case was remitted by the

Hon'ble court to decide the quantum of punishment taking

into consideration the gravity of misconduct. Therefore,

once the arguments of the management failed before the

Hon'ble Court, the same arguments before this tribunal by

the management carries no weight in the eye of law and the

tribunal of the opinion that there is no merit in the arguments

of the bank accordingly the same are rejected.

25. Now the question for determination is as to whether

the punishment awarded to the workman on the proved

misconduct warrants dismissal of the workman or not.

26. On the above issue, it has been argued by the

representative for the workman that after the reinstatement

of the workman by the bank under the interim orders of the

Hon'ble High Court in writ petition, the workman has not

indulged himself in any activities which may constitute or

attract the provision of gross misconduct, his past record

remained blot less, the nature of charge proved against the

workman was not so serious which may warrant penalty of

economic death of the workman. The Hon'ble High Court

too has expressed the above opinion in its order in the

light of charge No. 5 and 7 found proved against the

workman. Therefore, it has been submitted by the

representative for the workman that the punishment

awarded to the workman is quite harsh and it required

modification at the hands of this Tribunal in exercise of

powers conferred upon the tribunal under the provisions

of section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

27. The authorized representative for the workman has

placed reliance on an un reported decision of the Hon'ble

High Court of Allahabad passed in CMWP No. 12549 of

1999 in between State Bank of India, and Anil Kumar

Srivastava, on 29.05.2012, wherein the Hon'ble High Court

has categorically held that a persual of the award indicates

that the charges leveled against the workman are not of

grave nature as would lead to dismissal of the workman.

28. As a matter of fact after going through the charges

leveled against the workman it would only be a case of

carelessness/negligence on the part of the workman, but

did not tantamount to misconduct unless the same is done

will ill intention.

29. The decision cited by the authorized representative

for the workman applies with full swing to the facts and

circumstances of the present case as the proved

misdconduct as it would be a case of carelessness/

negligence on the part of the workman because the

management has palpably failed to establish that the same

is done with ill intention by the workman.

30. On the other hand the representative for the bank

has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Lucknow K Gramin Bank (Now

Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank) and another versus Rajendra

Singh. I have considered the law propounded by Hon'ble

Apex Court and with due respect I am of the opinion, that

the law cited by the management is not applicable to the

facts and circumstances of the present case as the service

conditions of the petitioner bank are not governed by Desai

Award whereas in the instant case workman is governed

by the provision as per own showing of the bank by Desai

Award. Therefore, the law cited by the bank is of no help

to the management.

31. The tribunal considering the arguments of both

parties is of the opinion that acts proved against the

workman are not of so serious nature that warrants extreme

punishment of dismissal from service as disobedience of

lawful order of the officers of the bank and remaining absent

from the service of the bank, therefore, the tribunal disagree

with the punishment awarded to the workman by the

discilinary authority and confirmed by the appellate

authority and find that the punishment of dismissal is

highly excessive considering the gravity of the proved

misconduct and needs modification under section 11-A of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

32. Having concluded that the punishment of dismissal

is highly excessive as awarded to the workman for proved

misconduct. Considering the nature of proved misconduct,

the tribunal has given its anxious consideration to the

nature of punishment as provided under Desai Award, the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1287

tribunal is of the opinion that if the punishment of stoppage

of three increments as provided under rules is awarded to

the workman that would meet the ends of justice.

33. Accordingly punishment of dismissal from service

awarded to the workman is modified and the workman is

punished by way of stoppage of three increments

permanently in lieu of dismissal from service.

34. Accordingly it is held that the action of the

management of State Bank of India, Golagokaran Nath,

District, Lakhimpur Khiri in dismissing Sri Jai Govind Tiwari,

Ex-guard with effect from 01.04.1984 is neither legal nor

justified. Accordingly the workman is entitled for his

reinstatement in the service of the bank with effect from

01.04.1984, with full back wages, seniority and all

consequential benefits with stoppage of three increments

permanently by way of punishment on proved misconduct.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 514-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj bZbZihlh

,ihbZ,d,lvkbZ,y thtsbZihlh ihbZihlh vkbZVhihvks ,.M

bZ,dkvkbZ,e cSad izca/k ra= 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 dksydÙkk ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼13@2014½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-03-2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@99@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2015

S.O. 514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 13/2014) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of EEPC, APEXIL, GJEPC, PEPC, ITPO

and EXIM Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 12.03.2015

[No. L-12011/99/2013-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 13 of 2014

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

EEPC India (formerly Engineering Export

Promotion Council)

and

Their workman

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

on behalf of the:

Mr. R. Talukder, Ld. Counsel for

Management

EEPC India.

On behalf of the:

None

Workmen

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Export

Dated: 3rd March, 2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/99/2013-IR(B-1) dated 12.02.2014

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of EEPC,

CAPEXIL, GJEPC, PEPC, ITPO and EXIM Bank is

justified for their untied approach for denying minimum

wages and other demand to their contractual workman

is legal and justified? To what relief the workmen are

entitled?"

When the case is taken up for hearing today, Ld.

Counsel for the EEPC India appears and files an

application annexing a copy of the order dated

09.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court,

Calcutta in W.P. 15377(W) of 2014.

Perused the order of the Hon'ble Court.

It appears from the said order that after hearing

both sides the instant order of reference dated

12.02.2014 has been set aside by the Hon'ble Court.

In view of the said order of the Hon'ble High Court,

Calcutta the instant order of reference is disposed of.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 3rd March, 2015

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 515-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj Qmjy fyñ cSad izca/

k ra= 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 v#ukdqye ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼11@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@47@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

1288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2015

S.O. 515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2011) of the

Ernakulam as show in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Federal Bank Ltd. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

12.03.2015

[No. L-12011/47/2010-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR-COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc. LL.B. Presiding

Officer

(Thursday the 12th day of February, 2015/23rd Magha,

1936)

ID 11/2011

Union

The General Secretary

Federal Bank Employees Union

Central Office

Aluva

Kerala

By Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar

Management :

The Chairman and CEO

Federal Bank Ltd.

Aluva

By M/s. B.S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 28.01.2015 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 12.02.2015 passed the

following

AWARD

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), the Government

of India/Ministry of Labour as per Order No. L-12011/47/

2010-IR(B-1) dated 25.05.2011 referred the industrial dispute

scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of Federal Bank,

Aluva, Cochin in terminating the service of Shri K.

Rajsekharan, Ex-Bankman, Salem Branch w.e.f. 31.10.2009

vide their order dated 01.12.2009, is legal and justified? To

what relief the workman is entitled?"

The workman while working in the Salem Branch of the

management bank as bankman he had continuously

absented himself from attending duty from 09.03.2009

onwards and thereby his service was terminated w.e.f.

31.10.2009 vide order dated 01.12.2009. As his subsequent

endeavour for reinstatement was turned futile the union of

which he is a member raised this industrial dispute.

4. After appearance union filed claim statement

challenging the validity of the order terminating the

workman from service alleging that he was terminated from

service without conducting any enquiry and without

considering the reasons assigned by him for his absence

and also without affording any opportunity to adduce

evidence. The procedure adopted by the management for

the termination of service is in violation of the provisions

of Bipartite Settlement. The termination of employment on

the premise that the workman had vacated his employment

is illegal and unsustainable and it is disproportionate to

the allegations based on which the termination was effected.

Hence it is prayed to pass an award setting aside the

termination of employment of the workman and to direct

the management to reinstate him in service with continuity

of service, back wages and all other consequential benefits.

5. Management filed written statement contending that

it is not a case of termination of employment of the workman

by the management and hence the issue referred for

adjudication is not maintanable. He was proceeded against

under clause 33(i) of the Bipartise Settlement dated

02.06.2005 whereby the workman was deemed to have

voluntarily vacated his employment. As he was

continuously absenting from 09.03.2009 onwards

unauthorisedly without giving any information or any leave

application to the management bank the matter was

proceeded with in accordance with the said provision is

clause 33(i) of that Bipartite Settlement. The procedural

requirements under the said provision was fully complied

with before treating it as a case of voluntary cessation of

service. He had absented himself for a continuous period

of more than 90 days and hence notice dated 27th July,

2009 was issued to him calling upon him to report for duty

within 30 days and also to explain why the absence is not

to be treated as unauthorized absence. He has neither

reported for duty within 30 days nor submitted any reply

for the reasons for his absence within the stipulated time.

Hence a further notice dated 23.09.2009 was issued to him

asking him to resume duty within 30 days and also informing

that in the event of failure to join duty he would be deemed

to have voluntarily vacated his employment without further

notice. Even after that the workman had not joined duty

and not submitted any reason for his continued and

prolonged absence from 09.03.2009 despite giving enough

opportunity to him. He was continuously remained absent

in an unauthorized manner for more than 7 months from

09.03.2009 and thereby he was informed about the decision

of the management to proceed against him as per the

provision regarding voluntary cessation of service

contained in the Bipartite Settlement. He was treated to

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1289

have voluntarily vacated his employment in the

management bank w.e.f. 31.10.2009. He had no intention to

continue with the employment and the same is evidenced

from his prolonged absence without any intimation and

sanction. His letter dated 30.12.2009 was considered by

the management in the right perspective. The allegation

that no enquiry was held and no opportunity was given to

adduce evidence are baseless and unsustainable. His

service was terminated complying with the procedure

established by law and after affording sufficient

opportunity to him and so it is legal, proper and valid.

Hence an award can be passed holding that he was deemed

to have voluntarily vacated his employment as per clause

33(i) of the said Bipartite Settlement.

6. Union did not file any replication in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

7. From the side of the union the workman was examined

as WW1 and Exts. W1 to W3 were got marked. No oral

evidence was adduced from the side of the management.

Exts. M1 to M3 and Exts. M4 series to M9 series were

marked without any objection from the union.

8. The points for determination are:

(i)

Whether there was compliance of the procedural

requirements under clause 33(i) of the Bipartite

Settlement dated 02.06.2005 for the voluntary

cessation of his service?

(ii) Whether the action of the management in

terminating the service of the workman w.e.f.

31.10.2009 vide order dated 01.12.2009 is legal and

justified?

(iii) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?

9. Point No. (i):—According to the management the

workman is deemed to have voluntarily vacated his

employment as provided under clause 33(i) of the 8th

Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005 and it is not a case of

termination of his service by the management. There is no

case for the union that it is a case of termination under

Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act. At the time of

argument learned counsel for the union has also submitted

that it is a case coming within the purview of clause 33(i) of

that Settlement. Hence it is to be considered whether there

is compliance with the procedural requirements under the

said clause of that settlement. As the said clause is relevant

for dealing with this issue the same is extracted below:—

"33. Voluntary Cessation of Employment

(i)

When an employee absents himself from work for a

period of 90 or more consecutive days without prior

sanction from the Competent Authority or beyond

the peirod of leave sanctioned orginally including

any extension there of or when there is satisfactory

evidence that he has taken up employment in India

or outside, the management at any time thereafter

may give a notice to the employee at his last known

address as recorded with the bank calling upon

him to report for work within 30 days of the date of

notice.

Unless the employee reports for work within 30

days of the notice or gives an explanation for his

absence within the period of 30 days satisfying the

management inter alia that he has not taken up

another employment or avocation, the employee

shall be given a further notice to report for work

within 30 days of the notice failing which the

employee will be deemed to have voluntarily

vacated his employment on the expiry of the said

notice and advised accordingly by registered post.

In the event of the employee submitting a

satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report

for work thereafter within 30 days from the date of

expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to

the bank's right to take any action under the law or

rules/conditions of service.

If the employee fails to report for work within this

30 days period, then he shall be given a final notice

to report for work within 30 days of this notice

failing which the employee will be deemed to have

voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry

of the said notice and advised accordingly by

registered post."

It is not in dispute that the workman had been

continuously absenting himself unauthorisedly from

09.03.2009. He was issued with a notice dated 17.04.2009,

copy of which was marked as Ext. M9, calling upon him to

report for duly and also to show cause why disciplinary

action shall not be taken against him. It has not got much

relevance in this case as it was issued before the expiry of

90 days of unauthorized absence. After his absence for a

period of more than 90 days Ext. M2 notice dated 27.07.2009

was issued to him calling upon him to report for duty within

30 days and requiring him to explain why his absence from

09.03.2009 shall not be treated as unauthorized absence

and for initiation of appropriate action against him as

envisaged in the Bipartite Settlement and rules of the bank.

As there was no response from the workman for a period of

30 days after the issuance of that notice Ext. M3 notice

dated 23.09.2009 was issued informing him to report for

work within 30 days of the notice or else he will be deemed

to have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry

of 30 days from the date of that notice without further

notice, as envisaged in the Bipartite Settlement. Even after

the issuance of that notice workman did not resume duty

or submitted any explanation within a period of 30 days

and hence Ext. M4 communication datd 01.12.2009 was

sent to him informing him that his unauthorized absence

from 09.03.2009 was treated as voluntary cessation of service

w.e.f. 31.10.2009. It is after the receipt of that communication

1290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman for the first time made a request to the

Additional General Manager, P & HRD of the management

bank to permit him to join duty stating that he could not

attend the duty from 09.03.2009 due to family problems and

his mental condition was such that he could not make reply

to the letters. His request was turned down by the

management vide Ext. M6 letter dated 07.01.2010. Afterwards

Ext. M7 letter was sent by him to the Managing Director &

CEO of the management bank making such a request for

the same reason. It was also rejected by the management

as per Ext. M8 letter dated 06.03.2010.

10. It is clearly established that the workman was

unauthorisedly absenting himself from 09.03.2009 and that

the requirements for treating the absence as voluntary

cessation of employment as provided under clause33(i) of

the 8th Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005 were fully

complied with by the management bank before he was

deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment. The

said clause in that Settlement expressly invests power to

the management to treat the workman as vacated from

employment after complying with the procedural

requirements in the event of unauthorisedly absenting

himself for a period of more than 90 days. The provision

does not contemplate any enquiry. The rule of audi alteram

partem is embodied in that clause itself. The validity of that

clause is not under challenge in this reference. It is an

agreement entered into between the union and the

managements of various bank and hence binding on the

workman.

11. There is no allegation in the claim statement to the

effect that there was any valid reason for unauthorizedly

absenting himself from attending the office from 09.03.2009

onwards. It is only in the proof affidavit of the workman it

is averred that his absence was due to acute domestic

problems. It is also not proved by adducing any

independent evidence. It cannot easily be believed that he

was not in a position to send a reply to the notices issued

from the management bank as per clause 33(i) of the said

Bipartite Settlement. There is no reason to hold that there

is any violation of the procedural requirements as provided

under clause 33(i) of the 8th Bipartite Settlement as to

voluntary cessation of employment.

12. Point No. (ii):— Since there is a valid termination of

service as per clause 33(i) of the said Settlement the action

of the management can be held to be legal and justifiable.

13. Point No. (iii):—Since the action of the management

in terminating the service of the workman is found to be

legal and justified he is not entitled to any relief.

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 12th day of

February, 2015.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the union

WW 1

16.09.2014

Shri K Rajasekharan

Witness for the managment

NIL

Exhibits for the union

True copy of letter dated 01.12.2009

addressed to Shri K Rajasekharan,

Salem. by the Dy. General Manager,

Disciplinary Authority, The Federal

Bank Ltd. Industrial Relations

Division, Regd. Office, Aluva.

True copy of letter dated 30.12.2009

addressed to the Addl. General

Manager, P & HRD, The Federal

Bank Ltd, Head Office, Aluva by

Shri K Rajasekharan, (Bankman, PF

No. 7085), Salem.

True copy of the mercy petition dated

09.02.2010 submitted to the

Managing Director & CEO, The

Federal Bank Ltd. Head Office, Aluva

by Shri K Rajasekharan, (Bankman,

PF No. 7085), Salem.

Exhibits for the management

True copy of memorandum dated

21.08.2008 issued by the Asstt. General

Manager, Disciplinary Authority, P &

IR Department, The Federal Bank Ltd.

to Shri K Rajasekharan, PF No. 7085,

Bankman, Salem.

True copy of notice dated 27.07.2009

issued by the Dy. General Manager

Disciplinary Authority, Personnel &

Industrial Relations Department,

The Federal Bank Ltd., to

Shri K Rajasekharan, Salem.

True copy of notice dated 23.09.2009

issued by the Dy. General Manager,

Disciplinary Authority, personnel &

Industrial Relations Department, The

Federal Bank Ltd., Regd. Office Aluva

to Shri K Rajasekharan, Salem.

True copy of latter dated 01.12.2009

addressed to Shri K Rajasekharan,

Salem. by the Dy. General Manager,

Disciplinary Authority, Industrial

Relations Division, The Federal Bank

Ltd., Regd. Office, Aluva.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1291

M4(a) -

Acknoledgement card

True copy of letter dated 30.12.2009

addressed to the Additional General

Manager, P & HRD, The Federal Bank

Ltd., Head Office, Aluva by

Shri K. Rajasekharan.

True copy of letter dated 07.01.2010

addressed to Shri K Rajasekharan by

the Addl. General Manager (HRD),

Industrial Relations Division, The

Federal Bank Ltd., Regd. Office,

Federal Towers, Aluva.

M6(a) -

Acknowledgement card;

True copy of mercy petition dated

09.02.2010 submitted by Shri K

Rajasekharan to the Managing

Director & CEO, The Federal Bank

Ltd. Head Office Federal Towers,

Aluva.

True copy of letter dated 06.03.2010

addressed to Shri K Rajasekharan by

the General Manager (Operations),

Industrial Relations Division, The

Federal Bank Limited, Regd. Office,

Federal Towers, Aluva

M8(a) Acknowledgement card

True copy of Show case Notice dated

17.04.2009 issued by the Assistant

General Manager, Disciplinary

Authority, P & IR Department,

The Federal Bank Ltd. to Shri

K Rajasekharan;

M9(a) -

Acknowledgement card.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh 12 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 516-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ lh vkbZ lh vkbZ

cSad fyñ izca/k ra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnah; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k fnYyh ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼66@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@03@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12025@01@2015 vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2015

S.O. 516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labor Court No. 1, Delhi as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of ICICI Bank Ltd. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 12/03/2015.

[No. L-12025/01/2015—IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO. 1, DELHI

ID No. 66/2013

Shri Gopal Krishna Lal Das,

S/o Shri J.P. Pallav,

F/o Flat No. C-8, Platinum Apartments,

Rohini, Delhi 110089

.......Workman

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd.

Central Tran Deposits,

Regional Processing Center,

4E, Jhandewalan Extension,

Rani Jhansi Marg,

New Delhi 110 005

ICICI Bank

Through Regional Manager,

NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar,

Bhishma Pitamah Marg,

Lodhi Road,

New Delhi 110 003

.........Management

AWARD

Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the reference

are as under:

Briefly, Shri Gopal Krishan Das (in short the

claimant) filed the present claim against the management

before this Tribunal with the averment that the claimant

was an employee of Ghaziabad Urban Co-operative Bank

(U.P.) as Assistant Manager from 04.12.1990 to November

2006 for a period of 7 years prior to his employment with

the management. Claimant, after accepting offer from the

management, resigned from Ghaziabad Urban co-operative

Bank in the hope of better employment benefits as he was

promised by the management to be absorbed permanently

in due course. Claimant rendered his services to the

management at Regional Processing Center, Jhandewalan

1292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Extension, New Delhi as a DVU official since 04.12.2006

with utmost sincerely and honesty and without any

complaint from any quarter. Salary of the claimant was

Rs. 10,000.00 per month and he was also assured of

increment of 10%, which was not given to him by the

management. Every year, the work for the respective period/

year was renewed without any objection, but all of a sudden

on 02.12.2011 at about 5 p.m., local management told that

service of the claimant are not required and instructed him

not to attend duties with effect from 03.12.2011. The

claimant approached senior officials for removal of his

grievance, but it was of no use. Claimant also moved an

application for removal of his grievance, on 30.12.2011 of

the Executive Director of ICICI Bank Ltd. (Ex.WW1/6).

3. There are averments in para 6 of the claim statement

that the management without any cogent reasons

terminated services of the claimant in violation of labour

laws. Management also failed to serve one months' notice

in advance from the date of proposed termination.

Management in the garb of words 'Contract' and

'Consultancy' allegedly robbed the claimant of all legal

benefits and exploited him like a labour using as 'jack of all

master of none' from morning till night.

4. Management deliberately and intentionally did not

enhance salary and terminated services of the claimant in

an illegal manner. No increment was paid to the claimant

during the period of his employment. Claimant at the time

of termination was drawing a salary of Rs. 11,000.00. Thus,

an amount of Rs. 26,400.00 on account of arrears of salary

and a sum of Rs. 11,000.00 towards notice, totaling

Rs. 37,400.00 is due from the management. The claimant is'

also entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the

above amount. Management, despite repreated visits of

the claimant, neither paid arrears, including other benefits

nor reinstated him.

5. It is also averred that legal notice was also served

upon the management through his counsel on 06.02.2012

and reminder to the above notice was sent on 21.02.2012,

but no reply was sent to the claimant. Later on, Management

sent a reply dated 12.03.2012. The claimant is unemployed

since the date of his termination by the management and is

unable to get any job despite his best efforts. Prayer has

been made to reinstate the claimant with full back wages,

including arrears of salary and other benefits etc.

6. Claim was contested by the management, who filed

reply thereto. In written statement, management took

preliminary objection inter alia that the claimant is not a

workman as defined in the ID Act and was simply engaged

as a consultant by a written contract duly acknowledged

and signed by the claimant. He was being paid salary of

Rs.11,000.00 per month for providing consultancy services.

It is also alleged that the claimant sent an appeal on

31.12.2011 to the Executive Director, wherein he has admitted

that he was appointed as a consultant on contractual basis

and his contract was not renewed. Claimant has given an

impression that he is an expert in giving consultancy

services in CTD and he is providing such services to many

other organizations on contract/retainer ship basis.

Accordingly, the management had engaged him as

consultant on fixed amount for a fixed term, which came to

an end automatically. Management had denied other

material averments contained in the claim statement. It is

also admitted that legal notice dated 21.02.2012 was received,

which was replied by the management on 12.03.2012. Finally,

prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. Against the factual background, vide order 01.07.2013,

following issues were settled:

(1) Whether the claimant was a workman within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?

(2) Whether non-renewal of his contract of service falls

within subclause(bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(3) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of

reinstatement in service?

8. Parties filed oral as well as documentary evidence in

support of the stand taken in their respective pleadings. In

fact, claimant examined himself, Shri Narender Kumar

Khanna, Shri Ashok Kumar Verma and Shri Rajesh Singh

as WW1 to WW4 respectively. Management examined Shri

Neeraj Katoch as MW1. No other witness was examined

by either of the parties.

9. I have heard Shri R.K. Sinha, A/R on behalf of the

claimant and Dr. M.Y Khan, A/R on behalf of the

management. My findings are as follows:

Issue No.1 and 2

10 Both these issues are interconnected and as such

being taken up together for the purpose of discussion. At

this stage, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions

relating to the definition of 'workman' as contained in

section 2(s) of the act:

(s)"workman" means any person (including an

apprentice)employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as

a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,

but does not include any such person.

(i)

who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of

1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the

Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1293

(ii) who is employed in police service or as an officer

or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity; or

(iv) who , being employed in a supervisory capacity,

draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred

rupees per mensum 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.

11. The question of renewal of contract will arise only if

the claimant herein is firstly held to be a workman. Claimant

has specifically alleged in the claim petition that he was

earlier working as Assistant Manager in Ghaziabad Urban

Co-operative Bank vide and was drawing salary of

Rs. 11,000.00. Claimant has also filed evidence by way of

affidavit dated 31.07.2013, Ex.WW1/A and tendered in

evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/12 in support

of his case. It is deducible from the cross examination of

the claimant that he is an MBA and no termination letter

was issued to him. He has also mentioned of his filing an

appeal Ex.WW1/6. He further admitted that his engagement

was a contract of employment and that when his services

came to an end, he was drawing salary of Rs. 11,000.00 a

month.

12. Claimant also examined Shri Narender Kumar Khanna

as WW2. This witness also tried to support the case of the

claimant. He further deposed that there were 11 employees,

out of which 10 were retired persons and the 11th was Shri

Gopal Krishan Das, claimant herein. He categorically stated

that no officer of the management has given any assurance

to the claimant was working as a consultant with the

management and as per memory of this witness, the claimant

worked till November or December 2011.

13. There is another witness, Shri Ashok Kumar Verma,

WW3, who was also working as consultant at that time. He

further admitted that he alongwith the present claimant

was working as consultant at the age of 67 years after his

retirement.

14. Shri Rajesh Singh was examined by the claimant as

WW4. As per statement of this witness, claimant was

performing duties of Document Verifying Officer. This

witness has worked with the management till February 2012.

He further deposed that in his presence, management asked

the claimant to go since tenure of his service stood

concluded. This fact was told to the claimant in December

2011. This witness is an advocate since 2000 and he was

also performing the work of Document Verifying Officer.

His contract was also initially for a period of one year,

which was extended from time to time. His contract was

expiring in May 2012 but he left in the month of February

2012.

15. Management has examined Shri Neeraj Katoch as

MW1. He was working as Chief Manager with the

management at Jhandewalan Extension branch, Delhi. He

has filed his affidavit as Ex.MW1/A and tried to support

the averments contained therein. This witness has clearly

stated that the claimant was contractual consultant and

was getting fixed consultancy amount per month, as

honorarium. He has also verified the signatures of Shri P.S.

Roy Chaudhary on Ex.WW1/2 and Ex.WW1/5. He has also

mentioned about the terms of contract of service and

deposed that there was no requirement of service of one

month's notice to the claimant.

16. It is clear from the pleadings as well as evidence on

record that the claimant has tried to prove that he was

engaged by the management with the assurance that he

would be made permanent whereas management took a

clear cut stand that services rendered by the claimant herein

was for affixed period on contract basis and the claimant

was also being paid a fixed salary.

17. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the offer of

appointment made to the claimant by the management. It is

clear from letter Ex. WW1/2 dated 04.12.2006 from the

manageent of ICICI Bank Ltd. containing conditions of

appointment of the claimant herein and the same are as

under:

"1. The tenure of consultancy will be for a period of

one year with effect from 06.12.2006. During the

said period, the services shall be terminated by

either side with one month notice in writing on

payment of amount equivalent to one month service

fees in lieu of notice, without assigning a reason.

During the tenure, you shall be paid all inclusive

honorarium of Rs. 10,000.00 per month (rupees Ten

Thousand only). TDS will be deducted, as

applicable, from this payment as per current rate.

The bank will have absolute right to assign to you

such assignment, as it may deem fit from time to

time.

During the tenure, you will not take pu any part-

time job whether advisory or otherwise.

You will observe the rules and regulations as may

be applicable to you from time to time.

You will observe secrecy with regard to

information/date you may have access to during

the tenure and even thereafter.

If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to you,

please intimate your formal acceptance to us on the copy

of this letter within a week from the date of this letter. You

will be required to report to RPC Head, Delhi on the above

mentioned date. Unless we receive conformation as

stated above, this offer shall stand revoked."

1294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18. There are also subsequent letters dated 03.12.2007,

Ex.WW1/3, 03.12.2008 which is Ex.WW1/4 and letter

dated 02.12.2010 which is Ex.WW1/4.

19. A comparative reading of the above letters would

show that Clauses 1 to 6 in all the offer letters is the same.

In the end of every letter, it is mentioned that in case

terms and conditions are acceptable to you (the claimant),

then he was to intimate regarding acceptance of the same.

Admittedly, claimant herein has accepted the terms and

conditions initially when he was appointed in the year

2006. Now, the vital question which requires determination

is whether the claimant herein falls within the definition

of 'workman' and his services were purely of engagement

on contractual basis for a specific period. Other connected

question is as to whether any notice was required to be

served upon the claimant before terminating his services.

20. Shri Sinha, appearing on behalf of the claimant,

strongly urged that the claimant herein has left a lucrative

job and was given an impression by the management that

his services would be made permanent with the passage

of time. Since the claimant was performing his duties

honestly and sincerely, as such, termination of the job

without notice is in clear cut violation of section 25F and

other provisions of the Act. It was urged that the claimant

is unemployed since then and is unable to get any job.

Secondly, it was urged that the claimant has worked for

more than 240 days with the management; hence the

management cannot terminate the services of the claimant

without following procedure contained in the Act.

21. Per contra, Dr. M.Y. Khan strongly urged that the

claimant in the case in hand does not fall within the

definition of 'workman' as defined in section 2(s) of the

Act. Provisions of section 25F are not attracted to the

case in hand. Job of the claimant herein was of Consultant

and he was appointed for a specific period. After expiry

of the said period, claimant ceases to have any kind of

lien on the job. During the course of arguments, the

learned counsel in support of his submissions has relied

upon the cases of Peter Ramesh Kumar vs. Executive

Director MPCI(P) Ltd.(2007(114) FLR 1167) and Indian

Sulphacid Industries Ltd. Vs. Labour Court Rohtak

(1992(65)FLR 705).

22. It is clear from persual of the ratio of law in Peter

Ramesh Kumar vs. Executive Director MPCI(P) Ltd. (supra)

that the petitioner in that case was an advocate and made

certain claim against the company towards conveyance

allowance and travelling allowance etc. According to the

petitioner, he was engaged on a fixed sum of Rs. 4500.00 +

conveyance charges as per agreement. He was also

engaed as a consultant of the company for a period of 11

months. Later on services of the petitioner in that case

were not regularized and matter ultimately reached the

High Court wherein plea was taken by the management

that the petitioner advocate does not fall within the

definition of 'workman' as defined in section 2(s) of the

Act. Labour court came to the conclusion that the

petitioner in that case is not a workman and is an

independent professional. When the matter reached

before the Hon'ble High Court decision of the Labour

Court was upheld. It was observed that the petitioner

was simply rendering legal opinion or preparing pleadings

on behalf of the company and providing necessary

consultancy to the company. Distinction was drawn

between occupation and profession. Since petitioner in

that case was held to be a professional and as such

professional can never be termed as 'workman' under law.

23. Contention made by the claimant that notice was

required to be issued to him and in the absence of issuance

of notice his termination of job is illegal, is without any

merit and is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that

the job of the claimant herein was contractual in nature

and he was appointed for a fixed period and with the

expiry of that period, his appointment automatically stood

terminated on the completion of the stipulated period.

Such a case does not fall within the purview of ID Act. He

was not a workman for the purpose of section 25F of the

Act. I find support to his view from the case f MD

Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. vs.

Mahadeva Laxman Rawal (2007(112) FIR 490SC). In the

said case also the respondent was appointed for various

speels of fixed periods on a fixed honorarium as an expert

weaver to train the weavers in the unorganized sector. He

was on contract basis 200 days only and later on his

employment expired on the 201st day. It was against this

background that the matter reached before the Hon'ble

Apex Court. There was no evidence on record to suggest

in that case that any assurance was given by any

competent officer of the management to the claimant that

his services would be made permanent. Even in the case

in hand, Shri Narender Kumar WW2 categorically stated

in his deposition that in his presence no officer of the

management gave any assurance to the claimant relating

to continuity of his job.

24. Case of the claimant here is purely based upon

terms and conditions contained in the last letter of offer

of appointment Ex.WW1/5 dated 02.12.2010. Since the

claimant has accepted terms and conditions as is clear

from his deposition as well as pleadings, therefore, it does

not lie in the mouth of the claimant to urge that he was

required to be made permanent after expiry of the period

contained in letter/agreement, Ex.WW1/5. In view of this,

it is held that the claimant herein does not fall within the

definition of workman.

25. The other related question is whether the non-

renewal of contract of service attracts provisions of section

2(oo) read with clause (bb) of the Act, which deals with

retrenchment and reads as under:

(oo)"retrenchment" means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1295

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment

inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not

include—

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb)termination of the service of the workman as a result

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

26. It is clear from bare perusual of the above definition

that when the non-renewal of contract is on account of

stipulation in the agreement/contract, in that eventuality,

termination of job of an employee will not amount to

retrenchment so as to attract penal provisions of Section

25F of the ID Act, which prescribes necessary conditions

to be followed before retrenchment is ordered by the

employer. As discussed above, there is no clause or

stipulation in the agreement/letters vide which the claimant,

was given assurance of re-employment. Thus, his

appointment was admittedly for a fixed period with no

stipulation or clause for further renewal. In Bhavnagar

Municipal Corporation vs. Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri

(2013 Lab. IC 3273), the Hon'ble Apex Court, almost under

similar circumstances, dealt with the question of

applicability of provisions of Section 25F read with section

2(oo) of the Act. It was a cse where a person was appointed

on daily wages as helper in Water Works Department for a

fixed period under two different office orders. Services of

the employee stood terminated after serving for 54 days

and the employee raised a dispute, which was referred to

the Labour Court for adjudication, wherein the employee

prayed for renewal of his contract. The Labour Court

directed the management to reinstate the employee with

continuity in service. Thereafter, matter was taken by the

management by filing a writ petition before the Hon'ble

High Court, which was also dismissed. Ultimately, the

management took the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court,

wherein award of the Labour Court as well as judgement of

the Hon'ble High Court was set aside by observing as

under:

"9. Section 2(bb) says that if the termination of the

service of workman is as a result of non-renewal of

the contract between the employer and the workman

on its expiry of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein,

the same would not constitute retrenchment.

10. Facts would clearly indicate that the respondent's

service was terminated on the expiry of the fixed

periods mentioned in the office orders and that he

had worked only for 54 days. The mere fact that the

appointment orders used the expression 'daily

wages' does not make the appointment 'Casual'

because it is the substance that matters, not the

form. The contract of appointment consciously

entered into by the employer and the employee

would, over and above the specific terms of the

written agreement, indicates that the employment

is short-lived and the same is liable to termination,

on the fixed period mentioned in the contract of

appointment."

27. Consequently, the claimant herein is also not covered

by provisions of section 25F, which deals with conditions

precedent for retrenchement of a workman. Since the

claimant herein is not a workman as defined under section

2(s) of the ID Act, therefor provisions of section 25F cannot

be pressed into service. Both these issues are decided

accordingly against the claimant. Issue No. 3

25. Now, the residual question which survives for

consideration is whether the claimant herein is entitled for

reinstatement. There is no question reinstatement of the

claimant as in as much as the claimant herein does not fall

within the definition of workman as discussed above. His

appoint was only for a fixed period. In view of ratio of law

in MD Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd.

vs. Mahadeva Laxman Rawal (supra), the Apex Court

specifically held that after expiry of contract of appointment,

claimant cannot urge that he was not served with a notice

before his retrenchment in as much as his appointment

was purely contractual and for a specific period. In Kishore

Chandra vs. Divisional Manager Orissa State Cashew

Development Corporation (2006(108) FLR 143) it has been

held by the Supreme Court that in case of contractual period

of engagement ended and there was no renewal thereafter,

as such High Court has rightly set aside the order of the

Tribunal directing reinstatement.

26. Similar view appears to have been taken in the case

of management of LHMC and SK Hospital Vs. Usha Dawar

(2001(2013 DL 494) wherein it was held that termination of

fixed term contract in terms of stipulations contained in the

said contract does not tantamount to retrenchment, as it is

covered by exclusionary clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the

ID Act. Similarly in managment of Hindustant Aeronautic

Ltd. Bangalore vs. P. Narayanappa (2002 (92) FLR 622),

services of the respondent were terminated on expiry of

fixed period and tenure. Therefore, case of non-renewal of

contract of employment after expiry of its term is not

retrenchment within the meaning of section 25F of the Act.

In view of this, it is held that there is no question of

reinstatement of the claimant and the reference is held to

be not legally maintainable.

27. As a sequel to my above findings, it is held that the

claimant herein does not fall within the definition of

1296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman and as such reference filed before this Tribunal is

not legally maintainable. An award is accordingly passed.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated: March 3, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 517-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ;wfu;u 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 dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqacbZ 2 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 10@2010½

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 13-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y- 12012@77@2009&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby

publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2010) 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 Union Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/03/2015.

[No. L-12012/77/2009-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-2/10 OF 2010

[Ministry Order No. L-12012/77/2009-IR(B-II),

dt. 12/01/2010]

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF UNION BANK OF INDIA

The General Manager

Union Bank of India

60/80, Mumbai Samachar Marg

Fort, Mumbai 400 023

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Mrs. Smita Ramakant Palande

W/o. Shri Ramakant K. Palande

At Port Acholi

Tal. Mahad

Distt. Raigad (MS).

Mumbai, dated the 16th February, 2015.

CORRIGENDUM TO AWARD DATED 20/11/2014

On the first page of award passed in Ref. No. CGIT-2/10

of 2010 after the words and their workmen, name of Mrs.

Smita Ramakant Palande be added as per order on Ex-29.

Name of the legal heir was inadvertently not mentioned in

the award.

Further on page 13, Sr. No. (ii) of the Order may be read

as "The first party is directed to pay pension to the second

party workmen w.e.f. 26/03/2000 till 31/5/2013 and thereafter

to his widow as per the Rules of the Bank". Instead of "The

first party is directed to pay pension to the second party

workmen w.e.f. 26/03/2000 as per the Rules of the Bank."

Date: 16/02/2015

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 518-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj dksphu iru U;kl ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; v#ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 15@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 13-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&35011@5@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II) ]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 518.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 15/2011) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Cochin Port Trust and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/03/2015.

[No. L-35011/5/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1297

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding

Officer

(Tuesday the 30th day of December, 2014/9th Pausha,

1936)

ID 15/2011

Union

The General Secretary

Cochin Port Staff Association

W/Island

COCHIN-9

By M/s. A.V. Xavier

Management :

The Chairman

Cochin Port Trust

Willington Island

COCHIN

By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 17.12.2014 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 30.12.2014 passed the

following:

A W A R D

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (I) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

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

Government/Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-35011/

5/2010-IR(B-II) dated 27.05.2011 referred the industrial

dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of Cochin Port

Trust in going ahead with the proposal of cadre

restructuring overlooking the apprehensions of the

unions about its detrimental effects on career

progression is justified? What relief the workers are

entitled to?"

After service of summons both union and

management entered appearance. Union filed claim

statement alleging that the Cochin Port Staff Association

arrayed as the union in this case is a registered union

affiliated to All India Port and Dock Workers Federation

and International Transport Workers Federation and it is

competent to raise the industrial dispute of its members

who are the staff/workers of the management. The

appointment and promotion of employees in the

management are governed by the Cochin Port Trust

Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Rules.

As per the Rules there are four classes of employees in

ministerial wing. Those are Class I, Class II, Class III and

Class IV posts. The entry post is the Class IV post and the

promotions to the other classes were effected solely on

the basis of seniority without insisting for educational

qualifications. There was a proposal for restructuring of

the staff in the ministerial wing and it was approved by the

Government of India, Ministry of Surface and Transport

vide letter No. LB-12013/3/93-RD 94 dated 17.03.1994. After

its approval, discussions were held with the unions on

26.03.1994 and a settlement was signed between the

management and the unions under Section 12(3) of the ID

Act, 1947 in the presence of the Regional Labour

Commissioner (C), Ernakulam. As per the settlement it was

agreed that filling up of posts by promotion/direct

recruitment will be made according to a roster 1:1 ratio i.e.,

promotion/direct recruitment and that not more than 50%

of the total number of Class I post are to be filled up by

persons recruited directly and when such recruitment is

made the qualified departmental candidates also will be

allowed to compete as per relevant rules. In violation of the

terms of the settlement the management took hectic steps

to implement the cadre restructuring report for the officers

of the Port Trust, as recommended by Shri S. P. Bagla,

former Secretary, Government of India as the Chairman of

the pay revision committee for the Port Dock Officers for

the Major Ports. Based on the report submitted by that

Committee, the Ministry of Shipping prepared common

recruitment rules in February, 2009 and had given

instructions to all major ports to implement the

recommendations. Pursuant to it the management had

formulated recruitment rules based on the recruitment rules

prepared by the Ministry of Shipping and it was placed

before the Cochin Port Trust Board in February, 2004. About

it union raised an industrial dispute and at the intervention

of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Ernakulam a

Memorandum of Understanding was reached between the

parties on 29.05.2004 by which the management agreed to

discuss the matter further and redress the concern of the

unions prior to the implementation of the Government order

on cadre restructuring. Disregarding the MOU the

management again in January, 2005 had taken hectic action

to implement the order without redressing the concern of

the union. Thereby the union served a strike notice and

pursuant to which there was a conciliation by the ALC(C)

by issuing notice dated 02.02.2005. After conciliation

another Memorandum of Understanding was signed on

02.02.2005 by which the management agreed that no action

would be initiated since the issue was at national level

before the Ministry. In the meanwhile, the affiliates of the

Federations at various major ports served strike notices

and thereby the Chief Labour Commissioner initiated

conciliation proceedings on that issue. As agreed before

1298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Chief Labour Commissioner, the Ministry of Shipping

convened a meeting of the federation on 23.08.2005. In

that meeting it was decided to constitute a committee

with the representatives of all concerned to examine the

impact of cadre restructuring on the promotion proposals

of the Class III and IV employees. The Committee was

appointed on 20.09.2005 under the chairmanship of the

Managing Director of Indian Ports Association. The

Committee submitted its report to the Ministry of Shipping

on 19.01.2006 and it is still pending with the Ministry for

orders. The management again placed the proposal before

the Board. At that time the working president of the union

who was also the Labour Trustee of the Board wrote a

letter to the Chairman requesting him to defer the agenda

for further discussions with the unions. As per the

proposal several Class I posts which are the promotion

posts of the ministerial staff/employees as per the existing

rules have been identified and allotted to new categories

of directly recruited employees. The engineering diploma

holders are also included in the feeder category of estate

manager and senior estate manager. All those proposals

are in blatant violation of the existing recruitment rules/

agreements adversely affecting the career of existing class

III and class IV employees. Meanwhile five federations

jointly served a strike on 01.07.2008 demanding the

implementation of the recommendations of the committee

headed by the Managing Director of the Indian Ports

Association. The Chief Labour Commissioner intervened

in the matter and held conciliation proceedings on

09.07.2008 and 10.07.2008. The Hon'ble Minister of

Shipping had also intervened the meeting held on

10.07.2008. After having discussions a section 12(3)

settlement was signed on 15.07.2008 agreeing to discuss

and finalize the issue before 31.12.2008. As the settlement

was not honoured by the management, the federation

made a complaint to the Chief Labour Commissioner vide

Letter dated 11.09.2009 and the same is still pending. The

federation wrote a letter to the Managing Director of Indian

Ports Association on 15.01.2009 demanding adherence to

the statutory settlement. The union by its letter dated

30.03.2010 made request to the Ministry of Shipping for

not approving the proposal made by the Cochin Port Trust

Board on 08.05.2009. The action of the management to

implement the cadre restructuring report is against the

career of Class III and Class IV employees, against the

statutory settlements under the ID Act and also against

the collective bargaining principles. In spite of it the

management prepared the Cochin Port Trust Employees

Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion Regulation 2010

and published the same as GSR 862(E) in the Gazettle.

Management had initiated recruitments as per the same.

It is arbitrary and in violation of the provisions in Section

33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. All the actions taken

pursuant to the said rules are to be found to be null and

void. The workmen are entitled to get the benefits of the

rules and regulations existed prior to those rules. The

action of the management is not justifiable and hence the

workmen are entitled to the benefits under the rules and

regulations prevailing prior to the Rules and Regulations

of 2010.

4. Management filed written statement contending that

the union representing the workmen category employees

of the management has no locus standi to raise the dispute

concerning the cadre restructuring of class I officers not

coming within the definition of workman under section

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The restructuring of

cadres of class I officers and introduction of corresponding

recruitment, seniority and promotion regulations is a major

policy decision and the management has go the authority

and discretion to frame and follow suitable HR policy in

order to maintain efficient management cadre to meet with

the challenges of the organization in a competitive

environment. Courts will be slow to interfere with the policy

decision of the management. The major ports in the country

are functioning under the control of the Ministry of

Shipping, Government of India. Cochin Port Trust is a

central autonomous body and has to operate on commercial

basis without any normal budgetary support from the

Government. Under Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts

Act, 1963 the Ministry has the power to issue directions to

the Board of Trustees of the major ports. There had been

representations from officers' federations in the port sector

to undertake an exercise of restructuring the cadres of

officers in the major ports as there were many anomalies

and lack of uniform cadres prevalent in many major ports.

Hence in order to bring about fair amount of uniformity in

the cadres of officers in all major ports and to rationalize

and streamline recruitment, seniority and promotion

procedures in the major ports and to follow progressive

human resources policies and procedures to meet the future

challenges, the Ministry had initiated a process of cadre

restructuring of officers in the major ports. The cadre

restructuring proposal was prepared by two pay revision

committees which consisted of eminent experts on the

subject. After approving it, the Ministry of Shipping

finalized the cadre restructuring proposal and Model

Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion Regulations.

Thereafter the same was forwarded to each major port in

the country. Each Board of Trustees of the major ports had

resolved to accept the Model RSP Regulations and cadre

restructuring proposals and the same has been

implemented with approval of Ministry of Shipping on due

notification in the Gazette of India. It is now well settled

that the courts will not substitute its view in the place of its

experts in the field. The cadre restructuring orders for

class I Officers in the management establishment have

already been implemented and hence the issue referred for

adjudication has become infractuous. The interest and

service conditions of class III and IV Employees are not

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1299

adversely affected due to the implementation of the cadre

restructuring orders and there is no adverse impact on

their promotional avenues. Hence there is no scope to raise

the issue as an industrial dispute. As per the new RS & P

regulations filling up of posts at class I entry level by

promotion/direct recruitment is made in the ratio 2:1

respectively upto 21.08.2012 and thereafter, it is to be in the

ratio 1:2 .When the posts to be filled by direct recruitment

are advertised, qualified, employees already in service can

also apply provided they possess the prescribed

qualifications and experience. There is no upper age limit

for such employees to apply. In the age of still competition

and globalization government organisations and PSUs are

inducting young professionals to meet the challenges and

to have competent human resources to foster growth and

to meet the technological changes. The main objectives of

the cadre restructuring exercise were to address the

anomalies in the cadre of officers in all the major ports and

to integrate the isolated posts in the officers' cadre with

the main stream so as to bring about fair degree of uniformity

in the cadre of officers in all the major ports and to rationalize

and streamline the recruitment, seniority and promotion

procedures with a view to have a progressive Human

Resource Policy. The Ministry of Shipping vide order dated

06.02.2004 issued the cadre restructuring orders stipulating

inter-alia, number of departments, functions of departments,

pay scales, method of recruitment as well as department

wise strength of officers in respect of each of the major

ports. At that time there were apprehension among unions

about the impact on the promotional avenues of class III

and IV employees. The matter was deliberated at the

national level with the federation of unions to allay the

apprehensions. Thereafter the Ministry vide order dated

26.07.2004 forwarded the Model RS & P Regulations and

directed the Port Trust Boards to finalize the RS & P

Regulations. While the proposal for the implementation of

cadre restructuring was under process in Cochin Port Trust,

the major trade unions operating in the port had raised an

industrial Dispute about it. During the conciliation

proceedings the draft recruitment rules circulated by the

Ministry were also discussed with the unions and

thereafter finalized the proposal for submission to the

Board. After having continuous discussions with major

federations of Port and Dock Workers the Ministry vide

letter dated 15.07.2008 directed the port administration to

finalize the RS & P Regulations strictly in accordance with

the Model RS & P Regulations and forward the same after

board's apaproval for sanction of the Government and

Gazette Notification. Being a policy decision of the

government the port was bound to implement the Ministry's

directions in this regard for the sake of uniformity in the

cadre of port officers. The Board of Trustees of Cochin

Port Trust after having due consideration of the proposal

and all relevant aspect approved vide Resolution No. 20

dated 08.05.2009 and it was sent to the Ministry for approval

and Gazette Notification. The Ministry in exercise of powers

conferred under section 124 and 132(1) of the Major Port

Trusts Act, 1963 approved the same and notified it in the

Gazette dated 28.10.2010. It was after complying with all

the procedures laid down by law the RS & P Regulation as

to the cadre restructuring was implemented. No service

benefits or working conditions or promotional

opportunities of class III and IV eligible employees have

been adversely affected due to the implementation of the

RS & P Regulations. It is not correct to say that class IV is

the entry level post for ministerial establishment. Direct

recruitment to class III ministerial establishment starts with

Lower Division Clerk cadre and class IV category has

separate channels and procedures for promotion in the

grade. Promotion is not part of service conditions and

cannot be claimed as a matter of right. At present all

appointments and promotions are being made in

accordance with the Cochin Port employees (Recruitment,

Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2010. The Cochin

Port Staff Association and some individual employees filed

writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala

challenging the implementation of cadre restructuring

orders for class I officers in the management . Since those

writ petitions are still pending reference of the same issue

and continuation of parallel proceedings before this

tribunal is not maintainable. The issue relates to cadre

restructuring of class I officers of all major Port Trusts and

hence several establishment situated in more than one State

is likely to be interested or affected by such a dispute and

so the issue ought to have been referred to a National

Tribunal. The issue relates to class I officers and they are

not made parties to the dispute. Hence the reference is bad

for non-joinder of necessary parties. Since is was a policy

decision taken by the Government concerning the class I

officers of the Port there is no question of raising an

industrial dispute. Hence an award to be passed holding

that the action of the management of Cochin Port Trust in

implementing the cadre restructuring order is justified and

the union is not entitled to any relief.

5. Union filed replication denying the contentions in

the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the

claim statement. It is further alleged that an employee joined

in class IV and class IIII cadres in the ministerial wing of

the Cochin Port Trust was able to get promotion to senior

class I cadre. For the purpose of cadre restructuring four

senior class I posts were created by abolishing

corresponding number of class II post and thereby four

managers in the class III cadre were deprived of their eligible

promotion at the fag end of their service. It had also affected

promotion opportunities of four senior accountants, four

Accountants, four UD Clerks and four LD Clerks. Hence

the union has every locus standi to raise the dispute as

the cadre restructuring deterimentally affects promotional

avenues of class IV and III employees. The approval of the

cadre restructuring proposal by the Ministry of Shipping

and the publication in the official Gazette alone do not

1300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

satisfy the statutory requirements for the implementation

of cadre restructuring. There was no publication in the

official Gazette other State in which the port is situated as

required under Section 132 of the Major Port Trusts Act,

1963. Union has been resisting the implementation of the

cadre restructuring from the year 2004 onwards. Union

raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner(C), Ernakulam vide letter dated 11.02.2004

and again raised another dispute vide notice dated

02.02.2005. Afterwards on 05.04.2006 a strike notice was

issued and all the time the management agreed to have

further discussion in the matter of cadre restructuring of

officers. It is after the failure of the Regional Labour

Commissioner (C) to settle the dispute the reference was

made by the Central Government to this tribunal. In the

meanwhile a class II officer in the Wharf Section of the

Traffic Department was denied promotion to class I post

for not having the qualification of graduation as per the

new RS & P Regulations. Hence he had approached the

Hon'ble High Court of Kerala along with the union as it

was necessary to have an immediate stay order to protect

his right for promotion. The Hon'ble High Court passed an

interim order to the effect that the promotion, if any, made

pursuant to the new RS & P Regulations will be provisional

and subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The

employees who filed the writ petition Had already retired

from service. Hence the pendency of that case is not a bar

for the adjudication of the dispute in this case. Though

major port trusts situate in various states, the promotional

policy of each major port is different from the other. In the

Cochin Port Trust an employee who joins in a class IV

cadre can aspire promotion to senior class I officer level if

he possesses the require qualifications. Since the union

has no dispute with the class I officers of the Cochin Port

Trust there is no need for making them as parties to the

dispute. The union challenges the unfair action of the

management in implementing the cadre restructuring

proposal by dishonouring the bilateral agreements and

assurances given by the management in this regard. Any

kind of restructuring in the cadre can be done only in

accordance with law. In the Cochin Port Trust the promotion

of the class IV and III employees are intermingled with that

of class II and I officers and hence a unilateral decision

taken in class I cadre without considering the repercussions

it make in the lower cadre will definitely be deterimental to

the future career of the employees of the lower cadre. The

restructuring of class I cadre can be done without

disturbing the rights and previleges of the employees of

the lower cadre. Before the implementation of the cadre

restructuring promotion to class I post was done in the

ratio 1:1 and the qualification was SSLC. After the

implementation of the new RS & P Regulations a class II

officer who is a graduate having three years of regular

service in class II post will only be eligible for promotion.

This is detrimental to the career progression of the existing

class II officers as most of them had only qualification of

SSLC and less than three years of regular service. The

promotion of Manager, Senior Accountant. Accountant,

and UD Clerk will also be blocked by those rules. 20%

promotions to LD Clerks (class III) are reserved for class IV

employees of the management. Hence a class IV employee

with required qualification can be promoted to Sr. class I

post. No direct recruitment to the cadre of LD Clerk is being

done due to ban on such recruitment. Therefore, for the

time being, the entry level post for ministerial establishment

in the Cochin Port Trust can be considered as class IV

cadre. The cadre restructuring of class I officers was done

in blatant violation of the clauses of the 12(3) Settlement

dated 26.03.1994. Hence it is prayed for passing an award

in favour of the union after rejecting the contentions of the

management.

6. For the purpose of deciding this reference one witness

was examined as WWI and Exts.W1 to W7 were got marked

for the union. On the side of the management one witness

was examined as MW1 and Exts.MI to M9 were marked.

7. The points for determination are:

(i)

Whether the union has the locus standi to raise

the industrial dispute as to the cadre restructuring

of class I officers of' the management?

(ii) Whether the issue referred for adjudication has

become infructuous due to the implementation of

cadre restructuring order for class I officers in the

management?

(iii) Whether the reference is bad for non joinder of

necessary parties?

(iv) Whether the issue was to be referred to National

Tribunal?

(v) Whether the reference is maintainable due to the

pendency of proceedings before the Hon'ble High

Court?

(vi) Whether the apprehensions of the union about the

detrimental effects of the proposal for cadre

restructuring are reasonable?

(vii) Whether there is any illegality in proceeding with

the implementation of the proposal for cadre

restructuring by the management?

(viii)Whether the action of the management in going

ahead with the proposal of cadre restructuring and

the implementation of the new RS & P Regulations

is justified?

(ix) To what relief the workmen are entitled to?

8. Point No.(i):— The Cochin Port Staff Association is

the union which raised this industrial dispute through its

General Secretary. It is not in dispute that it is a registered

trade union affiliated to All India Port and Dock Workers

Federation and International Transport Workers and is

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1301

competent to raise the industrial dispute of its members

who are the employees of the management. The contention

of the management is that this industrial dispute is as to

the cadre restructuring of Class I Officers who are not

coming within the definition of workman under Section

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence the union

has no locus standi to raise such a dispute. Union raised

the dispute since the promotional avenues of Class II. Class

III and Class IV employees are likely be affected by the

proposal of cadre restructuring. It is the case of the union

that the proposal for cadre restructuring is in blatant

violation of the existing recruitment agreements and it

would adversely affect the career progression of the existing

Class III and class IV employees. Since there is the proposal

to change the ratio of promotion of promotees and direct

recruitees and the educational qualification for promotion

to Class I category it would adversely affect the chance for

promotion of Class II, class III and class IV employees. In

such a case the union has the locus standi to raise the

industrial dispute with regard to the proposal of cadre

restructuring as it would adversely affect the career

progression of those categories of employees.

9. Point No.(ii):— It is at the time when the proposal for

cadre restructuring was under consideration the present

industrial dispute was raised by the union. Based on the

report of the pay revision committee under the chairmanship

of Shri S P Bagla, former Secretary. Govt. of India, Ext.M1

communication dated 06.02.2004 was sent to the Major

Port Trusts & Dock Labour Boards by the Ministry of

Shipping, about cadre restructuring. Afterwards as per

Ext.M2 dated 26.07.2004 Model RS & P Regulations for

Major Ports was sent from the Ministry to all Major Port

Trusts for approval by its Board and to send it back to the

Ministry for approval and notification in the official Gazette.

There was delay for the approval by the Cochin Port Trust

Board due to the objection of the union. The Board of

Trustees in the meeting held on 29.03.2006 resolved to

approve the Cochin Port Employees (RS & P) Regulations,

2006 as well as revised set of Recruitment Rules, forming

port of the Regulations for class I posts based on Ministry's

Model RSP regulations, subject to recasting of anomalies

pointed out and subject to approval of the Central

Government and the same is evidenced by Ext.M3. the

copy of the minutes of the meeting of the board of trustees

of the Cochin Port Trust held on 29.03.2006. The Ministry

of Shipping vide its letter dated 15.07.2008. copy of which

was marked as Ext.M4, directed the Chairman of the Cochin

Port Trust to forward the copy of the Cochin Port Trust

Employees'(Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion)

Regulations along with other documents required for

notification strictly in accordance with the Model

Regulations sent along with Ext.M2. Thereby the Cochin

Port Trust Board after detailed deliberations and

considering the special circumstances resolved to approve

the Cochin Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority

and Promotion) Regulations, 2009 and the proposed

recruitment rules annexed as Appendix-V with the

recommendations that existing eligible officers may be

upgraded to the newly created higher posts at the time of

introduction of' the rules in order to ensure level playing

field and to strictly implement the model RS & P thereafter

subject to Government sanction and the same is evidenced

by Ext.M5. the minutes of the proceedings of ordinary

meeting No. I of 2009-10 of the Board of Trustees held on

08.05.2009. It was approved by the Central Government

and published in the Official Gazette on 28.10.2010 and

Ext.M6 was produced to prove the same. It is not in dispute

that it was fully implemented in the Cochin Port Trust after

its approval and publication in the Gazette. As the reference

is with regard to the justifiability of the action of the

management of the Cochin Port Trust in going ahead with

the proposal of cadre restructuring it has not got much

relevance alter the implementation of the Cochin Port Trust

Employees(Recruitment. Seniority and Promotion)

Regulations, 2010 after its approval by the Central

Government and the publication in the official Gazette.

10. Point No.( iii):— The contention in the written

statement is that the issue relates to Class 1 Officers and

hence they are to be made as parties to the dispute and

without making them as parties the reference is bad for

non-joinder of necessary parties. It is because of the

apprehension of the union that promotion to Class 1 from

the workmen in the other three categories will be affected

by the implementation of cadre restructuring the dispute

was raised. It is only with regard to the ,justifiability in

going ahead with the proposal of cadre restructuring

overlooking the apprehensions of the union about its

detrimental effects on career progression. The change of

ratio with regard to promotion and direct recruitment as

well as the change of educational qualification for promotion

to Class 1 Officers from the other three categories made the

union to raise the dispute. It does not relate to change of

service conditions of Class 1 Officers. In such a case it

cannot be said that the Class 1 Officers are necessary

parties to the dispute. Hence it cannot be held that the

reference is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

11. Point No.(iv):— The contention that the reference

was to be made to a National Tribunal is not a matter to be

considered by this tribunal. The reference itself is with

regard to the action of the management of Cochin Port

Trust in going ahead with the proposal of cadre

restructuring overlooking the apprehensions of the unions

about its detrimental effects on career progression. It is

not with regard to the cadre restructuring of Class 1 Officers

of all Port Trusts. The challenge of the union is with regard

to the adverse effect of cadre restructuring as to the

promotion of the Class IV and III employees of the Cochin

Port Trust. It can also be seen from Ext.M1 that different

ports are having different patterns depending on their

varying circumstances and functional requirements.

1302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Different Port Trusts have approved the model RS & P

regulations on different dates. The Cochin Port Trust

Employees(Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion), 2010

was approved on 08.05.2009 and the same was published

in the official gazette on 28.10.2010. There is nothing on

record to satisfy that all the ports are having identical RS &

P regulations. The dispute under reference cannot be said

to be about the cadre restructuring of Class 1 Officers of all

major ports which requires reference to a National Tribunal.

12. Point No .(v):— It is contended by the management

that the pendency of the it petitions filed by the Cochin

Port Staff Association and some individual employees

before the Hon'ble Court of Kerala is an embargo to have a

reference on the same issue and continuation of parallel

proceedings. No documentary evidence was adduced in

this case to prove that any proceeding is pending before

the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala with regard to an identical

issue. The details of any such proceedings pending before

the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala are not stated in the

written statement. In para 8 of the replication there is an

admission as to the filing of a writ petition before the

Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. in which the union and some

of the employees are parties, about the denial of promotion

by the traffic department of a class II officer of the wharf

section to class III post for not having the qualification of

graduation as per the new (Recruitment Seniority &

Promotion) Regulations. No copy of the writ petition was

produced in this case to satisfy that it relates to the issue

referred for adjudication in this case. The writ petition is

stated to have been filed after the reference. There is

nothing to hold that the reference is to be treated as a

parallel proceedings and hence not maintainable.

13. Point No.(vi):— The apprehension of the union is

mainly about promotion to class I post from the other three

categories. The recruitment and promotion to class I post

was on the basis of the 12(3) settlement entered into

between the management and the unions on 26.3.1994, copy

of which was marked as Ext.W3. It was entered into based

on a proposal of restructuring of staff in the ministerial

wing put forward by the management and approved by the

Ministry and the same is evidenced by Ext.W1. Before that

settlement there was discussion about the proposal by the

management with the unions on 26.03.1994 and the copy

of record note of discussions of that meeting is Ext.W2. It

was agreed to by the unions that tilling up of posts by

promotion/direct recruitment will be made according to a

roster in 1:1 ratio i.e., promotion/direct recruitment and that

not more than 50% of the total number of class I posts is

filled up by the persons recruited directly. It was further

agreed that when direct recruitment is made to class I posts

as above. qualified departmental candidates also will be

allowed to compete as per relevant rules. Based on it clause

2(3) was incorporated in Ext.W3 that 50% of the posts in

class I cadre of ministerial side remaining vacant on the

date of that settlement and falling vacant thereafter to be

filled up by direct recruitment/induction of management

trainees as decided by the management.

14. According to the union it is in violation of the terms

of that settlement the management had formulated the R. S

& P rules based on the Model RSP Regulations prepared

by the Ministry of Shipping and placed it before the Cochin

Port Trust Board in February, 2004. The new rules were

framed pursuant to Ext.M1 communicating the decision for

implementation of the recommendations made by the pay

revision committee under the Chairmanship of Shri S P

Bagla. Though it is alleged in the claim statement that the

said committee submitted the report in February, 2009 in

the proof affidavit of WW1 it is averred that the report was

submitted by the committee in February, 1999 and not in

February, 2009. It is not in dispute that the first volume of

the report of the pay revision committee with regard to

revision of pay and allowances was implemented and the

recommendations of the committee in volume II as to cadre

restructuring was sought to be implemented by the Ministry

of Shipping as per Ext.M1. It is evident from Ext.M3 that

the Cochin Port Employees (RS & P) Regulations, 2006 as

well as revised set of recruitment rules forming part of the

regulations for class I posts based on Ministry's model

(RS & P) Regulations was approved subject to recasting of

anomalies pointed out and approval of the Central

Government. As the further steps for implementation of

the regulations was delayed due to the protest of the unions

the Ministry of Shipping requested the Cochin Port Trust

to forward the regulations along with other documents

required for notification strictly in accordance with the

model regulations forwarded by the department for

notification and further necessary action as per Ext.M4

letter dated 15.07.2008. It is because of the instruction given

by the Ministry of Shipping the Cochin Port Trust had to

take immediate steps for the approval of the Cochin Port

Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority & Promotion)

Regulations, 2009. It was approved in the meeting of Board

of Trustees held on 08.05.2009. It was approved by the

Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub section ( 1) of Section 124 read with sub section ( 1) of

Section 132 of The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. It has

come into effect after its publication in the official gazette

on 28.10.2010.

15. According to the union the cadre restructuring of

class 1 officers was done in blatant violation of the clauses

of the 12(3) Settlement dated 26.03.1994. The management

has got the right under Section 28 of the Major Port Trusts

Act to make new regulations with regard to recruitment,

seniority and promotion. It does not require the procedural

compliance under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 even if it relates to change of condition of service.

As per Section 111 of The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 the

Board. in the discharge of its functions under the Act, is

bound by such directions on question of policy, as the

Central Government may give in writing from time to time.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1303

As it had become necessary to bring about fair amount of

uniformity in the cadres of officers in all major ports and to

rationalize and streamline (Recruitment. Seniority and

Promotion) procedures in the major ports the Ministry had

initiated a process of cadre restructuring of' officers in the

major ports after getting the recommendations made by

the pay revision committee. It has come out in evidence

that the new RS & P regulations was approved after having

several discussions with the unions and federations. The

cadre restructuring cannot be said to be iIlegal for the mere

reason that some changes were made in deviation of the

rules in existence.

16. Challenge of the union is only with regard to class I

posts based on the change of ratio of promotion between

direct recruitees and promotees and the change of basic

qualifications for recruitment and promotion. The

allegations with regard to the same are contained in Para 11

of the claim statement and para 12 of the replication. The

allegation in para 11 is that the class 1 posts which were

the promotion post of the ministerial staff/employees as

per the earlier rules have been identified/allotted to new

categories of employees directly recruited such as PRO,

Law Officer, Welfare Officer, Hindi Officer etc. The

allegation contained in para 12 of the replication is that

before the implementation of the cadre restructuring

promotion to class 1 post was done as per 1:1 ratio and the

qualification was SSLC. After the implementation of the

new rules in connection with the cadre restructuring class

II Officer who has had a graduation will only be eligible for

promotion if he had a regular service of three years in the

class II post.

17. At the time of argument learned counsel for the

management has argued that change of ratio and the

educational qualification will not detrimentally affect the

interest of the workman as promotion is not a vested right/

accrued right and is not condition of service. It was further

argued by him that they had only a chance for promotion

which will not entitle them to raise such an industrial dispute.

In support of his argument he has referred to the decision

reported in Reserve Bank of' India, Bombay Vs. C T Dighe

and others 1981 LAB I.C.1103(SC). Therein it was held:

"Alteration of the conditions of eligibility governing

employees belonging to a particular cadre cannot

amount to changing the conditions of service of

employees who belonged to another cadre, assuming

that the said conditions were conditions of service. The

changes introduced in respect of' condition of eligibility

may have an impact on the promotional prospects of

employees from another cadre who are already in the

panel or even of those who were expecting to be included

in the panel, but it cannot be said that this would amount

to changing their conditions of service. Further, it is

well settled that a rule which affects the promotion of' a

person relates to his condition of service but this is not

so if what is affected is a chance of promotion only".

Here in this case also the change of conditions of

eligibility for promotion to class I post by changing the

ratio and the educational qualification cannot be said to be

detrimental as it is not a case of violation of service

conditions. It might affect the chance for promotion. But

there is no vested or accrued right for the workman to make

a challenge about it. It is also pertinent to note that the

federation has also agreed for change of ratio and the same

could be seen from Ext.W6. Therein it is expressly stated

that the Pay Revision Committee agreed to recommend to

the Government that the promotion quota to the entry level

class I posts to be kept at 66 2/3 % upto 31.03.2010 and

thereafter it can be 33 1/3% as recommended in cadre

restructuring. As per the new R,S & P regulations filling up

of' posts in class I entry level by promotion/direct

recruitment is made in the ratio 2:1 respectively upto

21.08.2012 and thereafter it is to be in the ratio 1:2. It also

provides for applying it to the posts required to be filled by

direct recruitment from employees already in service

provided they possess the prescribed qualifications and

experience without any age limit. Hence it cannot be said

that the proposal for cadre restructuring has affected the

career progression of' the other categories of employees.

18. Point No.(vii):— According to the union there is

arbitrary violation of Section 33 of the ID Act in the

implementation of the new RS & P regulations. It is alleged

in the claim statement that since the management had not

honoured the section 12(3) settlement signed before the

Chief Labour Commissioner on 15.07.2008 federation made

a complaint before him vide letter dated 11.09.2009 and the

same is still pending before him and hence the

implementation of the new RS & P regulations is in violation

of Section 33 of the ID Act. There is no convincing evidence

in this case to prove that any proceeding as contemplated

under Section 33A of the ID Act was pending before the

Chief Labour Commissioner at the time of implementation

of the new R S & P regulations. Section 33A of the ID Act

is applicable only when there is a change of condition of

service etc. during the pendency of proceeding. It has

already been found that there was no change of condition

of service by the implementation of the new R S & P

regulations. Hence it cannot be said that there is violation

of the said provision in the implementation of the new R S

& P regulations.

19. Learned counsel for the union has argued that the

new R S & P regulations was not published in the State

Gazette as provided under Section 132(2) of the Major Port

Trusts Act and hence there is illegality in the

implementation of the new R,S & P rules. Even though it is

not a matter which will come within the purview of the

reference it can be said that it is not a mandatory

requirement for the coming into effect of the regulations in

view of Section 124(1) of the Major Port Trusts Act. As per

1304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that provision no regulation made by the Board under the

Act other than a regulation made under Sub-section (2) of

section 17 shall have effect until it has been approved by the

Central Government and until such approval has been

published in the Official Gazette. The new regulations had

been approved by the Central Government and published in

the Central Government Gazette. At the time of examination

of MW1 it was stated by her that it was also published in the

State Gazette. It is not necessary to have publication in the

State gazette for coming into effect of the regulations as it is

only directory to publish it in the State Gazette as per Section

132(2) of the Major Port Trusts Act.

20. Neither any other plea nor any other argument was

advanced about any illegality in the proposal for cadre

restructuring and the subsequent procedure for its

implementation.

21. Point No.(viii):— In view of the foregoing discussion

and the findings it is found that the action of the

management of the Cochin Port Trust in going ahead with

the proposal of cadre restructuring overlooking the

apprehensions of the union about its detrimental effects

on career progression is justified.

22. Point No.(ix):— As the action of the management is

found to be justified the workers are not entitled to any

relief.

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 30th day of

December, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the union

WW1 01.07.2014

Shri K. Damodharan

Witness for the management

MW 1 22.09.2014

Smt. Prema Kumari

Exhibits for the union

—

Copy of letter No.LB-12013/3/93-

RD dated 17.03.94 addressed to the

Chairman, Cochin Port Trust,

Willingdon Island, Cochin by the

Research Officer, Wage Revision

Cell, Ministry of Surface Transport,

Government of India

—

Copy of the Record note of

discussions of the meeting held

with Cochin Port Staff Association

and Cochin Port Employees

Organisation on 26.03.1994 in

relation to the proposal for

restructuring of staff in the

ministerial wing

—

Copy of the Memorandum of

settlement dated 26.3.1994 under

Section 12(3) of the Industrial

Disputes Act. 1947 between the

management of Cochin Port Trust

and their workmen represented by

the Cochin Port Staff Association

and Cochin Port Employees

Organisation

—

Copy of the Memorandum of

understanding dated 29.05.2004

arrived

between

the

management of Cochin Port Trust

and Cochin Port Staff Association

before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner(Central), Ernakulam

—

Copy of letter No.2(3)/2005/D2

dated 01/02.02.2005 addressed to

the Chairman, Cochin Port Trust,

Willingdon Island, Cochin and the

Secretary, Cochin Port Staff

Association, Willingdon Island.

Kochi by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Kendriya

Shram

Sadan.

Olimughal,

Kakkanad, Cochin

—

Copy of the report dated 19.01.2006

of the Committee constituted to

look into the effect of cadre

restructuring of Port & Dock

Officers on the promotional

prospects of Class III & IV

employees

—

Copy of letter No.F.No.PR-11011/

1/2012-PE-1 dated Nil addressed

to the Chairmen of all Major Port

Trusts and Managing Director,

Indian Port Association. New Delhi

by th Under Secretary to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Shipping

(Ports Wing)

Exhibits for the Management

—

Copy of letter No.A-29018/5899-

P.E.I dated 06.02.2004 addressed

to the Chairmen of all Major Port

Trusts & Dock Labour Boards by

the Under Secretary to the Govt.

of India. Ministry of Shipping

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1305

—

Copy of letter No.PR-12012/1/04-

P.E.I dated 26.07.2004 addressed

to the Chairmen. All Major Port

Trusts and Managing Director,

Indian Ports Association, New

Delhi by the Under Secretary to

the Govt. of India. Ministry of

Shipping

—

Copy of the minutes of

proceedings of meeting No.8 of

2005-06 of Board of Trustees held

on 29.03.2006

—

Copy of the letter No.PR-12012/7/

2006-PE-1 dated 15.07.2008

addressed to the Chairman,

Cochin Port Trust, Willingdon

Island. Cochin by the Under

Secretary to the Govt. of' India,

Ministry of Shipping, Road

Transport

and

Highways,

Departmentof Shipping, Ports

Wing

—

Copy of the minutes of

proceedings of ordinary meeting

No.1 of 2009-10 of Board of

Trustees held on 08.05.2009

—

Copy of the Gazette Notification

No.PR-12012/7/2006-PE.I dated

28.10.2010 as to the Cochin Port

Trust Employees (Recruitment,

Seniority

and

Promotion)

Regulations, 2010

—

Copy of the minutes of the 158th

meeting of governing body of

Indian Ports Association held at

New Delhi on 24.10.2013

—

Copy of the forwarding letter

No.1PA/GAD/158 Meeting/122/

2013 dated 06.11.2013 addressed

by the Chief Administrative

Officer(I/C)

—

Copy of letter bearing No.PR-

11011/1/2012-PE-I

dated

05.12.2013 addressed to the

Chairmen of all Major Port Trusts

by the Under Secretary to the

Govt. of India, Ministry of

Shipping(Ports Wing)

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 519-—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;kstdkas 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; pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼dsñlñvkSñvñ 41@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-03-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@88@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 519.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 41/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai as show

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Indian Bank and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 13/03/2015

[No. L-12011/88/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 16th February, 2015

Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding

Officer

Industiral Dispute No. 41/2013

(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 Union

No. 6, Moore Street, Mannady Corner

Chennai-600 001

AND

The General Manager (HRM) : 2nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank

Corporate Office, HRM Department

264, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah

Chennai-600 014

1306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/ :

Sri J. Thomas

Petitioner Union

Jeyaprabhakaran,

Athorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/ :

M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/88/2012-IR (B-II)

dated 27.02.2013 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,

Chennai in respect of not extending the Pension Scheme

to the compulsory retired employees and employees

inflicted with the punishment of "Be removed from

service with superannuation benefits" is justified or not?

What relief, the workman is entitled to?

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 41/2013 and issued notices to both sides.

The petitioner has appeared through Authorized

Representative and the Respondent through the counsel

and filed claim and counter statement respectively. The

petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter

Statement.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

Pension Scheme was introduced in the banking industry

in the year 1995. A majority of the workmen have switched

over to the Pension Scheme from the then existing

Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. However, some of

the workmen have continued to be in the Contributory

Provident Fund Scheme itself. By the settlement dated

27.04.2010 one more option was given to them to join the

Pension Scheme. Almost all the groups of employees were

allowed to option for pension on the basis of the Circular

dated 21.08.2010 issued consequent to the settlement. The

employees on whom the punishment of compulsory

retirement and removal from service were imposed also

submitted their option to join the Pension Scheme on the

basis of this circular. However, the Respondent refused to

accept their option stating that those who were given the

above punishments do not fall under any of the eligible

categories to join Pension Scheme. As per the order of the

Disciplinary Authority itself the employees on whom such

punishments were imposed are eligible for superannuation

benefits including pension. So the action of the Respondent

in refusing to accept the option of those employees to join

the Pension Scheme is unjust and unilateral. The action of

the Respondent has resulted in gross discrimination for

those who were given the punishment of Compulsory

Retirement and Removal from service. An order may be

passed holding that the action of the Respondent in not

extending the Pension Scheme to those employees who

were made to retire from service compulsorily and removed

from service with superannuation benefits is unjustified

and direction may be given to the Respondent to extend

the Pension Scheme to all such persons.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

By the settlement dated 14.02.1995 the employees who

were given punishment of compulsory retirement, removal

from service or discharge were entitled to superannuation

benefits as would be due otherwise at that stage and without

disqualification from future employment. The expression

"as would be due otherwise" meant that in the case of the

punishment of Compulsory Retirement where there was no

loss to the Bank the employees could avail pension. It

does not mean in all cases where the punishment of

compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits was

awarded to an employee, he would automatically be entitled

to pension. By the Circular dated 21.08.2010 on the basis of

a settlement of 27.04.2010 a second option for pension was

to be exercised. Employees who were compulsorily retired

from service or removed from service were not eligible to

avail option to join the Pension Scheme as per the provisions

of the Pension Settlement. It is not permissible for the

petitioner to make a claim for those who do not fall in the

categories listed in the settlement. There is no justification

for the claim made by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder disputing the case

in the Counter Statement and asserting the claim in the

Claim Statement.

6. The evidence in the case consists of documents

marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W5 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M5. No oral

evidence was adduced on either side.

7. The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in not

extending the Pension Scheme to those employees

who were made to retire from service compulsorily

and those removed from service with

superannuation benefits is justified?

(ii) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

8. It was only in 1995 Pension Scheme was introduced

for the employees of the banking industry. Earlier they

were covered by the Provident Fund Scheme and were

contributing for the scheme. On introduction of the Pension

Scheme a major portion of the employees opted for the

Pension Scheme. However, there were several who wanted

to stick on to the Provident Fund Scheme. They too

subsequently became aware of the benefits of the Pension

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1307

Scheme and pressed for an option to join the scheme. A

settlement was arrived at between the Banking Federation

and the unions on 27.04.2010 and the Respondent Bank

had issued a circular on 21.08.2010 consequent to this. As

per this, those who were in service prior to 29.09.1995 and

continued to be in service, thosewho retired after 29.09.1995

but before 27.04.2010, families of employees who retired

after 29.09.1995 and died and families of employees who

were in service after 29.09.1995 and died while in service

were made eligible for pension. After the employees were

allowed to exercise option for pension based on the circular

dated 21.08.2010, those who were made to retire

compulsorily and were removed from service by way of

punishment also have submitted their option to join the

Pension Scheme. But the Respondent was not willing to

accept their option. The Respondent maintained that these

categories of employees are not eligible to join the Pension

Scheme.

9. The case of the petitioner is that the group of

employees who were given the punishment of Compulsory

Retirement and Removal from Service with Superannuation

benefits were denied the right of pension even though

they are eligible for pension and this is reflected in the very

order of punishment. It is because of this the dispute is

raised seeking an order to allow such employees also to

exercise their option for pension so that the Respondent

shall pay pension to them also.

10. Regulation-33(1) of the Indian Bank Employees

Pension Regulations provide for compulsory retirement

pension to a limited extent. Clause-1 of Regulation 33

provides for pension at a rate not less than 2/3rd and not

more than full pension to an employee who was

compulsorily retired from service if he was entitled to such

pension on superannuation on the date of his retirement.

Regulation-31 provides that an employee who is dismissed

or removed or terminated from service shall forfeit his

pension. However, the authority higher than the authority

competent to dismiss or remove or terminate an employee

from service may in deserving cases, sanction a

compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rd of the

pension which would have been admissible to him on the

basis of the qualifying service rendered upto the date of

his dismissal, removal or termination. Regulation-22 of the

Pension Regulations states that resignation or dismissal

or removal or termination of an employee from the service

of the bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service

and consequently shall not qualify for pensionery benefits.

Thus it could be seen that it is by way of exception that

Regulation-31 and 33 were included in the Pension

Regulations. The punishment for misconduct as per the

settlement dated 14.02.1995 provided for compulsory

retirement, removal or discharge from service with

superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and

without disqualification from future employment. Even

though this clause provided for superannuation benefits,

the employees who were made to retire compulsorily or

removed from service were not permitted to exercise the

option for pension on the ground that they are not eligible

for pension, they having forfeited their past service and

there being no provision for pension to them.

11. The authorized Representative of the petitioner has

referred to decision of the Apex Court in BANK OF

BARODA VS. S.K. KOOL in Civil Appeal No. 10956/2013 in

support of his argument that in spite of the above provisions

in the Pension Regulations and clause in the settlement

the employees who were made to retire compulsorily and

were removed from service are eligible for pension. In the

above case S.K. KOOL, an employee of Bank of Baroda

was visited with the penalty of "removal from service with

superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and

without disqualification". Though the employee put in a

claim for pension, it was declined by the Management. The

claim of the employee was based on the fact that the order

of punishment itself provided for superannuation benefit

to him. The Tribunal which considered the case held that

Kool is entitled for superannuation benefits. The High

Court also favoured the employee and dismissed the Writ

Petition filed by Bank of Baroda and the Bank approached

the Apex Court. Considering Regulation-22 of the Pension

Regulations and also Clause-6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement

the Apex Court has held:

"From a plain reading of the aforesaid regulation it is

evident that removal of an employee shall entail

forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently

such an employee shall not qualify for pension benefits.

If we accepted this submission no employee removed

from service in any event would be entitled to pensionery

benefits. But the fact of the matter is that the Bipartite

Settlement provides for removal from service with

pensionery benefits "as would be due otherwise under

the rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time".

The consequence of this construction would be that

the words quoted above shall become a dead letter.

Such a construction has to be avoided".

The Apex Court has further held.

"The regulation does not entitle every employee to

pensioner benefits, its application and eligibility is

provided under Chapter-II of the regulations whereas

Chapter-1V deals with qualifying service. An employee

who has rendered a minimum of 10 years services and

fulfils other conditions only can qualify for pension in

terms of Article-14 of the Regulation. Therefore, the

expression "as would be due otherwise" — would mean

only such employees who are eligible and have put in

minimum number of years of service qualify for pension.

However, such of the employees who are not eligible

and have not put in required number of years of

qualifying service shall not be entitled to superannuation

benefits though removed from service in terms of

1308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Clause-6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. Clause-6(b)

came to be inserted as one of the punishments on

account of the Bipartite Settlement. It provides for

payment of superannuation benefits as would be due

otherwise. The Bipartite Settlement tends to provide a

punishment which gives superannuation benefits

otherwise due. The construction canvassed by the

employer shall give nothing to the employees in any

event. Will it not be a fraud Bipartite Settlement?

Obviously it would be. From the conspectus of what

we have observed, we have no doubt that such of the

employees who are otherwise eligible for

superannuation benefits and are removed from service

in terms of Clause-6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement shall

be entitled to superannuation benefits. This is the only

construction which would harmonize the two

provisions. It is well settled rule of construction that

in case of apparent conflict between the two provisions,

they should be so interpreted that effect is given to

both. Hence we are of the opinion that such of the

employees who are otherwise entitled to

superannuation benefits under the Regulation, if

visited with the penalty of removal from service with

superannuation benefits shall be entitled for those

benefits and such of the employees though visited

with the same penalty but are not eligible for

superannuation benefit under the regulation shall not

be entitled to that".

12. It is clear from the above decision of the Apex

Court that the employees who were otherwise eligible for

superannuation benefits under the regulation and visited

with the penalty of removal from service with

superannuation benefits shall be entitled for those

benefits. If so, undoubtedly, those who faced the

punishment of compulsory retirement from service with

superannuation benefits also will be entitled to those

benefits. The claim of the petitioner for superannuation

benefits for those who were made to compulsorily retire

from service or removed from service with superannuation

benefits is justified in view of the dictum laid down by the

Apex Court in the above case. The petitioner is therefore

entitled to an order in its favour.

13. Accordingly, an order is passed as follows:

The Respondent is directed to extend the Pension

Scheme to all those employees who were visited with

the penalty of removal from service with

superannuation benefits and compulsory retirement

with superannuation benefits, if otherwise they were

entitled to superannuation benefits under the Pension

Regulations as on the date on which the punishment

was imposed on them.

The reference is answered accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

None

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

02.02.2012 Rejoinder to the counter reply in

the ID raised by the Union

Ex.W2

09.11.2011 Counter reply by the Indian Bank

Management in the ID raised by

the Union

Ex.W3

11.06.2011 ID raised by the Union

Ex.W4

09.11.2012 Letter from Indian Banks'

Association to the Chief

Executives of Member Banks

Ex.W5

12.11.2012 Letter from Indian Banks'

Association to the Chief

Executives of Member Banks

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

01.07.1979 Indian Bank Officers' Service

Regulations 1974

Ex.M2

27.04.2010 Memorandum of Settlement u/s

18(1) of the ID Act on the issue to

allow another option for those in

service prior to 29.09.1995 and

confirmed in service after that

date, but did not option for

pension when offered

Ex.M3

21.08.2010 Memorandum of Settlement

extending another option to join

the Pension Scheme to those who

did not option for pension earlier.

Ex.M4

06.01.2014 Memorandum of Settlement — one

more option of pension in terms

of settlement dated 27.04.2010 to

employees who were admitted/

removed from service, but

subsequently, reinstated due to

the decision of Court / Appellate

Authority

Ex.M5

23.11.1995 Circular No. PRNL/123/95-95 dated

23.11.1995

Ex.M6

1995

Indian Bank (Employees') Pension

Regulations 1995.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1309

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 520-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dk èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj l®Vªy c®d vkWQ

bafM;k 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼dsñlñ vkSñvñ 03@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-03-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@95@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, 13th March, 2015

S.O. 520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 03/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Central Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/03/2015.

[No.-L-12012/95/2012-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/03/2013

Date: 06.02.2015.

Party No.1: The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Kakani Oil Mill Compound'

Dharmadaya Cotton Fund Road,

Amravati-444001.

Versus

Party No.:

Shri Yadav Tilluji Bawane,

Near Dauji Mahajan Akhada,

New Mangalwari,

Mehandibaug Road,

Nagpur-440017.

AWARD

(Dated: 6th February, 2015)

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 Central Bank of India and their workman,

Shri Yadav Tilluji Bawane, for adjudication, as per letter

No.L12012/95/2012-IR (B-II) dated 06.03.2013, with the

following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank

of India through its Regional Manager, Amravati by

dismissing Shri Yadav Tilluji Bawane from service w.e.f.

13.09.2010 is legal and justified? What extent, the

workman is entitled for relief?"

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 Yadav Tilluji

Bawane, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of

claim and the management of Central Bank of India ("party

no. 1" in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement

of claim is that he joined the service of party no.1 on

02.01.1990 in clerical cadre and he was transferred from

time to time as per the policy of the Bank and lastly, he was

posted at Ghatladki Branch in the district of Amravati as

head clerk with additional charge of cashier in the year

2005 and his service record was clean and without any

blemish and while working in the said branch, all of a sudden,

the then Regional Manager filed a FIR against him and so

also against the Manager of the said branch and even

though three employees were working in the said branch,

only he himself and the Manager were made the scape

goats for the forge alleged to be committed by one Shri

R.R.Rahi, a customer of the Bank and for the alleged fraud,

party no.1 issued the order of suspension against him on

10.06.2009, while he was in police custody and on 04.02.2009,

he made a representation to the Regional Manager, for

cancellation of the order of suspension, as the same was

not sustainable, but party no.1 did not respond and instead

issue the memo of charges on 10.08.2009, without any

justification or evidence against him and went on to conduct

the departmental enquiry against him illegally and

improperly and without any regard to the principles of

natural justice.

The further case of the workman is that he was holding

only the additional charge of the post of the cashier/head

cashier due to shortage of man power and he was

performing the said work jointly under the active

supervision and control of his superiors and the charge

sheet dated 03.09.2009 served on him was vague and false

and baseless allegations were made in the same against

him and for want of the requisite particulars, he was unable

to deal with the charges as mentioned in the charge sheet

properly and effectively and in the so called departmental

enquiry held against him, he was not given reasonable and

adequate opportunity to defend himself and documents

were not supplied to him and he was also not given scope

for the cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the

management and to lead evidence in his defence and thus,

the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and

unsustainable in law and the punishment of dismissal from

service imposed against him is without any basis or reason

and too harsh and his past service record was not

1310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

considered before imposition of the order of punishment

and as such, the order of dismissal from service passed

against him is illegal, improper and unsustainable in law

and therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement in service

with continuity, full back wages and consequent benefits.

3. The party No.1 in the written statement, after denying

the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim, has

pleaded inter alia that the statement of claim filed by the

workman is wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law

and the workman has not approached the Tribunal with

clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts and

disciplinary proceedings were held against the workman

under the provisions of Disciplinary Action Procedure for

workmen, for the serious lapses and fraudulent acts

committed by him while functioning as the Head cashier at

its Ghatladki Branch and departmental enquiry was initiated

against him in pursuance to the charge sheet dated

03.09.2009 with corrigendum dated 05.11.2009 and 16.11.2009

and the Enquiry Officer, after affording him reasonable

opportunities to defend himself in the enquiry as per

service rules and in accordance with the principles of natural

justice, submitted the enquiry report, holding him guilty of

the charges levelled against him and on the basis of the

proved charges of misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority

issued him a show cause notice on 03.05.2010 asking him

to make submission on the findings of the Enquiry Officer

and the workman made his submission in writing on

15.05.2010 and on consideration of the findings of the

Enquiry Officer and the reply of the workman, the

Disciplinary Authority made his own finding and

communicate the proposed punishment to be awarded to

the workman and gave him the opportunity of personal

hearing and the workman appeared before the Disciplinary

Authority and made his submissions and after

consideration of the facts and circumstances of the mater,

the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of

"Dismissal from service without notice" against the

workman in terms of Para 6(a) of the Disciplinary Action

Procedure by a

detailed speaking and reasoned order

passed on 07.09.2010 and the workman preferred an appeal

to the Appellate Authority after careful consideration, on

07.12.2010, confirmed the order of punishment passed by

Disciplinary Authority.

The Party No. 1 has also pleaded that the charge sheet

dated 03.09.2009 was not vague and the workman was

provided a Defence Assistant of his choice to defend

himself and he was provided with all the documents

demanded by him and he was allowed to inspect other

records as sought by him and all these facts have been

recorded in the proceedings which was duly signed by the

workman and his defence assistant and a copy of the daily

proceedings was also handed over to him and the findings

of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse and the punishment

imposed on him is no way disproportionate to the

misconduct committed by him and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

4. It is to be mentioned here that inspite of taking several

adjournments; the workman did not file any rejoinder. The

workman was also given opportunity to adduce evidence

in support of his plea, but he did not adduce any evidence.

The workman remained absent from 17.09.2014 and did not

appear in the case. On 19.11.2014, to which date the case

was fixed for argument also, neither the workman nor his

advocate appeared to make argument, so order was passed

to proceed with the case exparte against the workman.

5. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman as a

punishment in the departmental enquiry held against him,

the fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was

taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration and by

order dated 17.12.2014, the departmental enquiry conducted

against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in

accordance with the principles of natural justice.

6. As no argument was made on behalf of the workman,

I think it proper to mention the principles enunciated by

the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the power of a Tribunal

in interfering 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 Art.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."

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1311

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."

"In departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority

is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is

presented to the appellate authority, the appellate

authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-

appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion,

on facts, being the sole fact-finding authorities. Once

findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are

recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not

normally interfere with those factual findings unless it

finds that the recorded findings were based either on

no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse

and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy

of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before

the High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as an

appellate authority over the factual findings recorded

during departmental proceedings, while exercising the

power of judicial review, the High Court cannot, normally

speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to

the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental

authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or

punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or

penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental

appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that

it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should

not normally substitute its own opinion and impose

some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned

Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court,

it appears, ignored the well-settled principle that even

though judicial review of administrative action must

remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the

Court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, is not

concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact

on the basis of which the orders are made so long as

those findings are reasonably supported by evidence

and have been arrived at through proceedings which

cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or

irregularities which vitiate the process by which the

decision was arrived at. Judicial review, it must be

remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is

confined to the examination of the decision-making

process."

It is also settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in number of decisions that:—

"Departmental enquiry is not bound by strict rules of

Evidence Act, but by fair play and natural justice. Only

total absence, but not sufficiency of evidence before

Tribunal is ground for interference. If the enquiry has

been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability

of evidence cannot be canvassed before the court and

in a departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on

the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis

of "preponderance of probability".

7. Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone

of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as

mentioned above, it is found that the Enquiry Officer has

based his findings on the evidence on record of the enquiry

and the Enquiry Officer has also assigned cogent reasons

in support of his findings. It is also found that this is not a

case of no evidence at all or that the findings of the Enquiry

Officer are totally against the whole body of the evidence

on record of the enquiry. Hence, the findings of the Enquiry

Officer cannot be said to be perverse.

8. So far the proportionality of the punishment is

concerned; it is found that commission of grave misconduct

of fraudulent acts and thereby causing huge loss to the

Bank has been proved against the workman in a properly

conducted departmental enquiry against him. Hence, the

punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be

shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct committed by him. Hence, there is no scope to

interfere with the punishment imposed against the

workman. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Central Bank of India

through its Regional Manager, Amravati by dismissing Shri

Yadav Tilluji Bawane from service w.e.f. 13.09.2010 is legal

and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 521-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ikjknhi iÙku U;kl

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; Hkqous'koj ds iapkV ¼18@2011½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 13-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&38011@08@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

1312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 521.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 18/2011) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Paradip Port Trust and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/03/2015.

[No. L-38011/08/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri Pradeep Kumar,

Presiding Officer, C.G. IT.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 18/2011

Date of Passing Award — 2nd day of December 2014

Between:

The Secretary,

... 1st Party-Management

Management Committee,

Paradip Port Trust, Paradip,

Jagatsinghpur, Odisha

And

The General Secretary,

...2nd Party-Workman.

Utkal Port & Dock Workers' Union,

H/17, Shramik Bhawan, V-Point,

Paradip Port, Distt.-Jagatsinghpur,

Odisha-754142

Appearances:

1. Shri Jyoti Ray,

For the 1st Party-

Assistant Secretary

Management

(Accounts)

2. Shri B. N. Moharana

For the 2nd Party-

Workman/Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour &

Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employer in relation to the Management of

the Secretary, Management Committee, Paradip Port Trust,

Paradip, Dist-Jagatsinghpur, Odisha, and their workmen

represented through the Utkal Port & Dock Workers' Union,

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, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Letter

No. L-38011/08/2010-1R-(B.II), dated 23.02.2011 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 Committee of

Paradip Port Trust, Paradip by publishing order dated

06.05.2010 in case of Shri Chandramani Jena to go on

retirement from services with effect from 31.08.2010 by

reckoning his date of birth as 05.08.1950 instead of

05.08.1952 without following the principles of natural

justice is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?

"Whether the action of the Management Committee of

Paradip Port Trust, in the decision making process

considering the date of birth in respect of Shri Narahari

Behura as 02.01.1951 instead of 10.04.1954 as

incorporated in the School Leaving Certificate without

following the principles of natural justice is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?

The Utkal Port & Dock Workers' Union (herein after

called "the union") representing the disputant workmen

have stated in its Statement of Claim, rejoinder, evidence

adduced and written notes of arguments that the workmen

were engaged under the management of Paradip Port Trust

as Mazdoors to undertake the clearing, forwarding and

handling works. The two disputant workmen namely Shri

Chandramani Jena and Shri Narahari Behura (herein after

called "the workmen") were engaged under the Clearing,

Forwarding and Handling Scheme, 1994 (herein after called

"the Scheme") framed by the Management Committee of

the Paradip Port Trust on the recommendations of the High

Power Committee constituted under the directions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. As required under the

Scheme, the workmen had submitted their application forms

alongwith the details of information including their date of

birth supported with documents. Shri Chandramani Jena

had filed the attested copy of his school leaving certificate

issued by the Head Master of the school and Shri Narahari

Behura has submitted the affidavit as required under the

rules in support of proof of their date of birth and on the

acceptance of the same the management engaged them as

mazdoors under the scheme and they were continued

thereafter. The medical certificates issued to the employees

also reflects the same date of birth. Necessary entries to

this effect have also been made in the N.S.S.N. form meant

for the Provident Fund account which shows the same

date of birth as mentioned in their application.

The management committee took an unlawful step in

reducing the age in respect of the above workmen for which

they were given premature retirement. Aggrieved with the

office orders issued against them for their retirement on

superannuation, they had made representations to the

management. But, the same were turned down. The union

have pleaded that reduction or enhancement of the age is

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1313

one of the implied conditions of service, whoever

contravenes Section 9A of the ID Act automatically comes

into play and accordingly the provision made in Section 33

becomes applicable.

Since the management did not consider their

representations for correction of the wrong entries made

by the officials of the management in respect of their date

of birth in their applications for the post of mazdoor, the

2nd party union raised an industrial dispute before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

for the redressal of their grievances through the process of

conciliation and upon failure of the same the matter was

referred to the appropriate Government and hence this

reference. In supported the same, the 2nd party union filed

certain documents marked as Exhibits 1 to 16 with a prayer

to declare the office orders issued in respect of the

retirement of the concerned workmen as illegal with a

direction to the 1st party management to allow the workmen

concerned by treating them that they are deemed to be

continued in their service and are entitle to get their

legitimate wages from the date when they were illegally

superannuated from the services for the rest of the periods

they would have continued in their services alongwith all

consequential benefits and current wages forthwith.

The 1st Party Management on the other hand through

its Written Statement and evidence adduced have stated

the background of the emergence of the management

committee and the modes of enlishment and registration

of the CFH workers, their qualification and other

requirements towards their eligibility for the post of

mazdoor under the management. The 1st party

management in their meeting held on 23.05.1994 have

constituted four sub-committees to scrutinize the

applications of existing CFH workers for their registration

alongwith the subsidiary list of workers under the

management. The sub-committee so constituted started

their scrutinization/verification with effect from 27.06.1994.

The management committee used to review the report of

the sub-committee from time to time.

The disputant workmen were asked to change the date

of birth mentioned in their application to a different date,

i.e. 05.08.1950 instead of 05.08.1952 in respect of Shri Jena

and 02.01.1951 instead of 02.01.1954 in respect of Shri

Behura, before the sub-committee. In the case of Shri

Behura, the management took the stand that Shri Behura

had earlier filed sworn affidavit in support of his date of

birth. But, subsequently he filed the copy of his school

leaving certificate in support of his date of birth. Since,

both the documents were contradicting, the management

took the step of scrutinization and accordingly changed

his date of birth to be 02.01.1951 instead of 02.01.1954 as

per the report of the sub-committee.

On the basis of the pleadings and documents filed by

the parties following issues were framed.

(1) "Whether the action of the Management Committee

of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip by publishing order

dated 06.05.2010 in case of Shri Chandramani Jena

to go on retirement from services with effect from

31.08.2010 by reckoning his date of birth as

05.08.1950 instead of 05.08.1952 without following

the principles of natural justice is legal and justified?

(2) "Whether the action of the Management Committee

of Paradip Port Trust, in the decision making

process considering the date of birth in respect of

Shri Narahari Behura as 02.01.1951 instead of

10.04.1954 as incorporated in the School Leaving

Certificate without following the principles of

natural justice is legal and justified?

(3) What relief the workmen are entitled to?

On behalf of the 2nd party workmen/union Shri

Chandramani Jena, Shri Narahari Behura and Shri

Bibhudhendra Narayan Moharana adduced evidence as

W.W.-1, W.W.-2 and W.W.-3. They have exhibited a total

number of 16 (sixteen) documents.

The 1st Party Management has examined only one

witness on their behalf Shri Rabindra Kumar Nayak as

M.W.-1. No document is marked exhibit on behalf of the

1st party management.

FINDINGS

Issues No. 1 and 2

Since both the issues relates to same cause of action

pertaining to two different workmen, the same are taken

together for consideration. The 1st party management

invited and accepted applications from different persons

to induct them into their workforce after examinations of

their (workers) applications to satisfy their eligibility under

the rules prescribed under the C.F.H. Scheme of 1994. The

concerned workers also have got their medical certificates

from the appropriate authority it that's submission before

the 1st party management as required under the rules as a

token of proof of their fitness for the post of mazdoor,

which shows the same date of birth as is shown in their

applications. Hence, after their absorption into the strength

of the 1st party management on their being found suitable

to be engaged as mazdoor for the C.F.H. works under the

management, the question of change of date of birth of the

workmen concerned should not have been raised again as

the same had already been verified during the process of

their induction into the workforce under the management.

However, in order to have fresh registration of the

mazdoors, if the 1st party management found certain

discrepancies in the date of birth of the disputant workmen

as pointed out by the sub-committees constituted for such

purpose, the matter should have been placed before the

appropriate authorities like school inspectors, etc., who

can verify the certificates submitted by the disputant

1314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workmen to establish the genuineness of the documents

towards proof of their date of birth. If the same was not

possible, then the 1st party management should have

presented the workmen before a medical board to ascertain

their actual date of birth. But, the 1st party management

did all those acts as per its sweet will which is not valid in

the eye of law.

The sub-committee so constituted by the 1st party

management though empowered to scrutiny/verify the

applications/documents submitted by the workers were

no way enjoying the authority of changing the date of

birth of the workmen concerned on the oral statements

made by the workmen. Since, a man may lie, but a document

will not lie, the 1st party management at least based upon

such principle adhered to the information available through

the documents. The disputant workers might have agreed

to change their date of birth on the instruction of the sub-

committee with a fear of any adverse or disciplinary action

taken against them by the 1st party management. It appears

from the record submitted by the parties that the disputant

workers are just literate, but they do not have sufficient

qualification to decide the matter and defend themselves.

The 1st party management should not have taken the

advantage of the innocent sentiments of the mazdoors.

Also, the scheme under which the C.F.H. workers were

being enlisted/registered clearly envisages that once the

date of birth is accepted and recorded in official records,

the same shall not be changed in future. Accordingly,

though the 1st party management had given an

opportunity to the disputant workmen of being heard on

their change of date of birth, yet the same is not legal and

justified as the change of date of birth from one date to

another cannot be done either through the modes of

settlement or proposal and acceptance. The process

through which the 1st party management reduced the

age of superannuation of the disputant workmen was not

a judicial process. The same should have got necessary

verification and authentication by the appropriate

authorities as narrated above.

Accordingly, the action taken by the 1st party

management by giving pre-mature retirement to the two

disputant workmen in this case is not legal and justified.

Also, the notifications issued in this regard intimating the

pre-mature date of retirement of the above workmen is void

in the eye of law.

Issue No. 3

Since the two workmen would have already retired from

their services at the age of 60, had they been continued in

their services as per their date of birth submitted by them

during their initial engagement with the 1st party

management, no order for their reinstatement in the

management can be passed now. However, the 1st party

management is hereby directed to adhere to the date of

birth as mentioned in their initial application by the disputant

workers prior to its correction by the 1st party management

and accordingly the 1st party management is directed to

either cancel or issue necessary corrigendum against the

notifications dated 06.05.2010 and 25.11.2010 issued it

indicating their actual date of retirement instead of the

premature date of superannuation. The 1st party

management also further directed to pay the disputant

workers their legitimate wages alongwith all consequential

benefits from 01.09.2010 to Shri Chandramani Jena and from

01.02.2011 to Shri Narahari Behura till the date of their actual

retirement taking into consideration the date of birth

submitted by them in their application prior to its correction

within a period of three months from the date of publication

of this award in the Gazette of India failing which the 1st

party management shall pay interest @12 percentum per

annum simple interest till the disbursement of full and final

payment.

The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the

2nd party workmen/union.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 522-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè cSad

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; p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼351@2014½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@161@2000&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 522.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 351/2000) of the

Cent.Govy. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-1

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/03/2015.

[No.L-12011/161/2000 -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 351 of 2000. Reference No. L-12011/161/

2000-1R(B-11) dated 15.09.2000.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1315

Sh. Swarn Singh, R/o H.No. 4526. Ranjitpura, Post Office

Khalsa College, Amritsar.

Workman

Versus

1.The Dy.General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal

Office, Hall Bazar, Amritsar (Punjab)-143001.

Respondent

Appearances

For the Workman:

Sh. R.P. Rana Advocate.

For the Management:

Sh. J.S.Sathi Advocate.

Award Dated: 23.2.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification

L-12011/161/2000-1R(B-II) dated 15.09.2000 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab &

Sind Bank in awarding the punishment of reduction to

lower stage by reducing two increments in basic pay of

Sh. Swarn Singh, Special Assistant is legal and just? If

not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to

and from what date?"

2. The workman filed claim statement pleading therein

that he was working as Special Assistant in the Khalsa

College Branch Amritsar when he was issued a show

caused notice dated 20.04.1993 wherein it was alleged that

while working in the aforesaid capacity he opened an SB

Account in the name of Sh. Kirpal Singh Sekhon under the

forged introduction of Sh. H.S. Soch, Principal of Khalsa

College, Amritsar. It was alleged by the management that

address given by the account holder was fake and workman

did not tally the signatures of Sh. H.S. Soch with those

available on the record of his SB account and acted in a

negligent manner and due to this negligence of workman a

fraud was committed by Kirpal Singh Sekhon, although no

particular of the alleged fraud was given in the show cause

notice. The workman filed reply to the show cause notice

admitting that a SB account was opened on 24.11.1992 in

the name of Kripal Singh Sekhon but the same was opened

with the approval of the branch manager, who had in his

own handwriting put date on the opening account form in

token to give permission to the account. Subsequently

charge sheet dated 5.9.1994 was issued to the workman

containing the following charges:—

"1. That on 24.11.1992 a saving bank account No.11334/

38 was opened in the name of Mr. Kirpal Singh Sekhon

under forged introduction of Mr. H.S. Soch, Principal

Khalsa College Amritsar. The address given by the

account holder S. Kirpal Singh Sekhon was also fake.

The permission to open the SB account was not obtained

from the Branch Incharge.

That on the basis of said account in the name of

S. Kirpal Singh a further SB account No. 11338/38

in the name of Sh. Anand Kumar was opened on

26.11.1992. The account of Sh. Ananad Kumar was

allowed to be opened on the verification of the

introduction of S. Kirpal Singh SB account holder

No.11334/38. Sh. Anand Kumar SB account holder

who had opened his SB account No.11338/38 with

the introduction of S. Kirpal Singh Sekhon had been

able to commit a fraud of Rs.36050/- on 28.11.1992.

That the said fraud committed by Sh.Anand Kumar

was a direct result of your negligence in not

verifying the signatures of the introducer on SB

account No. 11334/38.

Your above act is a gross misconduct as per para

19.5(j) of Bipartite settlement which may be read as

follows:—

Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank

or gross negligence or negligence involving or

likely to involve the bank is a serious risk."

3. Workman filed reply to the charge sheet and denied

having committed any act of negligence. Inquiry officer

was appointed by the management who conducted the

inquiry in utter violation of the principle of natural justice.

No material witness was produced during the departmental

inquiry. The principle of Khalsa College was not produced

in support of the allegations, no handwriting expert was

examined. The management produced Sh. H.S. Brar who

himself was responsible for opening the SB account of Sh.

Kirpal Singh Sekhon. On the completion of the inquiry,

inquiry officer submitted his report. The workman submitted

a representation in which various submissions were made

but the disciplinary authority rejected all those submissions

and issued show cause notice dated 3.3.1997 proposing

the penalty of reduction to the lower stage by reducing

two increments. The disciplinary authority provided

personal hearing to the workman. The disciplinary

authority vide order dated 31.3.1997 passed the order of

penalty on the workman while disagreeing the inquiry report.

The workman filed appeal which was also rejected without

application of mind by the appellate authority. It is pleaded

by the workman that departmental inquiry was not held in

accordance with the principles of natural justice and the

workman was not provided reasonable opportunity to his

defence as most material witnesses were withheld by the

presenting officer and punishment imposed on the workman

which is harsh and disproportionate to the act of

misconduct as the branch manager was responsible for

opening the account whereas workman was held to be

responsible for negligence. It is prayed by the workman

that punishment may be set aside and his increments may

be restored from the date when it was due along with interest

@18% per annum.

1316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. The management filed written statement in which it is

stated that the inquiry was conducted against the workman

in adhering to the principles of natural justice and

punishment was rightly awarded for the negligence of the

workman in dealing with the bank business. The workman

was supplied the copy of the inquiry report to which he

filed the comments and after duly considering his

representation the penalty of reduction to the lower stage

by reducing two increments was imposed. Personal hearing

was also provided to the workman by the disciplinary

authority. The appeal filed by the workman to the appellate

authority was also rejected after fully applying its mind

and the workman is not entitled to any relief as the inquiry

was conducted in accordance with the principle of natural

justice and fair play. Every possible opportunity was given

to the workman to prove his innocence. In the

circumstances the management prayed that he reference

may be rejected.

5. The workman filed replication reiterating the claim

made in the claim statement. The workman also placed on

record his affidavit along with the record of inquiry which

includes reply to the show cause notice and other

documents.

6. The management also filed supplementary written

statement taking preliminary objection that in case this

Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that domestic

inquiry was not fair and proper for any reason whatsoever

the management may be given opportunity to produced

evidence on merits to prove charges before this Hon'ble

Court. Management also placed on record affidavit of one

Balkar Singh in support of the written statement.

Management also placed on record the register of inquiry

proceedings.

7. Earlier arguments were heard on the fairness of enquiry.

This Tribunal vide its order dated 19.01.2015 held that the

enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and there is no

infirmity in the enquiry. The parties were given opportunity

to adduce any evidence on the point of perversity and

quantum of punishment.

8. Both the parties adduced no evidence and arguments

heard of the parties on the point of perversity and quantum

of punishment.

9. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that the

management failed to prove the allegations as contained in

the charge sheet in as much as the Principal of Khalsa

College was not produced in support of the allegations

and no handwriting expert was examined and the branch

manager Shri H.S.Brar was produced who was himself

responsible for opening of the SB account of Shri Kirpal

Singh Sekhon.The charges were not proved during the

enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse.

It is further the case of the workman is that the punishment

is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and the

branch manager was also responsible for opening of the

account and the branch manager was allowed to go scot

free whereas the workman was punished for no fault of the

workman.

10. On the other hand the management submitted that it

was the workman who opened the account of Shri Kripal

Singh Sekhon without verifying the address and signatures

of the Principal of Khalsa College which resulted into fraud

committed by Shri Kirpal Singh Sekhon. This act of

negligence is of serious nature and the workman was given

punishment which is not of severe nature and two

increments were ordered to be stopped which is

commensurate to the misconduct of the workman. It is also

submitted that in appeal the punishment of stoppage of

two increments were reduced to one increment. Therefore,

the workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference

deserves rejection.

11. The workman was charge sheeted for act of

negligence in opening of the account in the name of Shri

Kirpal Singh Sekhon with fake introduction and this fake

account has become instrumental for fraud committed by

one Anand Kumar who taken Rs. 36620/- from Branch

Office Khalsa College Amritsar out of stolen pay order of

Rs. 36240/- thereby causing a loss to the bank for Rs.36050/-

and other expenses which is proved on record. I find no

perversity in the enquiry report. More over the penalty of

stoppage of two increments was reduced by the appellate

authority to one increment in appeal filed by the workman.

Therefore, no interference is warranted in the punishment

also.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case in

hand, it is held that action of the management of Punjab &

Sind Bank in awarding the punishment of reduction to lower

stage by reducing one increment in basic pay of Sh. Swarn

Singh, Special Assistant is legal and just and the workman

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 Central

Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

23.02.2015

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 523-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vªk

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; dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 51@2014½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@19@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1317

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 523.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 51/2014) of the

Cent.Gov.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata 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 13/03/2015.

[No. L-12011/19/2014 -IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 51 of 2014

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Bank of Maharashtra

AND

Their workmen.

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

....Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

None.

Management

On behalf of the

None.

Workmen

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Banking

Dated:19th February, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/19/2014-IR(B-11) dated 23.06.2014

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

"(1) Whether the action of the management of Bank

of Maharashtra by not adopting 1:3 ratio as per MOS

doted 27.1.2011 for calling candidates to fill up the

vacancies of Special Assistant is legal and/or

justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?

(2) Whether the action of the management by

discriminating against the member of the Union

specially Shri Sanat Chattopadhyay and Sri Tamal

Chatterjee in the matter of promotion to the post of

Special Assistant and showing favoritism to a

particular union is legal and justified? What relief

the workmen are entitled to?"

2. When the case is taken up for heating today, none

appears on behalf of either of the parties. It appears from

the record that the union, at whose instance present

reference has been initiated has not turned up since

13.11.2014 inspite of service of notice.

3. From the above facts and circumstances it may be

presumed that the union is not willing to proceed with this

case. So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the

matter pending.

4. in view of the above facts and circumstances present

refer ence is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute Award".

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated: Kolkata,

The 19th February, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 524-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k 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; eqcbZ&2 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 46@2011½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@20@2011&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 524.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 46/2011) of the

Cent.Gov.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-2 Mumbai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/03/2015.

[No. L-12011/20/2011 -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-2/46 of 2011

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

1318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Assistant General Manager

Central Bank of India

Mumbai Metropolitan Zonal Office

346, Standard Building

Dr. D.N. Road

Fort

Mumbai-400 023.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN.

The General Secretary

Central Bank Karmachari Sena

Central Bank of India,

Mumbai Main Office, 2nd floor

M.G.Road,

Fort, Mumbai 400 023.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. L.L. D'Souza,

Representative.

FOR THE WORKMAN : No appearance.

Mumbai, dated the

10th February, 2015.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-12011/20/2011-IR (B-II),

dated 18.08 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 the Assistant General Manager,

Central Bank of India, Mumbai in imposing the

punishment of bringing down to one stage lower for

one year in the time scale of pay upon Shri Lallubhai

S. Solanki, Daftary (Sub-Staff) vide order No. SMR/

DAD.2009-10/1950 dated 21/10/2009 is legal, just

and proper? What relief the workman concerned is

entitlrd to?"

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. On 13/12/2011 concerned workman

remained present but requested adjournment for filing

statement of claim. Till date. neither second party union

nor workman appeared in the proceeding or filed their

statement of claim. Since nobody appeared on behalf

of the union and filed statement of claim, it seems they

are not interested in pursuing the matter further.

Without statement of claim award cannot be passed on

merits. Therefore I think it proper to dismiss the

reference for want of prosecution. Thus I pass the

following order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

No order as to cost.

Date: 10.02.2015

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 525-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ 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; eqcbZ uañ&1 ds èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 7@2014½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@70@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 525.—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.Gov.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

09/03/2015.

[No. L-20012/70/2013 -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.

Reference No. 7 of 2014

Employer in relation to the management of Lodna Area of

M/S BCCL

AND

Their workman.

Present:- Sri R.K. Saran,

Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers :

Sri Ganesh Prasad, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri R.R. Ram., Rep.

State:-Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal.

Dated: 07/01/2015

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1319

AWARD

By order No.-L-20012/70/2013 IR-(CM-I), dated. 01/01/

2014, 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 Jairampur

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Raghubir

Yadav, Ex- M/Loader from the service of the company

vide order dated 24.12.2003 is legal and justified? To

what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

16.01.2014. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the sponsoring Union files their written statement

on 27.05.2014. Thereafter the management also files written

statement-cum- rejoinder on 04.09.2014. One evidence

adduce by the workman as WW-1,

3. The point involved in the reference is that the workman

has been dismissed from his services on the ground of

absenteeism.

4. The workman examined in the case has stated , his

absence was not due to any wrong intention but due to his

ill health. The enquiry held as fair and proper.

5. 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 11 years. It is felt to give

another chance to the workman to serve.

6. 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 of two year.

Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 526-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; bZñlhñ,yñ 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;

uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@1993½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 9@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@327@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 526.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/1993) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. I,Dhanbad as sown in the Annexure in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL

and their workmen received by the Central Government on

09/03/2015.

[No. L-20012/327/1991-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. 22 of 1993.

Employer in relation to the management of Nirsa Area,

M/s. ECL,

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employer : None

For the workman : None

State

: Jharkhand

Industry:- Coal.

Dated 17/02/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/327/1991-IR (C-1), dated

05/01/1993, 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 the Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union for regularization of services of S/Shri Ajit Kumar

Mondal and 16 others by the management of New Open

Cast Project (Nirsa Colliery) of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Ltd., Nirsa Area is justified? If yes, to what relief the

concerned workmen are entitled?"

Note:-List of workmen is not enclosed with order of

reference.

2. After receipt of the reference the 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

1320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 527-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ,vj bf.M;k fyfeVsM 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;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 53@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&110012@5@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 527.—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-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. Air India Ltd. and their

workmen received by the Central Government on 09/03/2015.

[No. L-11012/5/2013-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 3rd February, 2015

Present :

K.P. Prasanna Kumari,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 53/2013

(In the matter of dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) Section 10 of

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

Management of Air India Ltd., and their workman)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner Union

Air India Employees

Progressive Union No. 1

15th Street, Balaji Nagar,

Anakaputhur

Chennai-600070

AND

The Manager

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Air India Ltd.

AUC Building,

Cantonment Pallavaram

Chennai-600043

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : M/s. S.

Gunaseelan,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

: M/s. N.G.R. Prasad,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/5/2013-IR(CM.I)

dated 03.05.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:—

"Whether the action of the management of Air India

Ltd., Chennai in not regularizing 95 casual employees

who had put in more than 20 years of service is justified

or not? To what relief the workman are entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 53/2013 and issued notice to both sides.

Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel

and have filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:—

The petitioner is a registered Trade Union affiliated to

Labour Progressive Federation. The petitioner has been

espousing the cause of workmen throughout India. The

members of the Union are working with the Respondent

from 1999 onwards as Baggage Loaders, Cargo Loaders,

Motor Vehicles Drives and Office Assistants. Most of them

have been employed through the Employment Exchange.

They are serving as Casual Labourers. They are not given

any allowances or facilities available to the permanent

workmen of the Respondent establishment. The workmen

who joined the Respondent in 1999 were working in the

Respondent establishment continuously. They were

working without any break till the date of filing of the

petition. They were employed in Flight Handling Unit for

handling of baggage and cargo. The nature of work done

by the workmen is permanent and perennial. An award may

be passed holding that the demand of regularization raised

by the workmen are justifiable and the Respondent shall

be directed to act in terms of the demands.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:—

The Petitioner Union has been recognized by the

Respondent. A notification was forwarded to the

Employment Exchange, Kanchipuram in 1999 requesting

to sponsor candidates to create a pool of casual workers

from which engagement can be made to cater to the

operational requirement of the Respondent. It was clearly

mentioned in the notification that the casual engagement

will be for a period of 110 days only on rotational basis.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1321

Once the first batch of contract workers complete their first

spell another set from the pool will be offered engagement

for a period of 110 days and the process was to continue.

Accordingly, a few casuals from the list of candidates

forwarded by the Employment Exchange were engaged

initially for a period of 110 days. When they were about to

complete their period they filed a batch of Writ Petitions

before the Hon'ble High Court praying for regularization

and obtained an interim Order on 27.09.1999 restraining the

Respondent from recruiting a new set of persons in lieu of

the Writ Petitioners so the second set of persons in the

pool could not be offered engagement on casual daily rated

basis. The engagement of the concerned workman after

27.09.1999 was pursuant to the Interim Order of the High

Court of Madras. The Air India Employees guild also got

impleaded in the Writ Petitions and requested to formulate

a scheme for engagement of Casuals, giving a certain

percentage to employee's relatives. The High Court passed

an interim order dated 24.12.1999 providing for engagement

of 101 casuals on rotation until disposal of the Writ Petitions.

Ultimately the batch of Writ Petitions were dismissed on

31.08.2000. The Writ Appeal filed by the casual labourers

has been later withdrawn. Pursuant to the policy decision

of the Respondent handling of their flights have been

entrusted to Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.

Challenging this decision the casuals filed a fresh Writ

Petition praying for permanent employment. This Writ

Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated

07.1.2007. Based on the interim order passed in the Writ

Petition a contempt petition has been filed by the casual

workers. This petition was also dismissed. Thus the demand

of the casual workers for regularization has undergone

judicial scrutiny before the High Court of Madras and

therefore it is without any merit. For this reason itself the

claim is to be rejected. There has been total freeze on

recruitment in Air India from the month of June 1997. The

concerned workmen are only in the pool of casuals. There

was no sanctioned post against which they were employed.

The Respondent is running in loss and the total

accumulated loss is in the region of Rs. 30,000/- crores.

Because of uncontrolled competition in Indian Civil

Aviation, the two State Owned Airlines had been

amalgamated as a single entity by name National Aviation

Company of India Ltd. Even after the amalgamation the

Respondent has been facing serious financial difficulties.

The casuals are engaged only on day to day basis

depending upon the requirement. The work generated is

fluctuating and depends upon the frequency of the

operations. In accordance with the policy of the Government

of India the ground handling function has been hived off

and entrusted to Air India Air Transport Services Ltd. Even

the permanent employees who were carrying out ground

handling functions have been deputed to Air India Air

Transport Services. So there will not be any necessity for

Air India to resort to casual labour engagement. The casual

workers cannot claim back door entry into regular service.

They are not entitled to be absorbed or regularized on

permanent posts. The claims is liable to be dismissed.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 to Ext.

W23 and Ext.M1 to Ext.26.

6. The points for consideration are:—

(i) Whether the Respondent is liable to regularize the

concerned casual workmen?

(ii) To what relief, if any the workmen are entitled?

The Points

7. The Petitioner Union has raised dispute on behalf of

a group of casual workmen employed by the Respondent.

The Respondent has issued notification and forwarded it

to the Employment Exchange requesting to sponsor

candidates to create a pool casual labourers. According to

the Respondent, the casual engagement was to be for a

period of 110 days only on rotation basis. Once the first set

of workers have completed the period of 110 days, the next

set in the pool was to be engaged and so on. Even before

the first set completed the period of 110 days they filed

Writ Petitions before the High Court of Madras and obtained

interim orders preventing the Respondent from engaging

the next set. It is stated that other Writ Petitions also were

filed in the matter and all these were dismissed. The stand

of the Respondent is that since the issue has already

undergone judicial scrutiny before the High Court of

Madras itself the concerned workers are not entitled to

agitate the matter before this Tribunal.

8. It could be seen that a batch of Writ Petitions including

Writ Petition No. 15915/99 was filed against inducting the

next batch of fresh casuals and an interim order dated

27.09.1999 had been obtained. On the basis of this order

the concerned workmen continued to be in the service of

the Respondent. Subsequently, Air India Employees Guild

representing the casual workers who were engaged during

the period of 1990-1998 also got impleaded in the Writ

Petition. Another interim order was passed by the High

Court providing for engagement of casuals on rotation till

the disposal of the Writ Petitions. However, the batch of

Writ Petitions have been dismissed by order dated

31.08.2000. The copy of this is marked as Ext. M22. Writ

Appeals have been filed against the dismissal. As seen

from Ex. M12 dated 14.11.2006 the Writ Appeals were

dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to adopt appropriate

proceedings, if need arises. Another Writ Petition has been

filed by the workmen purportedly praying for permanent

employment as per Writ Petition No. 13026/2006. This Writ

Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated

07.12.2007, the copy of which is marked as Ext.M15.

9. The argument that has been advanced on behalf of

the Respondent is that in view of the above decisions by

the High Court of Madras the petitioner is not entitled to

1322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

agitate the matter before this Tribunal again. The counsel

has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in SARGUJA

TRANSPORT SERVICE Vs. STAE TRANSPORT

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL reported in 1987 1 SCC 5 in this

respect. In the above decision referring to Order-XXIII,

Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code the High Court has

held that the principle underlying the rule is that when a

plaintiff once institutes a suit in a Court and thereby

avails of a remedy given to him under law he cannot be

permitted to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same

subject-matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or

by withdrawing it without the permission of the Court to

file a fresh suit. The High Court has further held that the

principle underlying Rule-1 of Order XXIII of the Code

should be extended in the interest of administration of

justice to cases of withdrawal of writ Petition also not

on the ground of res-judicate but on the ground of public

policy. The argument advanced on behalf of the

Respondent is that the Writ Appeals having been

withdrawn the petitioner is not entitled to agitate the

matter again. On going through Ext. M12 it could be

seen that the appeals filed were against the dismissal of

batch of Writ Petitions seeking to prevent the practice

of employing persons such as petitioners for 90 days

only. The Writ Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn

with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings. The

subsequent Writ Petition has been dismissed on

07.12.2007 as withdrawn as seen from Ext. M15. This

withdrawal is of course without my permission. The copy

of the Writ Petition having not been produced the exact

prayer in the Writ Petition is not know. But it could be

seen from the order in the Writ Petition that the writ was

filed praying to direct to the Respondents to dispose

the representation of the petitioners in that Writ Petition.

So it is clear that it was not a Writ Petition seeking

regularization. So the withdrawal is of no consequence

and will not affect the claim.

10. Now it is to be seen whether the workmen have got

any case on merits Admittedly, they were working as casual

labourers only. The case of the Respondent is that these

workmen were in the pool created by the Respondent and

the intention was that they will be engaged in rotation for

a period of 110 days. The order of appointment of any of

the workmen is not produced. Ext.W1 is a personal

interview letter sent by the Respondent to one of the

concerned workmen. Ext.W1 will not show whether the

engagement was to be restricted to a particular period.

However, it is clear from the evidence of WW1, the General

Secretary of the Petitioner Union that the prayer in the Writ

Appeal filed by the concerned workmen was to issue

direction to Air India not to indulge in the practice of

employing workers for 90 days and ousting them later. Thus,

it is clear that it was not a regular employment and was

only for a specified period. In fact there is no dispute for

the petitioner that the concerned workmen were engaged

only as casuals.

11. As pointed out by the counsel for the Respondent,

the concerned workmen were not employed in a sanctioned

post. They were not recruited as per the Recruitment Rules

also. The attempt of the Respondent was to create a pool

of workers to be engaged as casuals for a particular period

on rotation. There is no case for the petitioner that they

were working in sanctioned post.

12. The concerned workmen were working in the

Respondent establishment on the basis of interim order of

Madras High Court, after 27.09.1999. Their engagement

had started only after March 1999. So they have worked in

the Respondent establishment based on the order of the

Respondent only for a very limited period. Their service

under the Respondent after 27.09.1999 until the Writ

Petitions were dismissed was on the basis of the interim

orders of the High Court.

13. The counsel for the Respondent has pointed out

that in the above circumstances the concerned workmen

are not entitled to regularization in service. The counsel

has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF

KARNAKATA AND OTHERS VS. M.L. KESARI AND

OTHERS reported in 2010 9SCC 247 in which the

constitution bench decision of the Apex Court in STATE

OF KARNATAKA AND UMA DEVI has been explained. In

the Uma Devi case the Constitution Bench has held that

appointments made without following the due process of

the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right

on the appointees and the Courts cannot direct their

absorption, regularization or re-engagement nor make their

service permanent. It is also held in the above case that a

temporary, contractual, casual or daily wage employee does

not have any legal right to be made permanent unless he

has been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in

adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

However, an exception was made to this position that in

the case employees who have continued to work for 10

years or more without the intervention of the Courts or

Tribunals, the question of regularization have to be

considered on merits. The Apex Court had directed the

Union and State Governments and their instrumentalities

to take steps to regularize as a one-time measure the

services of such irregularly appointed persons who had

worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts but

not under the cover of order of Courts or Tribunals. In the

above referred case it was explained that even if an

employer has not undertaken the exercise of regularization

within 6 months of the decision in Uma Devi's case as

directed by the Constitution Bench it will not disentitle the

employees to be considered for regularization in terms of

the direction Uma Devi's case as a one-time measure.

14. It is very much clear from the dictum laid down in

Uma Devi's case and explained in the decision referred

above that the period of 10 and more years of service of the

concerned workmen should not have been with the aid of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1323

the order of any Court or Tribunal if the person is to get the

benefit of the exemption laid down in the case. In the present

case the concerned workmen were not working in any

sanctioned post. They were not recruited as per Recruitment

Rules. But for the interim orders granted by the High Court

they would not have continued to work for the Respondent

beyond a period of 110 days. So the criteria laid down in

Uma Devi's case is not met by the concerned workmen. So

they are not entitled to regularization as claimed by them.

They are not entitled to any relief.

15. In view of my discussion above, the reference is

answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri P Raja

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri S. Iyyaswami

Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

25.03.1999 Personal interview letter sent by

the Respondent

Ex. W2

15.06.1999 Verification of character and

antecedents sent by the District

Collector, Kancheepuram to

Respondent

Ex. W3

19.02.2007 Circular of the Respondent

Ex. W4

28.02.2008 Representation sent by the

Petitoner's Union

Ex. W5

25.07.2008 Representation

the

Respondent

Ex. W6

25.09.2008 Representation

the

regularization

Ex. W7

08.10.2008 Representation

the

Respondent

Ex. W8

13.10.2008 Letter from Respondent to

Assistant Labour Commissioner

(C), Chennai

Ex. W9

14.10.2011 Industrial Disputes raised before

the Central Commissioner of

Labour, Chennai

Ex. W10

01.12.2011 Letter from Ministry of Labour

and Employment, Chennai

Ex. W11

01.02.2012 Letter from Respondent to

Assistant Labour Commissioner

(C)

Ex. W12

30.08.2012 Letter from Petitioner's Union to

Mr. Siva, President of Public

Sector

Ex. W13

15.10.2012 Letter from Conciliation Officer to

Petitioner's Union

Ex. W14

22.10.2012 Letter from Provident Fund

Organization

Ex. W15

06.02.2013 Strike notice from Petitioner's

Union to Respondent

Ex. W16

11.02.2013 Letter from Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner, Chennai

Ex. W17

03.05.2013 Order

Ex. W18

From 1999 Bank Statement regarding salary

received from Management

27.10.2014

Ex. W19

30.10.2011 Air India Winter Schedule EFF

Ex. W20

List of 72 permanent employees

Ex. W21

Air India, Chennai Ramp

Assistance Allocation

Ex. W22

2008-2014

Salary slip list and vouchers

Ex. W23

Air India Union Members list

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

23.05.1988 Award in ID No. 37 of 1987 -

Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey

Ex. M2

07.04.1989 Order in OP No. 8218 of 1988

Ex. M3

05.07.1990 Order in WA No. 534 of 1980

Ex. M4

09.07.1997 Interim Order in WMP No. 16149/

1997 in WP No. 10123/1997. High

Court of Judicature at Madras

Ex. M5

19.11.1997 Order in WMP No. 16149/1997 in

WP No. 10123/1997-High Court

of Judicature at Madras

Ex. M6

27.09.1999 Order in WPMP No. 23004/1999

in WP No. 15916/1999

Ex. M7

24.11.1999 Order in WPMP No. 23004/1999

in WP No. 15916/1999

Ex. M8

09.12.1999 Memorandum

Interim

Agreement entered into between

Air India and Air India

Employee's Guild

1324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. M9

13.10.2000 Memorandum

Interim

Agreement entered into between

Air India and Air India

Employee's Guild

Ex. M10

31.01.2003 Order in WP No. 10123/199 in

WMP No. 16149/1997 -High Court

of Judicature at Madras.

Ex. M11

28.04.2006 Order in WPMP No. 14617/2006

in WP No. 13026/2006

Ex. M12

14.11.2006 Order in WA No. 600 of 2001 and

batch cases

Ex. M13

22.03.2007 Award in ID No. 343/2014 - CGIT-

cum-Labour Court, Chennai

Ex. M14

10.07.2007 Order in WA No. 399 of 2001 and

batch cases

Ex. M15

07.12.2007 Order in WP No. 13026 of 2006

Ex. M16

04.12.2008 Award in ID No. 69/2006-CGIT-

cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam

Ex. M17

24.06.2010 Order in WP No. 27944 to 2006

Ex. M18

14.09.2013 E-mail from Regional Manager,

Ground Handling, together with

the Trailing Mails from Emirates

Airlines,

Ex. M19

18.02.2014 Order in SLP (Civil) No. 24630-

24672 of 2007

Ex. M20

04.02.2014 Scheme

framed

the

Respondent

Ex. M21

23.06.1997 Office Memorandum of Ministry

of Civil Aviation

Ex. M22

31.08.2000 Order in WP 15915 of 2000 and

batch

Ex. M23

19.11.2007 Order in Cont. P. No. 959 of 2006

Ex. M24

07.12.2007 Order in WP No. 13026 of 2006

Ex. M25

08.05.2013 General Manager letter to the

Executive Director

Ex. M26

06.01.2014 General Manager letter to the

Executive Director

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 528-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; 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 dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@1993½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@352@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/1993) 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 09/03/2015.

[No. L-20012/352/1991-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. 16 of 1993

Employer in relation to the management of Chapapur-II

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 workmen : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated 16/2/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/352/1991-IR (C-I), dated

05/01/1993, 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 the Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union for regularization of S/Shri Ganesh Kumar

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1325

Bishwakarma and 12 orthers by the management of

Chapapur-II Colliery of M/s. E.C. Ltd. Nirsa Area is

justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen

are entitled?:

Note:-List of workmen is not enclosed with order of

reference.

2. After receipt of the reference the 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] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 529-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; 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 dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 35@1993½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@329@1991&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh&1½]

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/1993) 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 09/03/2015.

[No. L-20012/329/1991-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. 35 of 1993

Employer in relation to the management of Badjana

Colliery, M/s. ECL,

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman

: None

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated : 17/2/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/329/1991-IR (C-I), dated 04/01/

1993, 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 of adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union for regularization of S/Shri Nagen Bhandari and 7

others as clay cartridge Maker and payment as per

category-1 Mazdoor is justified? If yes, to what relief

the concerned workmen are entitled?"

Note:- List of workmen is not enclosed with order of

reference.

2. After receipt of the reference the 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] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 530-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; 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 dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 34@1993½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@380@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/1993) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

1326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the management of M/s. ECL and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 09/03/2015.

[No. L-20012/380/1991-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. 34 of 1993

Employer in relation to the management of Kapasara

Colliery, M/s. ECL,

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman

: None

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 16.2.2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/380/1991-IR(C-I), dated 04/01/1993,

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 (ZA) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union for regularization of Shri Balram Lohar and 26

others as Blacksmith by the management of Kapasara

Colliery, Kapasara Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

is justified? If Yes, to what relief the concerned workmen

are entitled?"

Note:—List of workmen is not enclosed with order of

reference.

2. After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed,

though they took steps for certain date, subsequently did

not appears not 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] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 531-—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/kr= 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; Ukañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼123@1992½

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y & 20012@288@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I)]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March 2015

S.O. 531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 123/1992) 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 09/03/2015.

[No. L-20012/288/1991 - IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD

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

1947

Ref. No. 123 of 1992

Employer in relation to the management of Moonidih

Project, 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 5.1.2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/288/1991-IR(IC-I), dated 18/09/

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 14] 2015@iQkYxqu 23] 1936

1327

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Moonidih

Project of M/s. BCCL, P.O.—Moonidih, Distt-Dhanbad in

not regularizing Shri Paresh Chandra Bauri in clerical

Grade-3 w.e.f. 1.9.87 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 by the workman,

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 Oficer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 532-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh,eihMhvkbZ,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;] Uka- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

107@1992½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-03-

2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y & 20012@201@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I)]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 107/92) 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. CMPDIL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

09/03/2015.

[No. L-20012/201/1992 - IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD

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

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 107 of 1992

Employer in relation to the management of CMPDIL,

Ranchi

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri B.K. Sinha, Manager (P)/Admin

For the workman : None

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated 8.1.2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/301/1992-IR(C-I), dated 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 M/s. Central

Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. Ranchi is justified

in terminating the service of workman Shri Mumtaz Alam

w.e.f. 1.1.86. If not what relief the workman is entitled

and from what date?"

2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed,

though they took steps for certain dates by the workman,

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 Oficer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 533-—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;] Ukañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 188@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[lañ ,y & 20012@64@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I)]

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2015

S.O. 533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

1328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 14, 2015/PHALGUNA 23, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 188/2000) 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 09/03/2015.

[No.-L-20012/64/2000 - IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

1947

Ref. No. 188 of 2000

Employer 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 S. N. Ghosh, Advocate

For the workman

: Sri C. Prasad, Advoacte

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated 5.1.2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/64/2000-IR(C-I), dated 29/07/2000,

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 refusal of the management to regularize

Sri Pakir Chand Mahto as Loading Clerk is proper and

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and

from what date."

2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed,

though they took steps for certain dates. But after that the

Sponsoring Union is not taking any interest in the case. Ld

counsel for the workman is also submits that the workman

is not taking any interest. 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

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi.110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi.110054.