1333 GI/2015
(1487)
fons'k ea=ky;
¼lhihoh izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 630.—jktuf;d vkSj dkalyh; vkWfQlj ¼'kiFk vkSj
Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½
ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Jh ghjk euh] fuEu Js.kh fyfid]
vkSj Jh egs'k panj] fuEu Js.kh fyfid] dks 31 ekpZ] 2015 ls Hkkjr
ds dksalqykokl] tsn~nkg] esa lgk;d dksalqyj vf/kdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk
ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kÑr djrh gSA
[la- Vh- 4330@1@2015]
izdk'k pan] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 31st March, 2015
S.O. 630.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby authorize Shri Hira Mani, LDC and Shri Mahesh
Chander LDC, in Consulate General of India, Jeddah to
perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect
from 31st March, 2015
[No. T. 4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 14]
ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 29—vizSy 04] 2015] 'kfuokj@pS=k 08—pS=k 14] 1937
No.14]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 29—APRIL 04, 2015, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 08—CHAITRA 14, 1937
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
1488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 631.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal
Lohd`fr djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkkek la-@Hkkx@[k.M@o"kZ
la[;k
la[;k
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
1
2
3
4
5
6
1-
2894279
04@07@2014
U;w ,t Qk;j izksVsD'ku b.MLVªht izk-fy-]
,DlIyksflo ,VeWfLQvlZ&Hkkx&1
Hkk-ek@vk;bZlh 60079% Hkkx&1 2007
losZ la- 5 ,oa 6] rdkbZ vnks'kh jksM]
QyseizwQ
foyst gksun] rkyqdk [kkykiqj
buDykstj ^Mh* }kjk miLdj laj{kk
jk;x<+] egkjk"Vª&410 203
2-
2898186
08@07@2014
>suhFk esVkIykLV izk-fy-]
flapkbZ miLdj&mRltZd
Hkk ek 13487 % 1992
bZ&18] ,evk;Mhlh] ekysxkWo
flUuj] ftyk% ukfld&422103
3-
2898085
10@07@2014
fdlku eksfYMax fy-]
n`< ukWu&esVkyhd ufydkvksa ds fy,
Hkk ek 3419 1988
losZ la- 63@1] 64@1] 70] 71] 72]
fQfVaXl
egkxkWo] cksblj iwoZ
iky?kj] ftyk% Fkkus&401506
4-
2898287
10@07@2014
dksuk bysDVªhdy lksY;w'kUl]
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkk- ek- 3854 % 1997
xkyk la- 10]11]12 ,oa 13
fLop
xka/kh b.M- bZLVsV] lQsn iwy
va/ksjh iwoZ] eqcabZ&400093
5-
2898388
15@07@2014
LdksMk dscYl]
1100 oksYV rd dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds
Hkk- ek- 1554 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 1988
xkyk la- 9 ,oa 19] eqdkne daikm.M
fy, ih oh lh jksf/kr ¼Hkkjh M~;wVh½
¼fiaiydj daikm.M½] fQYelhVh jksM]
fo|qr dscy
xkseqy/kke] ekykM iwoZ]
eqcabZ&400097
6-
2898489
16@07@2014
Jh d`".kkJs; ba- izk-fy-]
bysDVªkWfud Vkbi ia[kk jsxqysVj
Hkk- ek- 11037 % 1984
IykWV la- 8] losZ la- 200@1]Mh ¼8½ ,oa
IykWV la- 9] losZ la- 200@1&bZ] ¼9½]
ikapky m|ksx uxj] Hkheiksj]
ukuh neu&396201
7-
2899693
22@07@2014
xksesd bysDVªhdy izk-fy-]
fo|qr iz;kstuksa ds fy, nkc lqxzkgh
Hkk- ek- 7809 ¼Hkkx 3½%
fcfYMax la- , 17] xkyk la- 2
vklatu'khy fo|qrjks/kh Vsi&Hkkx 3%
[kaM 1% 1986
fizrs'k dkWEIysDl] vksoyh foyst
vyx vyx lkefxz;ksa dh vis{kk,a
nkiksMs jksM] fHkoaMh
[kaM 1% v rkiekih vklatu'khy okys
ftyk Fkk.ks&421308
lq?kFV;r ikSyhfoukbyDyksjkbM Vsi
8-
2900854
22@07@2014
fdeIykl ikbZfiax flLVe fy-]
flapkbZ midj.k gkbZMªkslkbDykWu fQYVj] Hkk- ek- 14743 % 1999
ch 20 ,evk;Mhlh
50 feeh O;kl
vackM] ukfld&422010
egkjk"Vª
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1489
9-
2901856
22@07@2014
HkSjo b.MLVªht]
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkk- ek- 3854 % 1997
IykWV la- 24@ch] xksYMu b.M-] bLVsV
fLop
lkseukFk jksM] nkcsy] neu
neu ,oa nho &396210
10-
2901351
23@07@2014
ikWyhdWc ok;j izk- fy-]
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkk- ek- 398 Hkkx 1 % 1996
78 72] flyoj b.M- bLVsV]
,Y;wfefu;e pkyd&Hkkx&1]
Hkheiksj] neu] ftyk neu &396210
,Y;wfefu;e yMnkj pkyd
11-
2901452
24@07@2014
ikWyhdWc ok;j izk- fy-]
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkk- ek- 398 Hkkx 2 % 1996
78 72] flyoj b.M- bLVsV]
,Y;wfefu;e pkyd&Hkkx&2]
Hkheiksj] neu] ftyk neu&396210
,Y;qfefu;e pkyd] tLrhd`r bLikr
izcfyr
12-
2899996
24@07@2014
fdlku eksfYMax fyfeVsM]
flapkbZ miLdj&mRltZu ikbZi iz.kkyh
Hkk- ek- 13488 % 2008
losZ la- 70] 71] 72] 63@1] 64@1
foyst egkxkWo] cksbZlj iwoZ]
iky?kj] ftyk Fkkus&401506
13-
2900046
24@07@2014
fdlku eksfYMax fyfeVsM]
¯lpkbZ miLdj&¯lpkbZ ySVjyksa gsrq
Hkk- ek- 12788 % 1989
losZ la- 70] 71] 72] 63@1] 64@1
ikWyhfFkyhu ikbZi
foyst egkxkao] cksbZlj iwoZ]
iky?kj] ftyk Fkkus &401506
14-
2901957
24@07@2014
vyikbu bysDVªhdy eSU;wQSDpfjax]
,DlIyksflo ,sVekWfLQvlZ&Hkkx&1
Hkk-ek@vk;bZlh 60079%Hkkx&1 2007
da- izk- fy-
QyseizwQ buDykstV ^Mh* }kjk
Jh x.ks'k b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
miLdj laj{kk
IykWV la] 360@6] vkSj 362@6] dkphxke]
ukuh neu] neu ,oa nho&396210
15-
2900147
25@07@2014
nkrkj ukWuosj busjtsfVfud fy-]
fctyh midj.k ?kjsyw vkSj leku
Hkk-ek-@vk;bZlh 60898%Hkkx&1 2002
bZ 56] ry eafty] ,evk;Mhlh]
laLFkkiuksa ds fy, vfr /kkjk laj{kk ds fy,
vackM ukfld
lfdZV czsdj Hkkx 1&] lh izpkyu ds
egkjk"Vª &422010
fy, lfdZV czsdj
16-
2900652
25@07@2014
iqufe;k ,fDte izk-fy-]
IykfLVd izHkj.k cksrys
Hkk-ek- 14625 % 1999
xkyk la- 108@109@110]
Jh Hkrsok b.M- bLVsV] HkksbZMkikMk]
jkthofy jksM] lkrhoyh]
olbZ&iwoZ] ftyk Bk.ks&401208
[la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]
Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 631.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies of grant of licences particulars of which are given in the
following schedule:
1
2
3
4
5
6
1490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence No. Grant Date
Name and address (factory) of the party
Product
IS No/Part/Sec. Year
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
2894279
04/07/2014
New Age fire protection industries
Explosive atmospheres part I
IS/IEC 60079:
Pvt.Ltd.,
equipment protection by
Part 1:2007
Survey No. 5 & 6, Takai Adoshi Road,
flameproof enclosures "d"
Village: Honad, Tal: Khalapur
Distt: Raigarh
Maharashtra-410203
2.
2898186
08/07/2014
Zenith Metaplast Pvt. Ltd.,
Irrigation equipment-emitters
IS 13487 : 1992
E-18, MIDC, Malegaon
Nashik Sinnar
Maharashtra-422103
3.
2898085
10/07/2014
Kisan Mouldings Limited,
Fittings for rigid non-metallic
IS 3419 : 1988
Survey No. 63/1, 64/1, 70, 71, 72,
conduits
Village Mahagaon, Boisar (E)
Palghar
Distt: Thane-401506
4.
2898287
10/07/2014
Cona Electrical Solutions,
Switches for domestic and similar
IS 3854 : 1997
Gala No. 10,11,12 & 13,
purposes
Gandhi Indl. Estate,
Safed Pool, Andheri (E)
Mumbai-400093
5.
2898388
15/07/2014
Skoda Cables,
PVC insulated (heavy duty)
IS 1554 :
Gala No. 9 & 19, New Mukadam
electric Cables: Part 1 for
Part 1 : 1988
Compound, (Pimpalkar Compound),
working voltages upto and
Filmcity Road, Gokuldham,
including 1100 V
Malad (E) Mumbai-400097
6.
2898489
16/07/2014
Shri Krishnashray (I) Pvt Ltd,
Electronic type fan regulators
IS 11037 : 1984
Plot No. 8, Survey No. 200/1-D (8) &
Plot No. 9, Survey No. 200/1-E(9),
Panchal Udyog Nagar, Bhimpore
Nani Daman-396201
7.
2899693
22/07/2014
Gomec Electrical Pvt. Ltd.,
Pressure sensitive adhesive
IS 7809 : Part 3 :
Bldg. No. A-17, Gala No. 2, Pritesh
insulating tapes for electrical
Sec 1: 1986
Complex, Owli Village, Dapode Road
purposes-part 3: requirements
Thane Bhiwandi
for individual materials-section 1 :
Maharashtra-421308
plasticized polyvinylchloride
tapes with non-thermosetting
adhesive
8.
2900854
22/07/2014
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited,
Irrigation equipment-hydrocylone
IS 14743 : 1999
B-20, MIDC Ambad,
filters
Nashik-422010, Maharashtra
9.
2901856
22/07/2014
Bhairav Industries,
Switches for domestic and similar
IS 3854 : 1997
Plot No. 24/B, Golden Indl. Estate,
purposes
Somnath Road, Dabel Daman
Daman & Diu-396210
10.
2901351
23/07/2014
Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd.,
Aluminium conductors for
IS 398 : Part 1 : 1996
78-82, Silver Indl. Estate,
overhead transmission purposes:
Bhimpore Daman
Part 1 aluminium stranded
Daman & Diu-396210
conductor
11.
2901452
24/07/2014
Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd.,
Aluminium conductors for
IS 398 : Part 2 : 1996
78-82, Silver Indl. Estate,
overhead transmission purposes:
Bhimpore Daman
part 2 aluminium conductors,
Daman & Diu-396210
galvanized steel reinforced
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1491
12.
2899996
24/07/2014
Kisan Mouldings Limited
Emitting pipes system
IS 13488 : 2008
Survey No. 70,71,72, 63/1, 64/1,
Village Mahagaon,
Distt. Thane Boisar
Maharashtra-400072
13.
2900046
24/07/2014
Kisan Mouldings Limited
Irrigation equipment-polyethylene IS 12786 : 1989
Survey No. 70,71,72, 63/1, 64/1,
pipes for irrigation laterals
Village Mahagaon,
Distt. Thane Boisar
Maharashtra-400072
14.
2901957
24/07/2014
Alpine Electrical Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Explosive Atmospheres-Part 1:
IS/IEC 60079:
Shree Ganesh Industrial Estate, Plot
Equipment Protection by
Part 1: 2007
No. 360/6 & 362/6, Kachigam
Flameproof Enclosures "d"
Daman
Daman & Diu
15.
2900147
25/07/2014
Datar Nouveau Energietechnik Limited
Electrical accessories-circuit
IS/IEC 60898:
E-56, MIDC Nasik, Ambad
breakers for over current
Part 1: 2002
Maharashtra-422010
protection for household and
similar installations part 1-circuit
breakers for ac operation
16.
2900652
25/07/2014
Punamiya Exim Pvt.Ltd.
Plastics feeding bottles
IS 14625 : 1999
Gala No. 108/109/110, Shree Bhateva
Industrial, Bhoidapada, Rajivali Road,
Sativali Distt-Thane
Vasai Maharashtra-401208
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 632.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os jn~n dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk
jn~n djus dh frfFk
la[;k
la[;k
'kh"kZd
dqN ugha
[la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13]
Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e ;w ch vks&bZbZbZ½
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 632.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations,
1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following
schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Name and address of the
Article/process with relevant
Date of
No.
No.
licensee
Indian standard covered by the
cancellation
Licence
NIL
1
2
3
4
5
6
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
1492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;
¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 633.—tcfd Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½
v/;kns'k] 2013 dh /kkjk 3d dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku
ifj"kn dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k%
vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn vf/kfu;e]
1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds
vuqlj.k esa vkSj lacaf/kr fo'ofo|ky;ksa@LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;ksa
}kjk ;Fkklwfpr] fuEufyf[kr O;fDr dks bl vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus
dh frfFk ls pkj o"kks± ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ds lnL; ds
:i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gSA
vr% vc] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds mica/k ds
vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds rRdkyhu LokLF;
ea=ky; dh fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ
138 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku fd, tkrs gSa] vFkkZr~%&
Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky; dh fnukad
06 uoacj] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk lañ dk-vk- 3323¼v½ vkSj mlds
la'kksèu esa vafre izfof"V rFkk rRlaca/kh izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks
tksM+k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
Øñ
jkT; ljdkj dk uke
fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k
lañ
1-
vka/kz izns'k
MkW- uanfd'kksj nqDdhifr] izca/k
funs'kd] ykbZo ykbQ vLirky]
fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns'k
[la- oh- 11013@2@2014&,ebZih&I]
vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.kh% fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dk-vk- 138 ds rgr
Hkkjr ds jkti= esa eq[; vf/klwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh;
vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½] }hÙkh; v/;kns'k] 2013 ¼2013 dk
11½ ds rgr vafre ckj la'kksf/kr fd;k x;k FkkA
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 633.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the
Medical Council of India was reconstituted in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of
the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
And Whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and in consultation
with the respective State Governments have nominated
the following to be a member of the Medical Council of
India for four years with effect from the date of issue of this
notification.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-
section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby makes the following amendment in the
Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry
of Health Number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960,
namely:
In the notification of the Government of India in the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number S.O. 3323(E)
dated the 06th November, 2013, after the last entry and
entry relating thereto, the following shall be inserted,
namely:
S.
Name of the State
Details of the Nominated
No.
Government
Member
1.
Andhra Pradesh
Dr. Nandakishore Dukkipati,
Managing Director, Live Life
Hospitals, Vijayawada, Andhra
Pradesh
[No. V. 11013/2/2014-MEP-I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note: The principal notification was publish in the
Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January,
1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council
(Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 634.—tcfd Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½
v/;kns'k] 2013 dh /kkjk 3d dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku
ifj"kn dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k ;
vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn vf/kfu;e]
1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds
vuqlj.k esa vkSj lacaf/kr fo'ofo|ky;ksa@LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;ksa
}kjk ;Fkk lwfpr] fuEufyf[kr O;fDr dks bl vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus
dh frfFk ls pkj o"kks± ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ds lnL; ds
:i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gSA
vr% vc mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds mica/k
ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds rRdkyhu LokLF;
ea=ky; dh fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ
138 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku fd, tkrs gSa] vFkkZr~%&
Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky; dh fnukad 06
uoacj] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 3325¼v½ vkSj mlds la'kksèu
esa vafre izfof"V rFkk rRlaca/kh izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks tksM+k tk,xk]
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1493
vFkkZr~%&
Ø-
jkT; ljdkj dk uke
fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k
pquko dk rjhdk
la-
44-
fgekpy izns'k
VkaMk] fgekpy izns'k esa
U;k;ky; }kjk
fo'ofo|ky;
MkW- vfuy pkSgku] izkpk;Z]
,der ls
MkW- vkj-ih- ljdkjh esfMdy fuokZfpr
dkWyst] dkaxM+k
[la- oh- 11013@1@2013&,ebZih&I]
vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.kh% fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dk-vk- 138 ds rgr
Hkkjr ds jkti= esa eq[; vf/klwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh;
vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½] }foÙkh; v/;kns'k] 2013 ¼2013 dk
11½ ds rgr vafre ckj la'kksf/kr fd;k x;k FkkA
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 634.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the
Medical Council of India was reconstituted in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of
the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
And Whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and as informed by
the respective Universities/health science Universities,
have elected the following to be a member of the Medical
Council of India for four years with effect from the date of
issue of this notification.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-
section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby makes the following amendment in the
Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry
of Health Number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960,
namely:
In the notification of the Government of India in the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number S.O. 3325(E)
dated the 06th November, 2013, and amendment thereto,
after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following
shall be inserted, namely:
S.
Name of the
Details of the Elected
Mode of
No. University
Member
Election
44.
Himachal Pradesh Dr. Anil Chauhan,
Elected
University
Principal, Dr. R.P.
Unanimously
Govt. Medical College,
by Court
Kangra at Tanda,
Himachal Pradesh.
[No. V. 11013/1/2013-MEP-I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note: The principal notification was publish in the
Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January,
1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council
(Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 635.—tcfd Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½
v/;kns'k] 2013 dh /kkjk 3d dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku
ifj"kn dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k ;
tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh
/kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½¼d½ ds izko/kku ds vuqlj.k esa MkW- vlhe
fct; flag dks Hkkjr ds jkti= dh 05-11-2013 dh vf/klwpuk }kjk
ef.kiqj ljdkj dk izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku
ifj"kn ds lnL; ds :i esa pquk x;k Fkk%
Ø-
jkT; dk uke
fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k
la-
15-
ef.kiqj
MkW- vlhe fct; flag] funs'kd]
fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok,a] ef.kiqj
tcfd ef.kiqj ljdkj us lwfpr fd;k gS fd MkWñ vlhe fct;
flag dks vkbZ,elh vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 3¼1½¼d½ ds varxZr
ef.kiqj jkT; dk izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, ,elhvkbZ ds lnL; ds
:i esa ukfer fd;k x;k FkkA ef.kiqj ljdkj us vc MkWñ vksdjke
bZcksepk flag dks jkT; ds izfrfuf/k ds :i esa ukfer fd;k gS D;ksafd
MkWñ vlhe fct; flag fpfdRlk f'k{kk] ef.kiqj ljdkj esa funs'kd ds
in ls lsok&fuo`Ùk gks x, gSaA blfy,] vkbZ,elh vf/kfu;e] 1956
dh /kkjk 3¼1½¼d½ ds varxZr MkWñ vlhe fct; flag dh ef.kiqj
ljdkj izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn dh
lnL;rk lekIr gks xbZ gSA
blfy,] vc mDr vkbZ,elh vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 7 dh
mi&/kkjk 3 ds izko/kku ds vuqlj.k esa MkWñ vlhe fct; flag ef.kiqj
ljdkj ds fpfdRlk ladk; ugha gSa vkSj ef.kiqj ljdkj ds izfrfuf/kRo
ds :i esa mudh Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn dh lnL;rk dks 25-03-
2015 ls lekIr ekuk tk,A
[lañ ohñ 11013@1@2013&,ebZih&I]
vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.kh% fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dk-vk- 138 ds rgr
Hkkjr ds jkti= esa eq[; vf/klwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh;
vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½] }foÙkh; v/;kns'k] 2013 ¼2013 dk
11½ ds rgr vafre ckj la'kksf/kr fd;k x;k FkkA
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O, 635.—Whereas on 06 November, 2013, the Medical
Council of India was reconstituted in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian
Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
1494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section
(1)(a) of section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
(102 of 1956) Dr. Asem Bijoy Singh, was elected as member
of the Medical Council of India representing Government
of Manipur vide notification dated 05.11.2013 in Gazette of
India:
S.
Name of the State
Details of the Elected Member
No.
15.
Manipur
Dr. Asem Bijoy Singh, Director
of Medical & Health Services,
Manipur.
Whereas the Government of Manipur has informed
Dr. Asem Bijoy Singh was nominated as Member of MCI as
State representative u/s. 3(1)(a) of IMC, Act, 1956 for the
State of Manipur. Govt. of Manipur has now nominated
Dr. Okram Ibomcha Singh as State representative as
Dr. Asem Bijoy Singh was retired from service as Director
of Medical Education, Government of Manipur. Therefore,
Dr. Asem Bijoy Singh has ceased to be a member of Medical
Council of India representing Government of Manipur
under section 3(1)(a) of IMC Act, 1956.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of
sub-section 3 of Section 7 of the IMC 1956, Dr. Asem Bijoy
Singh is not medical faculty of the Government of Manipur
and shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the
Medical Council of India representing Government of
Manipur with immediate effect from 25.03.2015.
[No. V. 11013/01/2013-MEP-I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note: The principal notification was published in
the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th
January, 1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical
Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 636.—tcfd Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½
v/;kns'k] 2013 dh /kkjk 3d dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku
ifj"kn dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k;
tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e] vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956
dk 102½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½¼d½ ds izko/kku ds vuqlj.k
esa MkWñ iqêk Jhfuokl dks Hkkjr ds jkti= dh 05-11-2013 dh vfèlwpuk
}kjk vka/kz izns'k ljdkj dk izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku
ifj"kn ds lnL; ds :i esa pquk x;k Fkk%
Ø-
jkT; dk uke
fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k
la-
1-
vka/kz izns'k
MkWñ iqêk Jhfuokl] izksQslj] Mhoh,y]
izkpk;Z izHkkjh] vkslekfu;k esfMdy
dkWyst] gSnjkckn
tcfd vka/kz izns'k ljdkj us lwfpr fd;k gS fd MkWñ iqêk Jhfuokl
dks vkbZ,elh vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 3¼1½¼d½ ds varxZr
vfoHkkftr vka/kz izns'k jkT; dk izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, ,elhvkbZ
ds lnL; ds :i esa ukfer fd;k x;k FkkA vka/kz izns'k ljdkj us vc
MkWñ uanfd'kksj nqfDdifr dks jkT; ds izfrfuf/k ds :i esa ukfer fd;k
gS D;ksafd MkWñ iqêk Jhfuokl fpfdRlk f'k{kk] rsyaxkuk] gSnjkckn ds
in ij dk;Z dj jgs gSaA blfy,] vkbZ,elh vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh
/kkjk 3¼1½¼d½ ds varxZr MkWñ iqêk Jhfuokl dh vka/kz izns'k ljdkj
dk izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn dh lnL;rk
lekIr gks xbZ gSA
blfy,] vc mDr vkbZ,elh vf/kfu;e] 1956 izko/kkuksa ds
vuqlj.k esa MkWñ iqêk Jhfuokl vka/kz izns'k ljdkj ds fpfdRlk ladk;
ugha gSa vkSj vka/kz izns'k ljdkj ds izfrfuf/kRo ds :i esa mudh Hkkjrh;
vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn dh lnL;rk dks 25-03-2015 ls lekIr ekuk tk,A
[lañ ohñ 11013@02@2014&,ebZih&I]
vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.kh% fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dk-vk- 138 ds rgr
Hkkjr ds jkti= esa eq[; vf/klwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh;
vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½] }foÙkh; v/;kns'k] 2013 ¼2013 dk
11½ ds rgr vafre ckj la'kksf/kr fd;k x;k FkkA
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 636.—Whereas on 06 November, 2013, the Medical
Council of India was reconstituted in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian
Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section
(1)(a) of section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
(102 of 1956) Dr. Putta Srinivas, was elected as member of
the Medical Council of India representing Government of
Andhra Pradesh vide notification dated 05.11.2013 in
Gazette of India:
S.
Name of the State
Details of the Elected Member
No.
1.
Andhra Pradesh
Dr. Putta Srinivas, Professor of
DVL, Principal I/c, Osmania
Medical College, Hyderabad
Whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh has
informed Dr. Putta Srinivas was nominated as Member of
MCI as State representative u/s 3(1)(a) of IMC, Act, 1956
for the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh has now nominated Dr. Nandakishore Dukkipati
as State representative as Dr. Putta Srinivas is serving as
Director of Medical Education, Government of Telangana,
Hyderabad. Therefore, Dr. Putta Srinivas has ceased to be
a member of Medical Council of India representing
Government of Andhra Pradesh under section 3(1)(a) of
IMC Act, 1956.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1495
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-
section 3 of section 7 of the IMC 1956, Dr. Putta Srinivas is
not medical faculty of the Government of Andhra Pradesh
and shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the
Medical Council of India representing Government of
Andhra Pradesh with immediate effect from 25.03.2015.
[No. V. 11013/02/2014-MEP-I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note: The principal notification was published in
the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th
January, 1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical
Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 637.—tcfd Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKkku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½
v/;kns'k] 2013 dh /kkjk 3d dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;kas
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku
ifj"kn dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k%
tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh
/kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ¼[k½ ds izko/kku ds vuqlj.k esa MkWñ Mhñ dsñ
xqIrk dks 06-11-2013 ls fdax tktZ esfMdy ;wfuoflZVh] y[kuÅ dk
izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKkku ifj"kn ds lnL; ds
:i esa pquk x;kA
tcfd fdax tktZ esfMdy ;wfuofLkZVh] y[kuÅ us lwfpr fd;k gS fd
MkW Mh- ds- xqIrk] tks vkbZ,elh vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 3¼1½ ¼[k½
ds varxZr fdax tktZ esfMdy ;wfuoflZVh] y[kuÅ dk
izfrfuf/kRo dj jgs gSa] 10 vizSy] 2014 ls fdax tktZ esfMdy ;wfuoflZVh
esa fdlh Hkh gSfl;r ls dk;Z ugh dj jgs gSAA blfy,] vkbZ,elh vfèfu;e]
1956 dh /kkjk 3¼1½¼[k½ ds varxZr MkWñ Mhñdsñ xqIrk dh fadax tktZ
esfMdy ;wfuoflZVh] y[kuÅ dh lnL;rk lekIr gks xbZ gSA
blfy,] vc mDr vkbZ,elh vf/kfu;e] 1956 ds izko/kkuksa ds
vuqlj.k esa MkWñ Mhñ dsñ xqIrk dh fdax tktZ esfMdy ;wfuoflZVh]
y[kuÅ ds izfrfuf/kRo ds :i esa Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn dh
lnL;rk dks 20-03-2015 ls lekIr ekuk tk,A
[la- oh- 11013@1@2013&,ebZih&I]
vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.kh% fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dk-vk- 138 ds rgr
Hkkjr ds jkti= esa eq[; vf/klwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh;
vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn] ¼la'kks/ku½] n~forh; v/;kns'k] 2013 ¼2013
dk 11½ ds rgr vafre ckj la'kksf/kr fd;k x;k FkkA
New Delhi, the 20th March, 2015
S.O. 637.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the
Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of
the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section
(1)(b) of section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956 (102 of
1956) Dr. D.K. Gupta was elected as a member of the Medical
Council of India representing King George's Medical
University, Lucknow with effect from 06.11.2013;
Whereas the King George's Medical University,
Lucknow has informed that Dr. D.K. Gupta who is
representing King George's Medical University. Lucknow
under section 3(1)(b) of IMC Act, 1956 is not serving King
George's Medical University in any capacity w.e.f. April 10,
2014. Therefore, Dr. D.K. Gupta has ceased to be a member
of Medical Council of India representing King George's
Medical University, Lucknow under section 3(1)(b) of IMC
Act, 1956.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of IMC
Act, 1956, Dr. D.K. Gupta shall be deemed to have ceased
to be a member of the Medical Council of India representing
King George's Medical University, Lucknow with effect
from 20.03.2015.
[No. V-11013/1/2013-MEP-I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note: The Principal notification was publish in the
Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January,
1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council
(Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).
d`f"k ea=ky;
(d`f"k vuqla/kku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 638.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] d`f"k ea=ky;] d`f"k vuqla/kku
,oa f'k{kk foHkkx] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½
fu;ekoyh 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] d`f"k
iz.kkyh vuqla/kku ifj;kstuk funs'kky;] Hkk-d`-v-i-] eksnhiqje] esjB]
mÙkj izns'k dks ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk
dk;Zlkèd Kkku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rnn~okj vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 13&10@2009&fganh@42]
e/kqckyk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 638.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union)
Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of
Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research &
Education hereby notifies the Project Directorate for
1496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Farming System Research Modipuram, Meerut, ICAR,
(U.P.) where more than 80% of staff have acquired the
working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 13-10/2009-Hindi/42]
MADHU BALA, Under Secy.
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 639.—jktho xka/kh isVªksfy;e izkSn~;ksfxdh laLFkku
¼vkjthvkbZihVh½ vf/kfu;e] 2007 ds fu;e] 5 ¼1½ ds rgr iznRr
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn}kjk fuEufyf[kr
O;fDr;ksa dks vkjthvkbZihVh ds iquxZfBr vf/k'kklh eaMy esa muds
uke ds lkeus mfYYkf[kr rkjh[kksa ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ;k
vxys vkns'k gksus rd] tks Hkh igys gks] lnL; fu;qDr djrh gS%
¼1½ Jh izHkkr flag] funs'kd ¼foi.ku½] xsy 02-02-2015 ls
¼2½ Jh MhñMhñ feJk] funs'kd ¼,pvkj½] vks,uthlh]
02-02-2015 ls
¼3½ izksñ nhid dqat:] izksQslj] jlk;u bathfu;jh] vkbZvkbZVh]
dkuiqj 04-03-2015 ls
[Qk- la- ts-25021@13@2014&tu-¼ikVZ½]
jkt fd'kksj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015
S.O. 639.—in exercise of the powers conferred under
Rule 5(1) of the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum
Technology (RGIPT) Act, 2007, the Central Government
hereby appoints the following persons as members on the
reconstituted Board of Governors of RGIPT with effect
from the dates mentioned against their names for a period
ot three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier:—
(1) Shri Prabhat Singh, Director (Marketing), GAIL,
w.e.f. 02.02.2015
(2) Shri D.D. Misra Director (HR), ONGC w.e.f.
02.02.2015
(3) Prof. Deepak Kunzru, Professor of Chemcial
Engineering, IIT, Kanpur w.e.f. 04.03.2015.
[F. No. J-25021/13/2014-Gen.(Pt)]
RAJ KISHORE, Under Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 640.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj xouZesaV vksfi;e
vkSj vYdykWbM QSDVªh 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; tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 16@01½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@141@98&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. 640.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. Case No. CGIT/LC/
R/16/01) 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 Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/03/2015.
[No. L-42012/141/98-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENU GOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/16/2001
Smt. Kusum Batham, Sunil and Gajendra-LRs
Shri Bhagwan Das Bathan,
S/o Sitaram Bathan,
Laghedi Dagar,
Wada Gwalior.
Workman
Versus
Chief Controller,
Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,
Adarsh Nagar, Morar
Chief Controller,
Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,
Saraswati house, 27, Nehru Place,
Vth Floor, New Delhi.
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 13-12-2000 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-42012/
141/98-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Govt.
Opium and Alkaloid Factories in terminating the
services of Shri Bhagwan Das is legal and justified?
If not, to what releif the workman is entitled?"
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1497
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed as water sprinkler on 7-5-93. He was working
with devotion. He was appointed after his name was
sponosored through Employment Exchange. He was
appointed as class IV employee against vacant post. His
services were orally terminated on 1-8-97. He belongs to
backward caste. In para 5 of his statement of claim, workman
has given details of the appointment orders, date of
appointment and period for which he was appointed by
IInd party from 93 to 97. His services are terminated without
notice. The Ist party workman was clearly paid Rs. 1000 per
month. His pay was increased to Rs. 1200 from 19-12-94.
Though he was appointed as Class IV employee,
management engaged in unfair labour practice by not
regularizing his service. Management of IInd party illegally
given artifical break. His pay was deducted. When Ist party
requested management for appointment on permanent
post, management got annoyed and terminated his service.
The employees junior to him are continued in employment.
Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. That
provisions of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act are violated by
management. On such ground, workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/3. It is submitted that workman was appointed on contract
basis for specific period. Workman was appointed on
regular post. That office of Employment Exchange has no
authority to make any appointment. That after expiry of the
period of appointment, the services of workman were
automatically terminated. IInd party had not terminated his
services. The contentions of workman are misconceived.
The provisions of Section 25-F of ID Act is not applicable
as Ist party workman was appointed by specific period
workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. Workman submitted rejoined at Page 7/1 to 7/2.
Workman has contented that he was appointed on the
post of water sprinkler following selection process. That
he was paid daily wages. That his name was sponsored
through Employment Exchange on 7.5.93. He was not
appointed by Employment Exchange office. IInd party had
called names of candidates from Employment Exchange
Office, Gwalior, IInd party had introduced scheme for
regularization of daily wage casual labours from 1-9-93. He
was not given its benefit even after working for more than
4 years. IInd party has violated Section 25 N of ID Act.
5. IInd party filed reply to rejoinder at page 9/1 to 9/4
reiterating its contentions in Written Statement. That
workman was not appointed against vacant post. Workman
was appointed for specific period. Workman not completed
240 days continuous service. Provisions of ID Act are not
violated.
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) Whethe the action of the
In Negative
management of Govt. Opium
& Alkaloid Factories in
terminating the services of
Shri Bhagwan Das is legal
and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. The dispute between parties pertains to legality of
termination of service of workman. As per Ist party workman,
IInd party terminated his services in violation of Section
25-F, N of ID Act. He was not served with notice. No
retrenchment compensation was paid to him. He worked
for more than 4 years. He was appointed as water sprinkler
after his name was sponsored through Employment
Exchange. IInd party has not spcifically denied his working.
IInd party has pleaded that appointed of workman was for
specific period. Workman died during pendency. His LRs
Smt. Kusum Batham, Sunil and Gajendra were brought on
record as per application at Page 17.
8. However workman had filed affidavit of his evidence
supporting his contentions that he was appointed on vacant
post of water sprinkler on daily wages at the rate prescribed
by Government. His services were terminated without
notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation.
9. In his cross-examination Ist party workman says that
Opium Factory is not at Gwalior. Only office of Opium
Factory is at Gwalior. Factory is located at Neemuch. He
was working in office for sprinkling water. He was paid
daily wages. He worked for 4 years 3 months. He denied
that he was appointed on contract basis and he was paid
Rs. 45/- per day. He denied that he was paid fixed Rs. 1000/
- per month. That he worked on daily wages for 5 months.
Thereafter he worked on contract basis. The documents
produced by workman at Exhibit W-1 to W-19. Exhibit W-1
shows that his name was sponsored by Employment
Exchange. He was appointed on daily wages as per rate
fixed by the State Govt. Exhibit W-2 to W-4 shows that he
was appointed on fixed pay Rs. 1000 per month. As per
Exhibit W-5, 6 workman was appointed on consolidated
pay Rs. 3000 for period of 3 months. As per Exhibit W-7 to
18, pay of workman was increased to Rs. 1200 per month.
His services are terminated from 1-8-97 as per Exhibit W-19
without assigning any reasons. Workman was issued
appointment orders for specific period for more than 4 years.
It shows that work for which the workman was appointed
was of temporary nature despite his name was sponsored
through Employment Exchange. He was appointed on daily
1498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
wages for specific period. Schedule V Item 10 of ID Act
provides to employ workman as badly, casuals or
temporaries and to continue them as such for years with
the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of
permanent workman. Is unfail labour practice.
10. Workman was continued as casual labour on daily
wages for years together by IInd party management clearly
establish unfair labour practice on part of IInd party. When
he claimed benefit of permanent employ, his services are
terminated is illegal. Workman is not served with notice, is
not paid retrenchment compensation though he completed
240 days continuous service, termination of workman is
illegal. Though affidavit of management's witness Smt.
Mrignaina Srivastava is filed supporting contentions of
management, the witness of management failed to appear
for her cross-excamination therefore her evidence cannot
be considered. As service of workman is terminated in
violation of Section 25-F, I record my finding in Point No. 1
Negative.
11. Point No. 2—termination of workman is illegal for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, question arises what
relief the workman is entitled for. On the point, learned
cousel for workman placed reliance on ratio held in case of
Hari Nandan Prasad versus FCI. In above cited case, the
order of reinstatement with 50% back wages was awarded.
In the case at hand, as workman died during pendency of
reference proceeding, his LRs are brought on record,
therefor there is no question of reinstatement of workman.
Considering workman had completed more than 4 years
service with IInd party, his services is terminated in violation
of Section 25-F of ID Act, compensation Rs. One Lakh
would be reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in
Point No. 2.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Govt. Opium &
Alkaloid Factories in terminating the services of
Shri Bhagwan Das is not proper and legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.
One Lakh to the LRs of the deceased workman
within 30 days from the date 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] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 641.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad uksV izsl] nsokl
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; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@
vkj@105@07½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&16011@03@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. 641.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/
105/07) 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 Bank Note Press, Dewas and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/03/2015.
[No. L-16011/03/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENU GOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/105/07
General Secretary,
Bank Note Mudranalaya Karmchari Congress,
13, Lakshmi Nagar,
Bhosle Colony,
BNP, Colony,
Dewas (MP)
Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Bank Note Press,
Dewas (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 27th day of February, 2015
1. As per letter dated 17-10-2007 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-16011/
3/2007-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, Bank Note, Press, Dewas in not counting
the period of annual increments from the year 1992
to 1996 while fixing the pay of Shri Prakash Joshi,
and consequently fixation of his pay w.e.f. 1-9-97 is
legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to and from which date?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. General Secretary of Bank Note Mazdoor Karmchari
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1499
Congress submitted statement of claim on behalf of
workman Shri Prakash Joshi. Case of workman is that he
was initially appointed as watchman. His service record
was satisfactory. He was promoted to the post of counter
on 19-11-99. The pay of workman of post of counter was
fixed Rs. 3300/-. The pay of workman junior to him was
fixed Rs. 3510/-. That as per Notification dated 30-09-97,
Govt. of India clarified that basic pay of any person should
be fixeed as on 1-1-96 on the post he was working. Workman
submits that he is entitled for annual increments from 1992
to 1996. The workman submits that he is also entitled to
18% interest on amount of arrears. It is further submitted
that during period of charges against him and DE
conducted, the punishment of withholding one increment
without cumulative effect imposed against him on 9-5-91.
3. Workman was appointed on 1-10-81 in pay scale Rs.
196/- per month. After implementation of Vth Pay
Commission, his pay was reduced to Rs. 750, 2550
respectively. That while fixing his salary the increments
were not added as per the rules. The procedure adopted by
IInd party amounts to unfair labour practice. On such
ground, workman is praying to release his annual
increments for the year 1990 to 1996 and fix his pay on
1-9-97.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to
11/3 opposing claim of the workman. It is submitted by
IInd party that Ist party workman joined service as
watchman on 1-10-81. Thereafter he was selected as
Mazdoor (Control) on personal quota on 26-3-85. Presently
workman is working as counter in control section. That for
unauthorized absence, charge sheet was issued to workman
on 21-11-90. His one increment was withholded without
cumulative effect as per order dated 9-5-91. Besides it,
workman was absent for 493 days during 89 to 96. His
absence was treated as LWP as medical certificate was not
produced. That Ist party workman was due to cross
efficiency bar on 1-12-92 at the stage of Rs. 870 in pay
Scale Rs. 750-7-870-14-940. The case of workman was
submitted before DPC on 25-4-93, 1-12-93, 23-11-94 & 13-
11-95. However due to adverse CR, he was not found fit for
efficiency bar. That workman was communicated adverse
CR about his irregularity in attendance during the period
1989 to 1995. Workman was allowed to cross efficiency
from 1-12-96 on recommendation of DPC. The penalty of
withholding next increment was imposed on 9-5-91. His
absence for 493 days working was not allowed to cross
efficiency bar. All adverse contentions of workman are
denied.
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) Where the action of the
In Negative
management of General Manager,
Bank Note Press, Dewas in not
counting the period of annual
increments from the year 1992 to
1996 while fixing the pay of Shri
Prakash Joshi, and consequently
fixation of his pay w.e.f. 1-9-97 is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. There is no dispute between parties that one increment
of workman was withholded without cumulative effect as
per punishment order dated 9-5-91. The workman filed
affidavit of his evidence and stated that his pay was
illegally fixed to Rs. 3300/-. The pay of employees junior to
him was fixed R.s 3510/-. That he was not given benefit of
increment for the year 1992 to 1996. His pay was fixed on
9-1-97 without adducing increments for the year 92 to 96.
He has also stated about his revised pay as per 4th and 5th
pay commission. In his corss-examination, workman says
his claim pertains to denial of annual increment from 1992
to 1996. He had received memorandum about withholding
one increment by way of punishment. 80 days absence
was treated on duty period. He was suffering from illness.
He claims ignorance why his increments were not released.
On 11-11-03, he submitted representation to Accountant
marked as Exhibit W-1. Order dated 12-5-91 is marked Exhibit
W-4. There is no suggestion in cross-examination of
workman that the adverse CR for the year 1992-1996 were
communicated to him.
7. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri A.K. Pandit supporting contentions in Written
Statement. That one increment without cumulative effect
as per order dated 9-5-91. That workman was due to cross
efficiency bar at pay stage of Rs. 870 from 1-12-92. The
matter was placed before DPC on 25-4-93, 1-12-93, 23-12-
94, 11-11-95. However due to adverse CR, workman was
not found fit to cross efficiency bar. Workman was
communicated about CR on 21-5-93, 23-11-93, 29-11-94,
15-11-95. The adverse CR for the year 89 to 95 were
communicated to the workman. For absence of 493 days of
workman during 89 to 96, he was not allowed to cross
efficiency bar.
8. From evidence of management's witness document
M-1 to M-14 are proved. In his cross-examination,
management's witness says during 98 to 96, he was working
as Section Officer. He was looking court cases, disciplinary
cases. He was receiving CRs and communicating adverse
CRs to concerned employees. The adverse CRs were
communicated through Administrative Officer. During 89
to 96, several Section Officers were working. Competent
Authority communicated CRs. The management's witness
admits that adverse CR of workman were written on the
1500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
basis of his absence of 493 days. As stated in Para-4 of his
affidavit, one charge sheet was already issued to workman.
Exhibit M-1 pertains to the absence in the year 1990. No
other charge sheet was issued to workman.
9. The documentary evidence Exhibit W-1 is
representation submitted by workman dated 11-11-03
submitting his grievance about wrong fixation of his pay.
Exhibit W-2 is order of punishment dated 9-5-91, one
increment of workman was withheld without cumulative
effect. Exhibit M-1 is memorandum of charges about
unauthorized absence of workman. M-2 is copy of
punishment order dated 9-5-91. M-3, M-4 to M-6 are
intimation that workman was not allowed to cross efficiency
bar M-7 to M-12 are CRs of workman for the year 1990 to
1995. In all those CRs, it was observed that workman was
not punctual in attendance and need improvement. Those
documents donot show its copy was sent to workman or
workman was communicated those adverse remarks. As
per Exhibit M-13, 14 workman was not allowed to cross
efficiency bar. When Exhibit M-7 to M-12 the ACRs were
not communicated to workman denying workman to cross
efficiency bar on such reports cannot be said legal. For
above reasons, the denial to cross efficiency bar to
workman from 1992 is illegal. Action of Management is not
legal. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Negative.
10. Point No. 2—in view of my finding on Point No. 1,
workman is denied to cross efficiency bar on the basis of
un-communicated ACRs cannot be sustained. Workman
therefore deserves to cross efficiency bar from 1-12-92.
Secondly he is also entitled to annual increments for the
year 1992 to 1996. 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 General Manager,
Bank Note Press, Dewas in not counting the
period of annual increments from the year 1992 to
1996 while fixing the pay of Shri Prakash Joshi,
and consequently fixation of his pay w.e.f. 1-9-97
is not legal and proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to allow Ist party workman
to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 1-12-1992 and release
his annual increments for the year 1992 to 1996
and accordingly his pay be fixed. The arrears of
amount be paid to workman within 30 days from
date of publication of award.
In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per
annum from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 642.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; VsyusV fyfeVsM
Xokfy;j 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
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZ
Vh@,ylh@vkj&89@04½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@102@04&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. 642.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby published the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/89/
04) 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 Bharati Telenet Ltd., Gwalior and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/03/2015.
[No. L-40012/102/04-vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/89/04
Shri Rambharose Solanki,
Jati Ki Line, Birla Nagar,
Gwalior.
...Workman
Versus
Chief Operating Officer,
Bharati Telenet Ltd.,
Gwalior.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 28-7-04 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/
102/04-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the contract awarded by the management
of Chief Operating Officer, Bharat Telenet Ltd. Gwalior
to M/S Ravi Security Organisation (P) Ltd., Gwalior
is sham or not? If so whether the demand of the
workman Shri Rambharose Solanki for reinstatement
in the establishment of Chief Operating Officer,
Bharati Telenet Ltd. is justified? If so, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?"
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1501
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties, Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1
to 3/2. Case of Ist party is that he was appointed as operator
on establishment of IInd party in June 2000. He was working
as operator till June 2002. Working has produced copy of
pay slip of June 2000. It is further submitted that Ist party
workman completed 2 years continuous service. He was
removed from service without notice. opportunity was
given to him before terminating his services. The
representations of workman for reinstatement were not
considered. In dispute raised before Conciliation Officer,
IInd party did not respond. Failure report was submitted. It
is submitted that termination of workman is in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act.
3. IInd party is procceded ex-parte on 3-6-09 Case
repeatedly fixed for evidence of workman. Evidence of
workman was closed on 8-2-2013.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
May findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the contract awarded by Redundant
the management of Chief Operating
Officer, Bharat Telenet Ltd. Gwalior
to M/s Ravi Security Organisation
(P) Ltd., Gwalior is sham or not?
(ii) Whether the demand of the
In Negative
workman Shri Rambharose Solanki
for
reinstatement
in
the
establishment of Chief Operating
Officer, Bharati Telenet Ltd. is
justified?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per final
entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
5. Ist part of terms of reference pertains to whether the
contract awarded by Chief Operating Officer, Bharti Telenet
Ltd. to M/s Ravi Security Organisation is sham. Workman
filed statement of claim has absolutely not pleaded anything
in that regard. IInd party has also not participated in
reference or filed Written Statement. Therefore Ist point
has become redundant for want of pleadings by parties.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 1.
6. Point No. 2- workman has pleaded that he was
working as operator in IInd party from June 2000 to June
2002. His services are terminated without notice in violation
of Section 25-F of ID Act. Though the case was repeated
fixed for evidence of workman and his evidence has been
closed on 8-2-2013, the record shows that workman has
submitted his affidavit in support of contentions in
statement of claim. IInd party has failed to participate in
reference proceedings filing Written Statement. As such
the contentions of workman are supported by affidavit
though no separate evidence is adduced by workman. It
cannot be said that claim of workman is not supported by
evidence. As contentions of workman about continously
working as operator in IInd party are not disputed his
termination without notice in violation of Section 25-F of
ID Act. His claim remained unchallenged. I record my finding
in Point No. 2 In Negative.
7. Point No. 3-the termination of Service of workman is
legal as per finding in Point No. 2. IInd party has not
participated in reference therefore I donot find any reason
to reject claim for reinstatement of workman with back
wages. Workman is entitled for reinstatement as his claim
is not contested by IInd party. Accordingly I record my
finding in Point No. 3.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The dispute between parties relating to contract
with Ravi Security Organisation (P) Ltd., Gwalior
is bogus couldnot be decided for want of pleadings
and evidence.
(2) Demand of workman for reinstatement is illegal.
(3) IInd party is dierected to reinstate Ist party
workman Shri Ram Bharose Solanki with
continuity of service and backwages from the date
of order of reference i.e. 28-7-04.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 643.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhdkWe QSDVªh tcyiqj
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; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylhvkj&31@09½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40011@36@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. .643.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby published the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/31/
09) 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 Factory, Jabalpur and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 23/03/2015.
[No. L-40011/36/2008-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
1502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/31/09
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
The Circle Secretary,
BSNL Employees Union,
Telecom Factory,
Wright Town,
Jabalpur
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom Factory, Wright Town,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 18.2.09 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-40011/36/2008-
IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the demand of BSNL Employees Union
for considering/Counting past services rendered by
the canteen Employees prior to declaring them Central
Government employees for the purpose of pensioner
and gratuity benefits is legal and justified? If Yes, to
what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
2. Even after issuing notices, the Ist party Union did not
participate in the proceedings, no statement of claim is
filed. Ist party is proceeded ex-parte on 2-5-2012.
3. IInd party management also not filed Written
Statement. From Conduct of the parties, it is clear the parties
are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.
4. In the result, award is passed as under:—
"Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award."
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 644.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ iznhi ekbfuax
,oa daLVªD'ku ¼ihñ½ 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;] HkqcusLoj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@50@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 644.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby published the award (Ref. No. 14/2013) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the M/s. Pradeep Mining & Construction
(P) Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 20/03/2015.
[No. L-29012/50/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri Pradeep Kumar,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 14/2013
L-29012/50/2012 [IR(M), dated 06.02.2013]
Date of Passing Award—22nd day of December, 2014
Between:
M/s. Pradeep Mining & Construction (P) Ltd.,
Chorda, Jajpur Road, Jajpur,
Odisha ...
...Ist Party-Managements.
And
Shri Ganga Gadasara,
Vill-Badakhatia, PO-Donkarisahi,
Thana-Tomka, Dist-Jajpur,
Odisha
... 2nd Party-Workman.
Appearances:
None.
...
For the 1st Party-Management.
None
...
For the 2nd Party-workman.
AWARD
This reference was received this Tribunal on 28.2.2013.
The 2nd party-workman was required to file the statement
of claim in pursuance of the order of reference dated
06.02.2013 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of
the order of reference. The 2nd party appeared on several
dates and took frequent adjournments. Later on he did not
take any steps and remained abasent from the court
proceedings. On failure of the 2nd party-workman to file
the statement of claim, as notice was issued to him on
21.08.2014. When the 2nd Party workman did not respond
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1503
to the notice and filed no statement of claim by the date
fixed even after the lapse of 20 (twenty) months it appears
that either the 2nd Party workman has lost interest in
prosecuting its case or might have settled the dispute with
the Management amicably out of the court. In absence of
any pleadings raised by the 2nd Party workman no
adjudication of dispute can take place.
2. Under the above circumstances this Tribunal is of the
view that a no-dispute award is to be passed in the case
Accordingly a non-dispute award is passed.
3. The reference is answered in the above terms.
PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer,
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 645.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LesYVj IykaV ukydks
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; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
24@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@03@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&43011@12@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 645.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 24/2014) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Smelter Plant NALCO and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
20.03.2015.
[No. L-43011/12/2013-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri Pradeep Kumar,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 24/2014
L-43011/12/2013-IR(M), dated 18.02.2014
Date of Passing Award—22nd day of December, 2014
Between:
The General Manager,
Smelter Plant, NALCO
PO & Dist-Angul
....Ist Party-Managements
(And)
Their workman represented through the
General Secretary,
Nalco Progressive Employees Union,
Nalco Nagar, Dist-Angul
....2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
For the Ist Party-Management
....
None
For the 2nd Party-Union
....
None
AWARD
This reference was received in this Tribunal on 29.4.2014.
The 2nd party-Union was required to file the statement of
claim in pursuance of the order of reference dated 18.02.2014
within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order of
reference. But on failure of the 2nd party-Union to file the
statement of claim, notices were issued to it on 23.07.2014
and 21.08.2014 by ordinary post. When the 2nd Party-Union
did not respond to the notices and filed no statement of
claim by the date fixed, a third notice under registered post
was issued to it on 11.11.2011 to appear and file the
statement of claim. But despite receiving the three notices,
the 2nd Party-Union neither turned up in the Tribunal nor
taken any step to file the statement of claim. Therefore, it
appears that either the 2nd Party-Union has lost its interest
in prosecuting the case or might have settled the dispute
with the Management amicably out of the court. In absence
of any pleadings raised by the 2nd Party-Union no
adjudication of dispute can take place.
2. Under the above circumstances this Tribunal is of the
view that a no-dispute award is to be passed in the case.
Accordingly a no-dispute award is passed.
3. The reference is answered in the above terms.
PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 646.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,eñlhñ fyfeVsM
,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 71@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-03-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&29011@51@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
1504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/2013) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of O.M.C. Limited & others and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
20.03.2015.
[No. L-29011/51/2013-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri Pradeep Kumar,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 71/2013
L-29011/51/2013-IR(M), dated 03.10.2013
Date of Passing Award—22nd day of December, 2014
Between:
1. The Manager (Geology), F&E In-charge,
Head Office, OMC Ltd., OMC House
Bhubaneswar, Odisha
.... Ist Party-Managements
2. The Regional Manager,
Daitari Iron Ore Project of M/s. OMC Ltd.,
At/PO-Talapada, Dist-Keonjhar, Odisha
3. Shri S.K. Samal, MD
Kalinga Commercial Corporation,
Camp at Daitari, At/PO-Talapada,
Dist-Keonjhar, Odisha
4. Shri Arun Agarwal,
M/s. Arun Udyog,
Camp at Daitari, At/PO-Talapada,
Dist-Keonjhar, Odisha
(AND)
The President,
.... 2nd Party Union
Daitari Region Mines Workers and
Transport Labour Association,
C/o-OMC Ltd., Daitari Iron Ore Project,
PO-Talapada, Dist-Keonjhar, Odisha
Appearances:
For the Ist Party-Managements ....
None
For the 2nd Party-Union
....
None
AWARD
This reference was received in this Tribunal on
18.10.2013. The 2nd party-Union was required to file the
statement of claim in pursuance of the order of reference
dated 03.10.2013 within fifteen days from the date of receipt
of the order of reference. On failure of the 2nd party-Union
to file the statement of claim, two notices were issued to it
on 20.02.2014 and 01/04.08.2014 through ordinary post.
When the 2nd Party-Union did not respond to the notice
and file no statement of claim by the date fixed even after
the lapse of about one year, a notice under registered post
was issued to him on 07.11.2014. But, neither the 2nd party
Union appeared nor any statement of claim filed on his
behalf. It appears that either the 2nd Party-Union has lost
interest in prosecuting its case or might have settled the
dispute with the Managements amicably out of the court.
In absence of any pleadings raised by the 2nd Party-Union
no adjudication of dispute can take place.
2. Under the above circumstances this Tribunal is of the
view that a no-dispute award is to be passed in the case.
Accordingly a no-dispute award is passed.
3. The reference is answered in the above terms.
PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 647.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ iznhi ekbfuax
,oa daLVªD'ku ¼ihñ½ 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; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&29012@47@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 17/2013) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Pradeep Mining & Construction (P)
Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 20.03.2015.
[No. L-29012/47/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1505
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri Pradeep Kumar,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 17/2013
L-29012/47/2012-IR(M), dated 06.02.2013
Date of Passing Award—22nd day of December, 2014
Between:
M/s. Pradeep Mining & Construction (P) Ltd.,
Chorda, Jajpur Road, Jajpur,
Odisha
....Ist Party-Management
(And)
Shri Raghunath Mohanta,
Vill-Bandagaon, PO-Damodharpur,
Sukinda, Dist-Jajpur, Odisha
.... 2nd Party-Workman
Appearances:
For the Ist Party-Management
....
None
For the 2nd Party-Workman
....
None
AWARD
This reference was received in this Tribunal on 28.2.2013.
The 2nd party-workman was required to file the statement
of claim in pursuance of the order of reference dated
06.02.2013 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of
the order of reference. The 2nd party appeared on 22.7.2013
on being noticed through registered post and took
adjournment. Later on he did not take any step and remained
absent from the court proceedings. On failure of the 2nd
party-workman to file the statement of claim, a notice was
issued to him on 04.08.2014. Since the 2nd party workman
did not appear on the date fixed, he was again noticed
through registered post on 07.11.2014. When the 2nd Party
workman did not respond to the notice and filed no
statement of claim by the date fixed even after the lapse of
21 (twenty one) months it appears that either the 2nd Party
workman has lost interest in prosecuting its case or might
have settled the dispute with the Management amicably
out of the court. In absence of any pleadings raised by the
2nd Party workman no adjudication of dispute can take
place.
2. Under the above circumstances this Tribunal is of the
view that a no-dispute award is to be passed in the case.
Accordingly a no-dispute award is passed.
3. The reference is answered in the above terms.
PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 648.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ykjkvksu
bfUtfu;fjax ,oe~ dULVªD'ku izk- fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lc)
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 15@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-03-2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ 30012@31@2013&vkbZ- vkj- ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 648.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2014) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 2,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Laraon Engineering & Consultant
Private Limited and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 20.03.2015.
[No. L-30012/31/2013-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present:
Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 15/2014
Registered on 24.6.2014
Sh. Manipal Singh Rana,
S/o Sh. Jodh Singh Rana, ex. Operator,
Village & Post—Muana, Tehsil Safidon,
District Jind, Haryana.
Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Ranjan Kumar Dhingra, MD,
M/s Laraon Engineering & Consultant Pvt. Ltd.
683, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon (Haryana).
Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
In person.
For the Management
Sh. J.K. Srivastav,
Site In-charge.
1506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
AWARD
Passed on 30.9.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-30012/31/
2013-IR(M) Dated 5.6.2014, 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 M/s
Laraon Engineering & Consultant Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon
in terminating the services of Sh. Mainpal Singh Rana
S/o Sh. Jodh Singh Rana, Ex. Workman w.e.f. 21.3.2012
is legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?
In response to the notice, the workman and Sh. A.K.
Shrivastav, representative ofthe management appeared.
Workman made statement, recorded separately, that he has
settled the dispute with the management after receiving
49,084/- and his claim stands settled. He has also placed on
record the photocopy of the settlement Exhibit C1.
In view of his statement the reference is answered
accordingly that the claim of the workman has been settled
and he is not entitled to any relief in this reference. Let hard
and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 649.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vk;y
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lc) 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
847@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-03-
2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ 30012@29@2001&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 649.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 847/2005) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 2,
Chandigarh 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 20.03.2015.
[No. L-30012/29/2001-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present :
Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 847/2005
Registered on 8.9.2005
Sh. Rishpal Singh, S/o Sh. Manni Ramji,
VPO Halwara, District Ludhiana.
Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Aviation Fuel
Station Halwara, Distt. Ludhiana through its
Senior Depot Manager.
2. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G-9, Ali Yavar
Jang Marg, Bandra (East) Bombay through its
Managing Director.
Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. B.N. Sehgal, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. Paul S. Saini, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 22.1.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-30012/29/
2001-IR(M) Dated 18.6.2001, 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 Station Manager, Aviation
Fuel Station, Halwara (IOC) in not employing Sh.
Rishpal Singh S/o Sh. Mannu Ramji as a regular
worker of IOC is just and legal? If not, to what relief
as the concerned workman is entitled to and from
which date?
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that he was appointed as
Sweeper-cum-Helper at Aviation Fuel Station of the
respondent management on 9.12.1982 and was drawing
salary of Rs. 2600/- per month. That his services were
illegally terminated on 1.3.1997 without serving him any
notice or payment of any compensation. That he requested
for regularizationh of his services and Sh. M.K. Syal, Senior
Station Manager recommended his case vide his letter dated
26.6.1991. He made several request to regularize his services
and instead of doing the needful, his services were
arbitrarily terminated. That he be reinstated in service.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1507
Respondent management file written reply pleading that
the workman was performing the housekeeping
maintenance/grass cutting services on contract basis for
one or two hours everyday on a fixed amount. The contract
was revised from time to time. It is further pleaded that
rates for performing the job were finalized on the basis of
quotations received from different parties and since the
rates of the workman were used to be lower, he used to get
the contract. It is further pleaded that there was no
relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
The workman never applied for any appointment nor he
was selected by the respondent management. The
assertions made by him are false. His contract was
terminated w.e.f. 1.3.1997 due to unsatisfactory services.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of his case the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit. He has also placed on
record recommendation letter Exhibit W4 whereby the
Senior Station Manager, Halwara made recommendations
for regularization of his services as a casual worker.
On the other hand, the management has examined Sh.
Stephen Ekka who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand
of the respondent management taken in the written
statement. He has also placed on record documents Mark
A to F.
I have heard Sh. B.N. Sehgal, counsel for the workman
and Sh. Paul. S. Saini, counsel for the management and
have gone through the file carefully.
It was contended by the learned counsel that workman
is an employee of the respondent management having
worked there from 9.12.1982 to 1.3.1987. That his case for
regularization of services was also recommended by the
Senior Station Manager vide letter dated 26.6.1991 (Exhibit
W4). His services were terminated arbitrarily without serving
any notice and payment of retrenchment compensation
and he is entitled to reinstatement in service.
I have considered the contention raised by the learned
counsel.
It may be added at the outset that the reference is
whether action of the Station Manager, Aviation Fuel
Station, Halwara in not employing the workman as regular
worker is just and legal. No averment has been made in the
statement of claim that the workman is entitled to work as a
regular worker of the IOC. Again there is nothing to show
that the Station Manager was empowered to employ the
workman as a regular worker of the respondent management.
In the absence of any pleading and any evidence thereon
that the workman is entitled for regularization of his services
and the Station Manager was competent to do the needful,
it cannot be said that workman is entitled to any relief as
claimed by him.
In view of the definite terms of the reference as
reproduced in the beginning of the award, the question
whether workman worked for the respondent management
as on employer or on contract need no determination.
In result, it is held that workman has failed to prove that
he is entitled to work as a regular worker of the respondent
management and the Station Manager, Aviation Fuel
Station, Halwara was competent to employ him as such.
Being so, 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] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 650.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbQ bU'kqjsUl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/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; 2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&17012@49@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 650.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2014) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 20.03.2015.
[No. L-17012/49/2014-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present:
Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 16/2014
Registered on 24.06.2014
Sh. Susheel Sonte,
R/o House No. 27, Valmiki Colony,
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu (J&K), Jammu.
.....Petitioner
1508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Versus
1. The Chairman, LIC of India, Jeevan Beema
Marg, Post Box No. 11709, Mumbai.
2. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation
of India, Northern Zonal Office, Jeevan Bharti
Building, Post Box No. 630, Connuaght Circus,
New Delhi-110001
3. Sr. Divisional manager, Life Insurance
Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan
Jyoti Building Bahu Plaza Rail Head, Jammu-
180012
.....Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
Ex parte..
For the Management:
Shri P.K. Longia, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 13.1.2015
Central Government vide Notification [No. L-17012/49/
2014-IR(M)] Dated 10.06.2014, 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 Sr.
Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Jammu in
terminating the services of Sh. Susheel Sonte w.e.f.
25.7.2012 is legal and justified? What reflief the
workman is entitled to?"
Notice was sent to the workman but he did not appear
and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated
15.10.2014. Since the workman was proceeded against ex
parte, no statement of claim was filed. Thus, in the absence
of any statement of claim, the reference is answered holding
that the action of the management is legal and justified and
workman 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] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 651.—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vS|ksfxd vfèdj.k&
lg&Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds fjDr in gsrq fyad vf/kdkjh ds :i
esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj
ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh jk/ks';ke ckiwth ikVys dks N% ekg dh
vof/k rd vFkok fu;fer in/kkj.k dh fu;qfDr gksus rd] buesa ls tks
Hkh igys gks rc rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj lksairs g®A
[lañ ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]
,lñ dsñ flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 651.—The President is pleased to entrust the
additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneshwar to Shri Radheyshyam Bapuji Patle Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur for a period of six months or till the
post is filled on regular basis whichever is earlier.
[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 652.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 88 }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, d`"kd Hkkjrh dksvkWijsfVo fyfeVsM
¼d`Hkdks½ ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl
vf/kfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] 20 ebZ] 2015 ls
,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA
2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu gS( vFkkZr~%&
¼1½ iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj
j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke
fn[kk;s tk;saxs(
¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu
,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl
vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ
lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(
¼3½ NwV izkIr vof/k ds fy,];fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd, tk
pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(
¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/k dh ckcr
ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/kfu;e ¼ftls
blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/k dgk x;k gS½ izorZeku Fkk
,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk
tks deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 ds vèhu
mls mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha(
¼5½ fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 45
dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ lkekftd
lqj{kk vf/kdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufer izkfèd`r dksbZ vU;
in/kkjh(
(i) /kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr vof/k dh
ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks lR;kfir
djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok
(i) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;
chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkk visf{kr
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1509
jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/k ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks
;k ugha( ;k
(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]
fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds
QyLo:i bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk jgh gS]
udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS
;k ugha( ;k
(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/k ds
nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds
micaè izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k
x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr
gksxk%&
¼d½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd
og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr fujh{kd
;k vU; in/kkjh vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok
¼[k½ ,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/kHkksxkèhu]
fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;
ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk
vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og
O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls
lacaf/kr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost]
,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh ds le{k izLrqr
djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh
nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa( ;k
¼x½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ
;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls
dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa
ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr
dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk( ;k
¼?k½ ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj
esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;
nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m)j.k ysuk(
¼³½ ;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA
6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks tk,xh
vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh
gksxhA
[lañ ,l&38014@3@2014&,l- ,l&I]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 652.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section
88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State Insurance
Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby
exempts the regular employees of factories/establishments
of Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. (KRIBHCO) from the
operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective
w.e.f. 20.05.2015 for a period of one year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely:—
(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees';
(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become entitled
to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to
the date from which exemption granted by this
notification operates;
(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if already
paid, shall not be refunable;
(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returnsd in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the said
period under the Employee's State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of
the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation
authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose
of:—
(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1) of
Section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records
were maintained as required by the Employees'
State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for
the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue
to be entitled to benefits provided by the
employer in cash and kind being benefits in
consideration of which exemption is being
granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of
the Act had been complied with during the
period when such provisions were in force in
relation to the said factory to be empowered
to:
(a) require the principal or immediate
employer to him such information as he
1510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
may consider necessary for the purpose
of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,
establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or immediate
employer at any reasonable time and
require any person found in charge
thereof to produce to such inspector or
other official and allow him to examine
accounts, books and other documents
relating to the employment of personal
and payment of wages or to furnish to
him such information as he may consider
necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause to
believe to have been an employee; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any
register, account book or other document
maintained
in
such
factory,
establishment, office or other premises,
(e) exercise such other prowers as may be
prescribed.
(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the
exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled
and them the new entity will have to approach the
appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/3/2014-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 653.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 88 }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk fgUnqLrku ,UVhck;ksfVDl
fy-] fiEijh] iq.ks ds dkj[kuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks
bl vf/kfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gS A ;g NwV] 30 ekpZ]
2015 ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA
2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu gS( vFkkZr~%&
¼1½ iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj
j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke
fn[kk;s tk;saxs(
¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu
,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl
vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ
lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(
¼3½ NwV izkIr vf/kdkjh ds fy,];fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,
tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(
¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/k dh ckcr
ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/kfu;e ¼ftls
blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/k dgk x;k gS½ izorZeku Fkk
,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk
tks deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 ds vèhu
mls mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha(
¼5½ fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 45
dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ fujh{kd
;k fuxe dk bl fufer izkf/kd`r dksbZ vU; in/kkjh(
(i) /kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr vof/k dh
ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks lR;kfir
djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok
(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;
chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr
jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/k ds fy, x;s Fks ;k
ugha( ;k
(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]
fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds
QyLo:i bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk jgh gS]
udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS
;k ugha( ;k
(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/k ds
nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds
mica/k izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k
x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr
gksxk%&
¼d½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd
og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr fujh{kd
;k vU; in/kkjh vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok
¼[k½ ,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/kHkksxkèhu]
fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;
ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk
vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og
O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls
lacaf/kr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost]
,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh ds le{k izLrqr
djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh
nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa( ;k
¼x½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ
;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls
dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1511
ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr
dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk( ;k
¼?k½ ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj
esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;
nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m)j.k ysuk(
¼³½ ;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA
6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks tk,xh
vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh
gksxhA
[la- ,l&38014@15@2013&,l ,l&I]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 653.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section
88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State Insurance
Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby
exempts the regular employees of factories/establishments
of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., Pimpri, Pune from the
operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective
w.e.f. 30.03.2015 for a period of one year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely:—
(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees';
(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become entitled
to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to
the date from which exemption granted by this
notification operates;
(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if already
paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returned in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the said
period under the Employee's State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of
the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation
authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose
of :—
(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1) of
section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records
were maintained as required by the Employees'
State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for
the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue
to be entitled to benefits provided by the
employer in cash and kind being benefits in
consideration of which exemption is being
granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of
the Act had been complied with during the
period when such provisions were in force in
relation to the said factory to be empowered
to:
(a) require the principal or immediate
employer to him such information as he
may consider necessary for the purpose
of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,
establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or immediate
employer at any reasonable time and
require any peron found in charge
thereof to produce to such inspector or
other official and allow him to examine
accounts, books and other documents
relating to the employment of personal
and payment of wages or to furnish to
him such information as he may consider
necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause to
believe to have been an employee; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any
register, account book or other document
maintained
in
such
factory,
establishment, office or other premises,
(e) exercise such other prowers as may be
prescribed.
(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the
exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled
and them the new entity will have to approach the
appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/15/2013-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
1512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 654.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;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 dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
36@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh gSa tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 20@3@2015 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@75@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 654.—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. 36/2013) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 1,
Delhi 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 20.3.2015.
[No. L-30012/75/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,
DELHI
ID No. 36/2013
Shri Ajmer Singh,
S/o Shri Chotte Lal,
R/o Village and Post Office Karorr,
Distt. Rohtak,
HARYANA
...Workman
Versus
1. The Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Indane Gas Terminal,
Tikri Kalan Plant, Ghevera More,
Delhi-110 041
2. M/s. Beehive Security & Surveillance,
House No. 43, Rathi Enclave,
New Roshan Vihar,
Kakraola More, Najafgarh,
Delhi-110 043
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-30012/75/2012-
IR(M) dated 06.02.2013, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of M/s
Beehive Security and Surveillance in terminating the
services of Shri Ajmer Singh, S/o Shri Chotte Lal
from IOC Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi with effect from
30.09.2011, is legal and justified ? What relief the
workman is entitled to?
2. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the workman as well as the management. None appeared
on behalf of the claimant. As such, this Tribunal ordered
issuance of fresh notice to the workman. Despite sending
notice by registerd A.D., neither the workman nor any
authorized representative on his behalf appeared before
the Tribunal so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
3. Since the workman has neither put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no
choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim' award. 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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 655.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kuf;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ctkt ,fy;kat
ykbQ bU'kqjUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstkdsa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] fnYyh ds
iapkV( (lanHkZ la[;k 95@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh;
ljdkj dks 20-3-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-&17012@8@2013&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 655.—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. 95/2013) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 1,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company
Limited and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 20.3.2015.
[No. L-17012/8/2013-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1513
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO, 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,
DELHI
ID No. 95/2013
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta,
House No. 199, L Extension,
Mohan Garden,
New Delhi-110 059
...Workman
Versus
M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
4th and 5th Floor, Mahatta Tower,
54, B-Block,
Community Centre, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110 058
...Management
AWARD
Central Government vide letter No. L-17012/8/2013-
IR(M) dated 15.05.2013, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management in
terminating the services of the workman Shri Ashok
Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Sudershan with effect from
30.06.2009 is illegal and/or unjustified. If yes, to
what relief the workman is entitled and what directions
are necessary in this respect ?
2. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the workman as well as the management. None appeared
on behalf of the claimant. As such, this Tribunal ordered
issuance of fresh notice to the workman. Despite sending
notice by registered A.D., neither the workman nor any
authorized representative on his behalf has appeared before
the Tribunal so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in the adjudication of the
reference on merits.
3. Since the workman has neither put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no
choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim' award. 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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 656.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ctkt ,fy;kat
ykbQ bU'kqjUl daiuh fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] fnYyh ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 111@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj
dks 20-3-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17011@5@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 656.—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. 111/2012) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 1,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company
Limited and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 20/3/2015.
[No. L-17011/5/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,
DELHI
ID No. 111/2012
The General Secretary,
Indian Steel Metal Worker's Union,
1800/9, Govindpuri Extension, Main Road,
Kalkaji, New Delhi
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Director,
M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
32, Community Centre, 3rd Floor,
New Friends Colony,
New Delhi-110 065
2.
The Manager,
M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.
B-37/38, 1st Floor, Connaught Place,
New Delhi
...Management
1514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-17011/5/
2012-IR(M) dated 11.09.2012, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of M/s Bajaj
Allianz Life Insurance in termianting the services Shri
Yogesh Kumar, Sales Executive with effect from
01.12.2008 is legal and justified ? What relief the
workman is entitled to ?
2. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent
to the workman as well as the management. None appeared
on behalf of the claimant. As such, this Tribunal ordered
issuance of fresh notice to the workman. Despite sending
several notices, neither the workman nor any authorized
representative on his behalf has appeared before the
Tribunal so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that the
workman is not interested in the adjudication of the
reference on merits.
3. Since the workman has neither put in his
appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his
cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is
left with no chocie, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim'
award. 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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 657.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xYQ vkW;y dkjiksjs'ku
fyfeVsM ,oe vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] eqacbZ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 20@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30015@9@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 657.—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. 33/2007) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 2,
Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Gulf Oil Corporation Limited & Others and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 20/3/2015.
[No. L-30015/9/2007-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT-2/33 of 2007
Employers in relation to the management of
Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. & 3 ORS.
1. M/s. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.
Lubricants Division In Centre
49/50 MIDC, 12th Road Andheri (E)
Mumbai -400 093
2. M/s. Om Enterprises
Juhi Nagar Station Complex Shop No. GO 12,
Juhi Nagar,
Navi Mumbai -400 706
3. M/s. Sagar Enterprises
Juhi Nagar Station Complex Shop No. GO 12
Juhi Nagar,
Navi Mumbai- 400706
4. M/s. Satguru Enterprises
C/o M/s. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.
Lubricants Division In Centre
49/50 MIDC, 12th Road Andheri (E)
Mumbai-400 093.
AND
Their workmen
The General Secretary
General Employees Association
Tel Rasayan Bhavan
Tilak Road, Dadar
Mumbai-400 014.
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer No. 1
Mr. P.C. Pavaskar,
Advocate.
For the Employer Nos. 2 to 4
No appearance
For the Union
R.D. Bhat,
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 22nd December, 2014.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-30015/9/2007-IR (M), dated
11.07.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1515
following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
"Whether the demand of the union for reinstatement
of Shri Sudhakar Parte in services w.e.f. 06/03/2007
and his absorption/regularisation in service as
'permanent' workman with the management of M/s.
Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. w.e.f. 20.01.1997 is legal,
proper and justified? If so, to what relief Shri Sudhakar
Parte is entitled to and from which date?"
2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to
both the parties. In response to the notice, second party
union has filed its statement of claim at Ex-9. According to
the Union Mr. Sudhakar Parte was in the employment of
the first party from 20/01/1997 as Office Assistant. He was
entitled to get the permanent post of Office Assistant. He
requested the first party to make him permanent and to
extend him all consequential benefits. He was told that his
case was under consideration. However instead of
confirming him in the service as a permanent employee,
first party started making payment of wages to the workman
through its contractors M/s. Satguru Enterprises from
October 2000 to December 2001. Thereafter M/s. Sagar
Services from January 2002 to December 2003 and through
Om Enterprises from January 2003 to February 2005. Second
party workman was attending the duty and doing the work
which is of perennial nature. He was under the control and
supervision of the officers of the first party. The first party
inducted the contractors merely to deprive the workman
from getting the benefits of permanency. It amount to unfair
labour practice. Therefore the second party filed a complaint
to Labour Court Mumbai. However the said complaint was
withdrawn and disposed of for want of jurisdiction as
Central Government was the appropriate Government and
Labour Court, Mumbai has no jurisdiction. The union raised
industrial dispute and as per direction of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in Writ Petition there was conciliation
proceeding. Before commencement of conciliation
proceeding as suggested by Hon'ble High Court, the first
party had refused employment to the workman w.e.f.
5/3/2007. Conciliation officer called both the parties.
However due to adamant view of first party, conciliation
failed. As conciliation failed, as per the report of ALC (C),
the Ministry of Labour & Employment sent the reference
to this Tribunal. The second party therefore prays that, the
termination of services of the workman be declared illegal
and in violation of principles of natural justice and in
violation of provisions of Section 9-A of I.D. Act. The
second party also prays for declaration that the arrangement
to make payment through contractor be declared illegal
and void. He also prays that his termination be declared in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act 1947. The second party
also prays for declaration that he be declared as permanent
workman of first party as provided under Model Standing
Order. Second party also prays that the action of the first
party be declared as unfair labour practice as contemplated
under Section 25-T of I.D. Act 1947. Second party also
prays that the workman be reinstated w.e.f. 6/3/2007 as
permanent employee w.e.f. 20/1/1997 and also pray to give
all consequential benefits.
3. The first party management resisted the statement of
claim vide their Written statement at Ex-11. According to
them the union has no membership of workmen employed
in the company's establishment at Mumbai and the union
is stranger for the company's employees. Therefore the
reference is not tenable. It is further contended that there
is no employer-employee relationship between the
company and the workman as the workman was employee
of M/s. Om Enterprises. Thus dispute is not tenable. The
company has not terminated the services of the workman.
M/s. Om Enterprises has shifted him elsewhere from the
establishment of the company. Before Om Enterprises, the
workman was employed by M/s. Sagar Enterprises and
there prior he was employed by M/s. Sadguru Enterprises.
Therefore the demand of the workman for reinstatement
and permanency is not tenable in law. They denied that
contracts are ‘camouflage and entered into merely to
deprive the workman from the benefit of permanency. They
denied that they have illegally terminated the services of
the workman. According to them he was not their employee,
therefore question of termination does not arise. They
denied all the contentions in respect of employment and
termination of the workman and submitted that neither the
workman can be reinstated nor eligible to get permanency
in the services of the company as he was never recruited
by the company. Therefore they pray that the reference
deserves to be dismissed with cost.
4. Following are the issues for my determination. I record
my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.
Sl.
Issues
Findings
No.
1.
Is reference bad in law as
No.
calculated by first party in para 2 of
its written statement?
2.
Does second party union prove
Yes.
that there was employer-employee
relationship and union has any reason
to espouse the cause?
3.
Whether union prove that
Partly yes.
employee involved in the reference is
entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. 6/3/2007
with full back wages?
4.
Whether the workman is entitled
Partly yes.
for permanency in the employment
of first party w.e.f. 20/1/1997
5.
What order?
As per order below.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:—
5. The first party has raised objection to the reference
and pleaded that the union in question has no locus standi
1516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
to espouse the cause as the said union is not at all
functioning in their company. According to them except
the workman, no other employee is member of the said
union and the union has no right to raise the dispute. In
this respect I would like to point out that workman has
raised the dispute and claimed that first party has terminated
him from their services illegally. In the circumstances even
without the help of union the workman was well entitled to
raise the dispute. In the circumstances it becomes
unnecessary exercise as to whether the union has power
to espouse the cause and raise the dispute' as the workman
himself is entitled to raise the dispute as he claims that his
services were terminated illegally. Therefore it becomes
irrelevant to see whether the union is functioning in the
establishment of the company or not and whether it can
raise the dispute. In the circumstances the reference cannot
be said bad. Accordingly I decide this issue no. 1 in the
negative.
Issue no. 2:—
6. It is the case of the workman that he was in the
employment of the company since 20.01.1997. According
to him on 07/01/1998 he requested the company to issue
appointment letter to him as a permanent workman.
Thereafter since October 2000 the Corporation started
making salary of the workman through M/s. Sadguru
Enterprises and since January 2002 to December 2003
through M/s. Sagar services and from January 2003 to
February 2007 through M/s. Om Enterprises. According to
the workman initially since January 1997 upto October 2000
the Corporation was paying him salary directly. As he started
claiming for permanency, Corporation has inducted the
contractors and started paying salary through the
contractors and he is shown as employee of contractor.
Infact he was the employee of the Corporation. In this
respect it was pointed out by the Ld. Adv. for the first party
that, workman has admitted in his cross that, first party
never issued temporary or permanent or any type of
appointment letter to him. He further pointed out that the
workman has admitted in his cross examination that, he
was working with first party no.4 i.e. Satguru Enterprises
and ESI Card was also issued by first party no.4. He also
admitted that thereafter Sagar Enterprises was making his
payment and was also deducting the amount of his PF. He
also admitted that he has also worked with Om Enterprises,
first party no.2 and they were making his payment. In this
respect I would like to point out that specific question was
put to him that he lastly worked with Om Enterprises the
worker has replied that payment was made by Om
Enterprises but he was working with Gulf Oil. He denied
that Om Enterprises has deputed him to work with Gulf Oil
Corporation. From the replies in the cross examinations of
the workman at Ex-21, it is revealed that he has not denied
that, he has receiving the pay from the respective contract
agencies. However according to him he was working for
and with Gulf Oil Corporation. In this respect I would also
like to point out that the workman was working continuously
with Gulf Oil Corporation whereas contractors were
periodically changed. It indicates that, the contractors were
inducted periodically by the first party No. 1 after gap of
2-3 years. It is one of the factors indicating the fact that
contract agreements were sham and bogus.
7. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted
that at the most it can be said that the workman has
surrendered to the agency which deputed him to work with
the Corporation. In such circumstances he cannot be called
employee of the Corporation. In support of his argument,
Ld. Adv. for the first party resorted to Andhra Pradesh
High Court ruling in Deccan Chronicle V/s. G.P. Reddy and
others. 2004 (3) LLM 916. In that case the workman therein
had surrendered to the Security Agency which deputed
him to the Company to do the security duty. When workman
raised industrial dispute, Labour Court held that
surrendering respondent to Security Agency amount to
termination of his services and it was without justifiable
cause, hence directed to reinstate him with full back wages.
The said award of the Tribunal was set aside by Hon'ble
A.P. High Court with an observation that;
"Workman has failed to establish that, the petitioner's
management appointed him as Security Guard."
8. With this observation Hon'ble High Court has set
aside the award of the Tribunal. However in the case at
hand the facts are quite different than the facts in the case
referred above. In this respect would like to point out that,
the first party Corporation herein has not denied the fact
that, the workman was working with them as Office
Assistant since January 1997 till 2000 and he was getting
his pay and allowances directly from the first party no. 1.
This version of the workman is not denied by the witness
of the Corporation nor it was challenged in the cross
examination of the workman. In the circumstances, it is
clear that initially the workman was appointed by the first
party Corporation in 1997 and since October, 2000 onwards
the Corporation started inducting contractors periodically.
9. On the point Ld. Adv. for the first party also referred
Apex Court ruling in International Airport Authority of India
V/s. International Air Cargo Union & Anr. 2009-IV-LLJ-
31(SC) wherein Hon'ble Court held that the contract labour
agreement in question not shown as nominal. Therefore
workman employed as contract labourer not entitled to
claim absorption. However in the case at hand initially the
workman was appointed by the Corporation itself in 1997.
He worked for more than 2 and half years and thereafter
Corporation started inducting contractors. There were even
no written agreements in that respect. It indicates the
contract labour agreements were sham and bogus.
Therefore the ratio laid down in the above ruling is also not
attracted to the set of facts of the present case.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1517
10. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party
submitted that, initially Corporation has employed the
workman. When he started demanding permanency,
Corporation has started inducting contractors and started
paying his wages through them. It amounts to violation of
Section 9-A of I.D. Act. In support of his argument the Ld.
Adv. for the second party resported to Apex Court ruling
in Workmen of Food Corporation of India V/s. M/s. Food
Corporation of India AIR 1985 SC 670. In respect of such
change in starting payment through contractor in para 3 of
the judgement Hon'ble Court observed that;
"By cancelling the direct payment system and
introducing the contractor, both the wages and the
mode of payment are being altered to the
disadvantage of the workman. Therefore obviously
a notice of change was must before introducing the
change. Otherwise, it would be an illegal change.
Any such illegal change invites a penalty under
Section 31(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Such a change
which was punishable as a criminal offence would
obviously be an illegal change. Thus an illegal
change would be wholly ineffective"
11. In the case at hand the workman was employed by
the Corporation in 1997. He worked till October 2000 as
employee of the Corporation and he was receiving his pay
directly from the Corporation. As workman started
demanding permanency, Corporation has started inducting
various contractors since October 2000 onwards. This
change was without notice and in violation to Section 9 A
of I.D. Act. Therefore it is illegal. Furthermore the workman
was the same person working with the Corporation and
contractors were changed periodically. It also indicates
sham and bogus nature of the contracts. In this back drop
I come to the conclusion that the workman is employee of
the first party Corporation and the union has rightly raised
the dispute. Accordingly I decide this issue no.2 in the
affirmative.
Issues nos. 3 & 4:—
12. From the discussions and findings on above issue
no.2, it is held that the workman was the employee of the
first party no. 1 Corporation. From the above discussion it
is also revealed that workman has worked continuously
from 1997 to 2007 as Office Assistant. As the workman had
worked continuously for more than 240 days in every
calendar year, he gets protection under Section 25F of I.D.
Act. In the case at hand services of the workman were
terminated without following the procedure prescribed
under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Neither he was removed
from service after conducting any domestic inquiry nor he
was found guilty for any misconduct. Therefore the
termination of services of the workman cannot be called
legal and valid. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the first
party submitted that as the workman was a contract labourer
he cannot seek permanency or absorption in the public
undertaking. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv.
resorted to Apex Court ruling in Steel Authority of India V/
s. Union of India & Ors. 2006 III LLJ 1037. In that case
Hon'ble High Court under writ jurisdiction directed
absorption of contract workers as regular employees of
the principal employer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this
judgement held that, neither the Labour Court nor the Writ
Court could give such direction to absorb the contract
labourers.
13. In the case at hand the facts are different and the
workman herein was held not a contract labourer but direct
employee of the first party no. 1. Therefore the ratio laid
down in this ruling is not attracted to the set of facts of the
present case.
14. The Ld. Adv. for first party also referred Apex Court
ruling in National Thermal Power Corporation & Ors.
V/s. Bhadri Singh Thakur & Ors. 2009 I LLJ 198. In that
case, direction was sought for absorption of contract
labourer. Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court rejected the
prayer by saying that there was no notification issued by
appropriate Govt. The judgement and order was reversed
by Division Bench by observing that;
"In view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act it
is only the appropriate Govt. which has the authority
to abolish genuine Labour Contract in accordance
with the provisions of the said Section. No Court
including the Industrial Adjudicator has jurisdiction
to do so. Therefore the order passed for absorption
in absence of notification by appropriate Govt. is
unsutainable."
15. With this observation the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that view taken by single judge is sustainable. In the case
at hand neither any such direction was sought nor the
workman is found contract labourer. Therefore ratio in this
ruling is also not attracted to the set of facts in the case at
hand. In the case at hand workman is held to be the
employee of the first party no. 1 and the labour contracts
were found sham, bogus and mere camouflage merely to
deprive the workman from getting the right of permanency.
Therefore I hold that the workman is well entitled to be
reinstated in the service with continuity from 6/3/2007. The
first party may make him permanent after the two years'
probation period from the date of his initial appointment.
16. In respect of back wages, according to the first party
the workman is gainfully employed. He has admitted in his
cross examination that, he is doing some work to maintain
his family and earning Rs.4000 p.m. He has admitted that
he is working with Penta Corporate Services since 2007-08.
He has denied that he is drawing salary of Rs.9000 p.m. He
has shown readiness to produce his pass book. He has
produced the copy of his pass book. It shows that the
workman is gainfully employed. However he was terminated
illegally and may have been unemployed for few months,
1518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
and initially he may not have received sufficient wages.
Furthermore he was required to fight the unpleasant legal
battle. In the circumstances, Ld. Adv. for the second party
submitted that, for gainful employment at the most
backwages can be reduced proportionately and he should
not be denied back wages in toto. In support of his
argument, the Ld. Adv. referred Apex Court ruling in
Metropolitan Transport Corporation V/s. V. Venkateshan
2009 AIR SCW 5855. In that case the workman therein was
found to be gainfully employed when he was out of service.
Therefore the Hon'ble Court observed that,
"To meet the end of justice, back wages liable to be
reduced proportionately."
17. In this back drop as the workman herein is gainfully
employed and earning some meagre amount to meet the
two ends, therefore, I think it proper to award him 10%
back wages with continuity of service. Accordingly I partly
allow the reference and proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The reference is partly allowed with no order as
to cost.
(ii) Termination of services of second party workman
is hereby declared illegal and void.
(iii) The first party no. 1 is directed to reinstate him
and pay the wages and allowances at par with
regular Office Assistants with 10% back wages
and continuity of service since 6/3/2007.
(iv) The first party no. 1 is also directed to consider
the workman for permanency after completion of
probation period of two years from the date of his
initial appointment i.e. 20.01.1997.
Dated : 22-12-2014 K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 658.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbQ bU'kqjsUl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 20@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&17012@8@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 658.—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. 29/2006) 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 the Life Insurance Corporation of India
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 20/3/2015.
[No. L-17012/8/2006-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
CASE No. CGIT/LC/R/29/2006
Shri R.K. Dahia,
S/o Shri Ramadhar Dahia,
Near Kamlesh Floor Mills,
New Basti, Tikuria Tola,
Satna (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Sr. Mandal Manager,
LIC of India,
Mandal Office, Krishna Complex,
Krishna Nagar,
Satna (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of March, 2015
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its
Notification No. L-17012/8/2006-IR(M) dated 20-7-06 has
referred the following dispute for adjudication by this
tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of
Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Satna MP in not regularizing the services and
terminating Sri Ramkushal Dahia S/o Shri Ramadhar
Dahia, Daily rated workman after working from March
96 to 30-9-2005 is legal? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
page 6/1 to 6/4. Case of workman is that he was working as
peon in account branch of IInd party from March 1996 till
30-9-05. He was continuously working. He was paid
minimum wages prescribed by Collector Office. He worked
with devotion. The services of workman were terminated
by IInd party without notice. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. Termination of his service is in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act. Other junior employees were
continued in service. Workman was not provided
employment. The list of daily rated employees was not
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1519
displayed on notice board. Thereby IInd party violated
provisions of Section 25-G, H & Rules 77, 78 of ID Act.
3. Ist party workman further submits that after
completion of service more than six months he acquired
status of regular employee. His services orally terminated
without notice, without conducting enquiry is illegal. On
such grounds, workman prays for his reinstatement with
back wages.
4. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 9/1 to
9/3 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that
workman was engaged as waterman for 85 days from 16-4-96
to 9-7-96. Workman was not working as peon. Any
appointment orders were not issued to them. He was not
terminated. After completion of 85 days period, his service
had come to end. That workman had not completed 240
days continuous service. The provisions of Section 25-F,
G, H & Rules 77, 78 are not applicable. Workman was
engaged as casual employee for 85 days. Workman had
not completed 240 days continuous service therefore he is
not entitled to protection of ID Act. It is denied that other
junior employees are continued. IInd party prays for
rejection of claim with cost of Rs. 5000/-.
5. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page-10 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim.
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
In Negative
management of
Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of
India, Divisional Office, Satna
MP in not regularizing the
services and terminating
Shri Ramkushal Dahia
S/o Shri Ramadhar Dahia,
Daily rated workman after
working from March 96 to
30-9-2005 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final orders.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. Workman is challenging termination of his service for
violation of Section 25-F, G, H & Rules 77, 78. IInd party
submits that workman was casually engaged for 85 days.
He had not completed 240 days continuous service.
Workman is not entitled to protection of ID Act.
8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering his
contentions in statement of claim. That he was working
with IInd party from 16-4-04 till 30-9-95. He had completed
more than 240 days continuous service. He was paid wages
under voucher. Sometimes the wages were paid by vouchers
in name of different persons. He was required to sign those
vouchers. His services are orally terminated without notice,
he was not paid retrenchment compensation, any
chargesheet was not paid to him. No enquiry was conducted
against him by IInd party. From his evidence, documents
Exhibit W-1, W-2/1 to 2/12, W-3/1 to 3/17 are proved.
Workman in his cross-examination says the attendance
register produced by him is not bearing Mono/seal of LIC.
Zerox copy is produced by him is signed by Shri Shiv
Kumar Soni, Administrative Officer. It does not bear
signature of other persons. The official seal is not affixed
on each pages. He not submitted applications for copy.
Copy was supplied to him by Shri Patel, Class IV employee
working in LIC. The entries in Attendance Registers were
filled by Shiv Kumar Soni. The attendance register of regular
employees and Class IV employees are separately
maintained. Six other employees working with him, their
attendance was maintained. The signatures of those
employees were not obtained. The vacancies in LIC were
not advertised. He had not submitted any application. His
oral interview was taken before engaging him in work. In
his further cross, workman admits that entries are taken in
Attendance Register for working days. The payment
vouchers and budget control registers were also maintained.
Workman had denied suggestion that he was not
continuously working. On document Exhibit W-2/6, it is
signed in name of Manish Pappu Halwai. Document Exhibit
W-2/7 name of Sudhir is recorded. He had written names of
Manish Pappu subsequently.
9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Vivek Kumar, Management's witness says that workman
was engaged for 85 days from 16-4-96 to 9-7-96. Workman
had not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman
was not supplied copies of budget control register,
attendance register. In his cross-examination management's
witness says he was posted at Satna on 12-6-2013. He had
not engaged or terminated workman. He was giving
evidence as per available record. Workman was working
for 85 days from 16-4-96 to 9-7-96. It is denied that despite
of order for production of documents Exhibit M-1 was not
produced. The witness in his further cross-examination
says that registers of casual employees and regular
employees are separately maintained. The registers of daily
wage employees are not produced. Registers are not
destroyed after one year.
10. Workman had submitted application for production
of documents as per order dated 24-4-2010, workman was
permitted to adduce secondary evidence. When IInd party
has not produced documents on the ground that
documents are destroyed, the zerox copy secured by
workman produced as secondary evidence cannot be
rejected. Evidence of workman is supported by documents.
Exhibit W-1 (1 to 9) budget control register. The entires of
the name of workman are found Exhibit W-2/1 to 9 payment
1520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
voucher are also corroborating evidence of workman. He
was working with IInd party. He was paid wages by IInd
party. IInd party has produced documents Exhibit M-1 order
engaging workman for the period 16-4-04 to 15-7-04 85 days.
The documents produced by workman payment voucher
Exhibit W-2/3 is dated 25-7-05. Subsequent to the period of
his engagement as per Exhibit M-1. Exhibit W-2/4 is dated
16-8-05. W-2/6 is dated 1-8-05. Exhibit W-2/7 shows labour
payment to workman on 8-8-05. W-2/8 dated 29-8-05, Exhibit
W/2/9 dated 10-9-05. Thus evidence of workman is
corroborated by documentary evidence. Exhibit M-1
produced by management does not explain the working of
workman beyond the period of his engagement.
11. Learned Counsel for workman Shri Ahiwasi on point
of burden of proving more than 240 days continous service
relies on ratio held in Case of Director, Fisheries Terminal
Department versus Bhikubhai Meghajibhia Chavda
reported in 2010(2) MPLJ-30. Their Lordship of the Supreme
Court dealing with Section 25-B of ID Act, held burden of
proof shifts to the employer to prove that he did not
complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to
constitute continuous service.
He also relies on ratio held in Case of Sanjay Kumar
versus Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam
reported in 2010(3) MPLJ-457. Their Lordship dealing with
question of burden of proof of completing 240 days
continuous service held the evidence produced by
petitioner workman was sufficient to prove that petitioner
has worked for more than 240 days. In rebuttal, there is
cogent evidence adduced by the respondent. Burden of
proof shifts on the respondent employer to prove that
petitioner did not complete 240 days of service in the
requisite period to constitute continuous service.
Though management's witness syas that he has stated
in his affidavit as per record that workman not completed
240 days continuous service, which record is referred is
not disclosed neither those documents are produced by
IInd party. It is sufficient to hold that evidence of workman
corroborated by documentary evidence deserves to be
accepted. Workman has discharged his burden that he was
contnuously working more than 240 days, his services are
terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment
compensation, provisions of Section 25F was not complied
while terminating his services therefore termination of
service of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
12. Point No. 2 — In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of service of workman is illegal, question arises
whether workman is entitled to reinstatement with
backwages. As per evidence discussed above, workman
was working with IInd party on daily wages at the rate
prescribed by Collector office from March 96 to 30-9-05.
Post was not advertised. Workman has not submitted
application but he claims to have been orally interviewed.
13. Learned Counsel for Ist party Ahiwasi submits that
workman be reinstated with backwages. In support of his
arguments, he placed reliance on ratio held in Case of
Harjinder Singh Versus Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation reported in 2010(3) SCC 192. Their Lordship
restored award passed by Labour Court for reinstatement
with 50% back wages. From reading of para-2 of the
judgement, it is clear that the appellant in above cited case
was employed in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
as work charge motor mate w.e.f. 5-3-86. After 7 months
Executive Engineer issued order appointing appellant in
pay scale Rs. 350-525. Further orders were issued on 5-2-87
appointing appellant in Pay Scale 400-600. The appointment
order dated 4-5-87, the appellant was continued in
employment.
The facts of present case are not comparable as the Ist
party workman was engaged for 85 days as per Exhibit
M-1. Ist party workman was not appointed on regular pay
scale.
In Para-30 of the judgment, their Lordship observed of
late, there has been a visible shift in the courts approach in
dealing with the cases involving the interpretation of social
welfare legislations. The attractive mantras of globalization
and liberalization are fast becoming the raison d'etre of the
judicial process and an impression has been created that
the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic towards
the plight of industrial and unorganized workers. In large
number of cases like the present one, relief has been denied
to the employees falling in the category of workmen, who
are illegally retrenched from service by creating by lanes
and side lanes in the jurisprudence developed by this Court
in three decades. The stock plea raised by the public
employer in such cases is that the initial employment/
engagement of the workman/employee was contrary to some
or the other statue or that reinstatement of the workman
will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the
establishment. The courts have readily accepted such plea
unmindful of the accountability of the wrong doer and
indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong
ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the
employment for year together and that micro wages earned
by him may be the only source of his livelihood.
In para-36 of the judgment their Lordship observed
Judges and specially of the Judges of the highest Court
have a vital role to ensure that the promise is fulfilled. If the
Judges fail to discharge their duty in making an effort to
make the promise a reality, they fail to uphold and abide by
the constitution which is their oath of office. In my opinion,
this has to be put as high as that and should be equated
with the conscience of this Court.
The ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied as
workman was not appointed in regular Pay scale. He not
even submitted application for appointment. The post was
not advertised. He was engaged as per Exhibit M-1 for 85
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1521
days as casual employees. Considering period of work on
daily wages of Ist party from 1996 to 30-9-05, reasonable
compensation would be appropriate. In my considered view,
compensation Rs. 2,50,000/- would be reasonable.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
14. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Sr. Divisional
Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Satna MP in not regularizing the services
and terminating Shri Ramkushal Dahia
S/o Shri Ramadhar Dahia, Daily rated workman
after working from March 96 to 30-9-2005 is not
legal and proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 2,50,000/- to the 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. PATEL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 659.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbQ bU'kqjSUl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/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 33@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 20@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-&17012@12@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 659.—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. 33/2006) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 20.03.2015.
[No. L-17012/12/2006-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
CGIT/LCR/33/2006
Shri Manish Kumar Halwai,
Opp Hukumchandra Dicks Wala,
Shyamlal ka Bada,
Bajraha Tola,
Satna (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Sr. Mandal Manager,
LIC of India,
Mandal Office, Krishna Complex,
Krishna Nagar,
Satna (MP)
.... management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of March, 2015
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its
Notification No. L-17012/12/2006-IR(M) dated 14-7-06 has
referred the following dispute for adjudication by this
tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of
Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Satna MP in not regularizing the services and
terminating Shri Manish Kumar Halwai S/o Shri Arjun
Prasad Halwai, Daily rated workman after working
from 2004 to 30-9-2005 is legal? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties, Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Pages 5/1 to 5/4. Case of workman is that he was working
as peon in account branch of IInd party from 2004 till
30-09-05. He was continuously working. He was paid
minimum wages prescribed by Collector Office. He worked
with devotion. The services of workman were terminated
by IInd party without notice. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. Termination of his service is in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act. Other junior employees were
continued in service. Workman was not provided
employment. The list of daily rated employees was not
displayed on notice board. Thereby IInd party violated
provisions of Section 25-G, H & Rules 77,78 of ID Act.
3. Ist party workman further submits that after
completion of service more than six months he acquired
status of regular employee. His services orally terminated
without notice, without conducting enquiry is illegal. On
such grounds, workman prays for his reinstatement with
back wages.
4. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Pages 8/1
to 8/3 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits
that workman was engaged as waterman for 85 days from
16-4-04 to 15-07-05. Workman was not working as peon.
Any appointment orders were not issued to them. He was
not terminated. After completion of 85 days period, his
service had come to end. That workman had not completed
240 days continuous service. The provisions of Section
1522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
25-F, G, H & Rules 77, 78 are not applicable. Workman was
engaged as casual employee for 85 days. Workman had
not completed 240 days continuous service therefore he is
not entitled to protection of ID Act. It is denied that other
junior employees are continued. IInd party prays for
rejection of claim with cost of Rs. 5000/-.
Workman submitted rejoinder at Page-9 reiterating his
contentions in statement of claim.
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
In Negative
the management of
Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Satna MP in not
regularizing the services and
terminating Shri Manish Kumar
Halwai S/o Shri Arjun Prasad
Halwai, Daily rated workman
after working from 2004 to
30-9-2005 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. Workman is challenging termination of service for
violation of Section 25-F, G, H & Rules 77,78. IInd party
submits that workman was casually engaged for 85 days.
He had not completed 240 days continuous service.
Workman is not entitled to protection of ID Act.
8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering his
contentions in statement of claim. That he was working
with IInd party from 16-4-04 till 30-9-95. He had completed
more than 240 days continuous service. He was paid wages
under voucher. Sometimes the wages were paid by
vouchers in name of different persons. He was required to
sign those vouchers. His services are orally terminated
without notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensaion,
any chargesheet was not paid to him. No enquiry was
conducted against him by IInd party. From his evidence,
documents Exhibit W-1, W-2/1 to 2/9 are proved. Workman
in his cross-examination says the attendance register
produced by him is not bearig Mono/seal of LIC. Zerox
copy is produced by him is signed by Shri Shiv Kumar
Soni, Administrative Officer. It does not bear signature of
other persons. The official seal is not affixed on each pages.
He not submitted application for copy. Copy was supplied
to him by Shri Patel, Class IV employee working in LIC. The
entries in Attendance Registers were filled by Shiv Kumar
Soni. The attendance register of regular employees and
Class IV employees are separately maintained. Six other
employees working with him, their attendance was
maintained. The signatures of those employees were not
obtained. The vacancies in LIC were not advertised. He
had not submitted any application. His oral interview was
taken before engaging him in work. In his further cross,
workman admits that entries are taken in Attendance
Register for working days. The payment vouchers and
budget control registers were also maintained. Workman
had denied suggestion that he was not continuously
working. On document Exhibit W-2/6 it is signed in name of
Manish Pappu Halwai. Document Exhibit W-2/7 name of
Sudhir is recorded. He had written names of Manish Pappu
subsequently.
9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Vivek Kumar. Management's witness says that workman
was engaged for 85 days from 16-4-04 to 15-7-04. Workman
had not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman
was not supplied copies of budget control register,
attendance register. In his cross-examination management's
witness says he was posted at Satna on 12-6-2013. He had
not engaged or terminated workman. He was giving
evidence as per available record. Workman was working
for 85 days from April 04 to July 04. It is denied that despite
of order for production of documents Exhibit M-1 was not
produced. The witness in his further cross-examination
says that registers of casual employees and regular
employees are separately maintained. The registers of daily
wage employees are not produced. Registers are not
destroyed after one year.
10. Workman had submitted application for production
of documents as per order dated 24-4-2010, workman was
permitted to adduce secondary evidence. When IInd party
has not produced documents on the ground that
documents are destroyed, the zerox copy secured by
workman produced as secondary evidence cannot be
rejected. Evidence of workman is supported by documents.
Exhibit W-1 (1 to 9) budget control register. The entries of
the name of workman are found exhibit W-2/1 to 9 payment
voucher are also corroborating evidence of workman. He
was working with IInd party. He was paid wages by IInd
party. IInd party has produced documents Exhibit M-1 order
engaging workman for the period 16-4-04 to 15-7-04, 85
days. The documents produced by workman payment
voucher Exhibit W-2/3 is dated 25-7-05. Subsequent to the
period of his engagement as per Exhibit M-1. Exhibit
W-2/4 is dated 16-8-05. W-2/6 is dated 1-8-05. Exhibit
W-2/7 shows labour payment to workman on 8-8-05.
W-2/8 dated 29-8-05, Exhibit W-2/9 dated 10-9-05. Thus
evidence of workman is corroborated by documentary
evidence. Exhibit M-1 produced by management does not
explain the working of workman beyond the period of his
engagement.
11. Learned Counsel for workman Shri Ahiwasi on point
of burden of proving more than 240 days continuous service
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1523
relies on ratio held in Case of Director, Fisheries Terminal
Department versus Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda
reported in 2010(2) MPLJ-30. Their Lordship of the Supreme
Court dealing with Section 25-B of ID Act held burden of
proof shifts to the employers to prove that he did not
completed 240 days of service in the requisite period to
constitute continuous service.
He also relied on ratio held in Case of Sanjay Kumar
versus Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam
reported in 2010(3) MPLJ-457. Their Lordship dealing with
question of burden of proof of completing 240 days
continuous service held the evidence produced by
petitioner workman was sufficient to prove that petitioner
has worked for more than 240 days. In rebuttal, there is
cogent evidence adduced by the respondent. Burden of
proof shifts on the respondent employer to prove that
petitioner did not completed 240 days of service in the
requisite period to constitute continuous service.
Though management's witness says that he has stated
in his affidavit as per record that workman not completed
240 days continuous service, which record is referred is
not disclosed neither those documents are produced by
IInd party. It is sufficient to hold that evidence of workman
corroborated by documentary evidence deserves to be
accepted. Workman has discharged his burden that he was
continuously working more than 240 days, his services are
terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment
compensation, provisions of Section 25-F was not complied
while terminating his services therefore termination of
service of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
12. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of service of workman is illegal, question arises
whether workman is entitled to reinstatement with
backwages. As per evidence discussed above, workman
was working with IInd party on daily wages at the rate
prescribed by Collector office from 16-4-04 to 30-9-05
approximately 1 year 5 months. Post was not advertised.
Workman has not submitted application but he claims to
have been orally interviewed.
13. Learned counsel for Ist party Ahiwasi submits that
workman be reinstated with backwages. In support of his
arguments, he placed reliance on ratio held in Case of
Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation reported in 2010(3) SCC 192. Their Lordship
restored award passed by Labour Court for reinstatement
with 50% back wages. From reading of para-2 of the
judgment, it is clear that the appellant in above cited case
was employed in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
as work charge motor mate w.e.f. 5-3-86. After 7 months
Executive Engineer issues order appointing appellant in
pay scale Rs. 350-525. Further order were issued on 5-2-87
appointing appellant in Pay Scale 400-600. The appointment
order dated 4-5-87 the appellant was continued in
employment.
The facts of present case are not comparable as the
Ist party workman was engaged for 85 days as per Exhibit
M-1. Ist party workman was not appointed on regular pay
scale.
In Para-30 of the judgment, their Lordship observed of
late, there has been a visible shift in the courts approach in
dealing with the cases involving the interpretation of social
welfare legislations. The attractive mantras of globalization
and liberalization are fast becoming the raison d' etre of the
judicial process and an impression has been created that
the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic towards
the plight of industrial and unorganized workers. In large
number of cases like the present one, relief has been denied
to the employees falling in the category of workmen, who
are illegally retrenched from service by creating by lanes
and side lanes in the jurisprudence developed by this Court
in three decades. The stock plea raised by the public
employer in such cases is that the initial employment/
engegement of the workman/employee was contrary to some
or the other statute or that reinstatement of the workman
will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the
establishment. The courts have readily accepted such plea
unmindful of the accountability of the wrong doer and
indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong
ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the
employment for years together and that micro wages earned
by him may be the only source of his livelihood.
In para-36 of the judgment their Lordship observed
Judges and specially of the Judges of the highest Court
have a vital role to ensure that the promise is fulfilled. If the
Judges fail to discharge their duty in making an effort to
make the promise a reality, they fail to uphold and abide by
the constitution which is their oath of office. In my opinion,
this has to be put as high as that and should be equated
with the conscience of this Court.
The ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied as
workman was not appointed in regular Pay Scale. He not
even submitted application for appointment. The post was
not advertised. He was engaged as per Exhibit M-1 for
85 days as casual employee. Considerig short span of work
on daily wages of Ist party, reasonable compensation would
be appropriate. In my considered view, compensation
Rs. 60,000/- would be reasonable. Accordingly, I record my
finding in Point No. 2.
14. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Sr. Divisional
Manager, LIC of India, Divisional office, Satna
MP in not regularizing the services and
terminating Shri Manish Kumar Halwai
1524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
S/o Shri Arjun Prasad Halwai, Daily rated workman
after working from 2004 to 30-9-2005 is not legal
and proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 60,000/- to the 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] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 660.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbQ bU'kqjUl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;y;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 20@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@10@2006&vkbZvkj¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 660.—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. 31/2006) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 20/3/2015.
[No. L-17012/10/2006-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
CASE No. CGIT/LC/R/31/2006
Shri Ram Naresh Singrah,
S/o Shri Dukhilal Singrah,
Vill & PO Sakria,
Satna (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Sr. Mandal Manager,
LIC of India,
Mandal Office, Krishna Complex,
Krishna Nagar,
Satna (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of March, 2015
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its
Notification No. L-17012/10/2006-IR(M) dated 20-7-06 has
referred the following dispute for adjudication by this
tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of
Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Satna MP in not regularizing the services and
terminating Shri Ram Naresh Singrah S/o Shri Dukhilal
Singrah, Daily rated workman after working from
April 2004 to 30-9-2005 is legal? If not, to what relief
the concerned 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 5/4. Case of workman is that he was working as
peon in account branch of IInd party from April 02 till
30-9-05. He was continuously working. He was paid
minimum wages prescribed by Collector Office. He worked
with devotion. The services of workman were terminated
by IInd party without notice. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. Termination of his service is in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act. Other junior employees were
continued in service. Workman was not provided
employment. The list of daily rated employees was not
displayed on notice board. Thereby IInd party violated
provisions of Section 25-G, H & Rules 77, 78 of ID Act.
3. Ist party workman further submits that after
completion of service more than six months he acquired
status of regular employee. His services orally terminated
without notice, without conducting enquiry is illegal. On
such grounds, workman prays for his reinstatement with
back wages.
4. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 9/1 to
9/3 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that
workman was engaged as waterman for 85 days from
April 2002 to 30-9-05. Workman was not working as peon.
Any appointment orders were not issued to them. He was
not terminated. After completion of 85 days period, his
service had come to end. That workman had not completed
240 days continuous service. The provisions of Section
25-F, G, H & Rules, 77, 78 are not applicable. Workman was
engaged as casual employee for 85 days. Workman had
not completed 240 days continuous service therefore he is
not entitled to protection of ID Act. It is denied that other
junior employees are continued. IInd party prays for
rejection of claim with cost of Rs. 5000/-.
5. Workman submitted rejoinder at Pagte-10 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim.
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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1525
reasons as below:—
(i) whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Sr.
Divisional Manager, LIC of
India, Divisional Office, Satna
MP in not regularizing the
services and terminating
Shri Ram Naresh Singrah
S/o Shri Dukhilal Singrah,
Daily rated workman after -
working from April 2004 to
30-9-2005 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final orders.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. Workman is challenging termination of service for
violation of Section 25-F, G, H & Rule 77, 78. IInd party
submits that workman was casually engaged for 85 days.
He had not completed 240 days continuous service.
Workman is not entitled to protection of ID Act.
8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering his
contentions in statement of claim. That he was working
with IInd party from April 2002 till 30-9-95. He had completed
more than 240 days continuous service. His services are
orally terminated from 30-9-05 without notice, he was not
paid retrenchment compensation, any chargesheet was not
paid to him. No enquiry was conducted against him by
IInd party. From his evidence, documents Exhibit W-1/1 to
W-1/12 are proved. Workman in his cross-examination says
the attendance register produced by him is not signed by
any officer, it doesnot bear office seal attendance of
employees in office of LIC is maintained every day. He was
not signing attendance register every day. LIC officers were
signing every day on attendance register. Shri Lakhan Singh
had supplied copy of attendance register to him. Zerox
copy of attendance register doesnot bear signature of Shri
Lakhan Patel. He was supplied copy after 1-2 days of his
termination. Shri Lakhan patel obtained zerox copy and
handed over to him the post was not advertised. He was
interviewed along with 4-5 other persons. He claims
ignorance of names of other persons. He was not given
appointment letter. He received payments of wages in name
of Shri Rakesh Singh, Ram Naresh, Rajendra Singh.
Evidence of workman is supported by documents Exhibit
W-1/1 to W-1/12. Workman was paid wages under voucher.
9. Though the reference order mentions working of Ist
party workman from April 2002 to 30-9-05, in evidence of
workman, he was working from April 2002 is not shattered.
Documents produced by workman shows his working days
since July 2002.
10. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Vivek Kumar, Management's witness says that workman
was engaged for 85 days from April 2002 to 15-7-04.
Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service.
Workman was not suplied copies of budget control register,
attendance register. In his cross-examination management's
witness says he was posted at Satna on 12-6-2013. He had
not engaged or terminated workman. He was giving
evidence as per available record. Workman was working
for 85 days from April 04 to July 04. It is denied that despite
of order for production of documents Exhibit M-1 was not
produced. The witness in his further cross-examination
says that registers of casual employees and regular
employees are separately maintained. The registers of daily
wage employees are not produced. Registers are not
destroyed after one year.
11. Workman had submitted application for production
of documents as per order dated 24-4-2010, workman was
permitted to adduce secondary evidence. When IInd party
has not produced documents on the ground that
documents are destroyed, the zerox copy secured by
workman produced as secondary evidence cannot be
rejected. Evidence of workman is supported by documents.
Exhibit W-1 (1 to 9) budget control register. The entires of
the name of workman are found Exhibit W-2/1 to 2/9
payment voucher are also corroborating evidence of
workman. He was working with IInd party. He was paid
wages by IInd party. IInd party has produced documents
Exhibit M-1 order engaging workman for the period 16-4-04
to 15-7-04-85 days. The documents produced by workman
payment voucher Exhibit W-2/3 is dated 25-7-05.
Subsequent to the period of his engagement as per Exhibit
M-1. Exhibit W-2/4 is dated 16-8-05. W-2/6 is dated 1-8-05.
Exhibit W-2/7 shows labour payment to workman on
8-8-05. W-2/8 dated 29-8-05, Exhibit W-2/9 dated 10-9-05.
Thus evidence of workman is corroborated by documentary
evidence. Exhibit M-1 produced by manamgement doesnot
explain the working of workman beyond the period of his
engagement.
12. Learned counsel for workman Shri Ahiwasi on point
of burden of proving more than 240 days continous service
relies on ratio held in
Case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Department versus
Bhikubhai Meghajibhia Chavda reported in 2010(2) MPLJ-
30. Their Lordship of the Supreme Court dealing with Section
25-B of ID Act held burden of proof shifts to the employer to
prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the
requisite period to constitute continuous service.
He also relies on ratio held in Case of Sanjay Kumar
versus Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam
reported in 2010(3) MPLJ-457. Their Lordship dealing with
question of burden of proof of completing 240 days
continuous service held the evidence produced by
petitioner workman was sufficient to prove that petitioner
has worked for more than 240 days. In rebuttal, there is
congent evidence adduced by the respondent. Burden of
1526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
proof shifts on the respondent employer to prove that
petitioner did not complete 240 days of service in the
requisite period to constitute continuous service.
Though management's witness syas that he has stated
in his affidavit as per record that workman not completed
240 days continuous service, which record is referred is
not disclosed neither those documents are produced by
IInd party. It is sufficient to hold that evidence of workman
corroborated by documentary evidence deserves to be
accepted. Workman has discharged his burden that he was
contnuously working more than 240 days, his services are
terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment
compensation, provisions of Section 25-F was not complied
while terminating his services therefore termination of
service of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
13. Point No. 2 — In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of service of workman is illegal, question arises
whether workman is entitled to reinstatement with
backwages. As per evidence discussed above, workman
was working with IInd party on daily wages at the rate
prescribed by Collector office from 16-4-02 to 30-9-05
approximately 4 years. Post was not advertised. Workman
has not submitted application but he claims to have been
orally interviewed.
14. Learned counsel for Ist party Ahiwasi submits that
workman be reinstated with backwages. In support of his
arguments, he placed reliance on ratio held in Case of
Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation reported in 2010(3) SCC 192. Their Lordship
restored award passed by Labour court for reinstatement
with 50% back wages. From reading of para-2 of the
judgement, it is clear that the appellant in above cited case
was employed in Punjab State Warehousng Corporation
as work charge motor mate w.e.f. 5-3-86. After 7 months
Executive Engineer issued order appointing appellant in
pay scale Rs. 350-525. Further orders were issued on 5-2-87
appointing appellant in Pay Scale 400-600. The appointment
order dated 4-5-87— the appellant was continued in
employment.
The facts of present case are not comparable as the Ist
party workman was engaged for 85 days as per Exhibit
M-1. Ist party workman was not appointed on regular pay
scale.
In Para-30 of the judgement, their Lordship observed of
late, there has been a visible shift in the courts approach in
dealing with the cases involving the interpretation of social
welfare legislations. The attractive mantras of globalization
and liberalization are fast becoming the raison d'etre of the
judicial process and an impression has been created that
the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic towards
the plight of industrial and unorganized workers. In large
number of cases like the present one, relief has been denied
to the employees falling in the category of workmen, who
are illegally retrenched from service by creating by lanes
and side lanes in the jurisprudence developed by this Court
in three decades. The stock plea raised by the public
employer in such cases is that the initial employment/
engagement of the workman/employee was contrary to some
or the other stature or that reinstatement of the workman
will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the
establishment. The courts have readily accepted such plea
unmindful of the accountability of the wrong doer and
indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong
ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the
employment for year together and that micro wages earned
by him may be the only source of his livelihood.
In para-36 of the judgement their Lordship observed
Judges and specially of the Judges of the highest Court
have a vital role to ensure that the promise is fulfilled. If the
Judges fail to discharge their duty in making an effort to
make the promise a reality, they fail to uphold and abide by
the constitution which is their oath of office. In my opinion,
this has to be put as high as that and should be equated
with the conscience of this Court.
The ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied as
workman was not appointed in regular Pay scale. He not
even submitted application for appointment. The post was
not advertised. Evidence shows that workman was
continuously working from April 2002 till 30-9-05 for about
3 1/2 years. Considering short spam of work on daily wages
of Ist party, reasonable compensation would be appropriate.
In my considered view, compensation Rs. One Lakh would
be reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No. 2
15. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Sr. Divisional
Manager, LIC of India, Divisional office, Satna
MP in not regularizing the services and
terminating Shri Ram Naresh Singrah S/o Shri
Dukhilal Singrah, Daily rated workman after
working from April 2002 to 30-9-2005 is not legal
and proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. One Lakh to the 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] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 661.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbQ bU'kksjsUl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1527
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 30@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&17012@9@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 30/2006) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 20/3/2015.
[No. L-17012/9/2006-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
Case No. CGIT/LC/R/30/2006
Shri Ramesh Kumar Soni,
Near Shafi Gali,
Gaushala Nagar,
Satna (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Sr. Mandal Manager,
LIC of India,
Mandal office, Krishna Complex,
Krishna Nagar,
Satna (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of March, 2015
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its
Notification No. L-17012/9/2006-IR(M) dated 14-7-06 has
referred the following dispute for adjudication by this
tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Sr.
Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Satna MP in not regularizing the services and
terminating Sri Ramesh Kumar Soni S/o Shri
Rammnath Soni, Daily rated workman after working
from 1998 to 30-9-2005 is legal? If not, to what relief
the concerned 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 5/4. Case of workman is that he was working as
peon in account branch of IInd party from 1998 till 30-9-05.
He was continuously working. He was paid minimum wages
prescribed by Collection Office. He worked with devotion.
The services of workman were terminated by IInd party
without notice. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. Termination of his service is in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act. Other junior employees were
continued in service. Workman was not provided
employment. The list of daily rated employees was not
displayed on notice board. Thereby IInd party violated
provisions of Section 25-G, H & Rule 77, 78 of ID Act.
3. Ist party workman further submits that after
completion of service more than six months he acquired
status of regular employee. His services orally terminated
without notice, without conducting enquiry is illegal. On
such grounds, workman prays for his reinstatement with
back wages.
4. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/3 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that
workman was engaged as waterman for 85 days from
17-4-00 to 10-7-00. Workman was not working as peon.
Any appointment orders were not issued to them. He was
not terminated. After completion of 85 days period, his
service had come to end. That workman had not completed
240 days continuous service. The provisions of Section
25-F, G, H & Rule-77, 78 are not applicable. Workman was
engaged as casual employee for 85 days. Workman had
not completed 240 days continuous service therefore he is
not entitled to protection of ID Act. It is denied that other
junior employees are continued. IInd party prays for
rejection of claim with cost of Rs. 5000/-.
5. Workman submitted rejoinder at Pagte-9 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim.
6. Reply to rejoinder is filed by IInd party contending
that as per budget control register, workman worked for 67
days in 2002, 29 days in 2003, 100 days in 2004 & 37 days in
2005.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Sr.
Divisional Manager, LIC of
India, Divisional Office, Satna
MP in not regularizing the
services and terminating
Shri Ramesh Kumar Soni
S/o Shri Ramnath Soni,
Daily rated workman after -
working from 1998 to
30-9-2005 is legal?
1528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final orders.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
8. Workman is challenging termination of his service for
violation of Section 25-F, G, H & Rule 77, 78. IInd party
submits that workman was casually engaged for 85 days.
He had not completed 240 days continuous service.
Workman is not entitled to protection of ID Act.
9. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering his
contentions in statement of claim. That he was working
with IInd party from 1998 till 30-9-95. He had completed
more than 240 days continuous service. He was paid wages
under voucher. Sometimes the wages were paid by vouchers
in name of different persons. He was required to sign those
vouchers. His services are orally terminated without notice,
he was not paid retrenchment compensation, any
chargesheet was not paid to him. No enquiry was conducted
against him by IInd party. From his evidence, documents
Exhibit W-1, W-2/1 to 2/139, are proved. Workman in his
cross-examination says the attendance register produced
by him is not bearing Mono/seal of LIC. Zerox copy is
produced by him is signed by Shri Shiv Kumar Soni,
Administrative Officer. It does not bear signature of other
persons. The official seal is not affixed on each pages. He
not submitted applications for copy. Copy was supplied to
him by Shri Patel, Class IV employee working in LIC. He
had not deposted any amount for securing copy of
Attendance Register. Objection was kept open about
secondary evidence. The documents should be accepted
as secondary evidence or not. When IInd party has not
produced documents after application, workman was
granted permission for secondary evidence as per order
dated 21-4-2010. The document is admitted as secondary
evidence. Evidence of workman is supported by payment
vouchers Exhibit W-2/1 to 2/139.
10. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Vivek Kumar, Management's witness says that workman
was engaged for 85 days. Workman had not completed 240
days continuous service. Working days of workman were
67 days in 2002, 29 days in 2003, 100 days in 2004 & 37 days
in 2005. Workman was not supplied copies of budget control
register, attendance register. In his cross-examination
management's witness says he was posted at Satna on
12-6-2013. He had not engaged or terminated workman. He
was giving evidence as per available record. Workman was
engaged on daily wages during 2002 to 2005. In 2000,
workman worked for 85 days. Witness was unable to tell
working days of workman during rest of the years. It is
denied that despite of order for production of documents
Exhibit M-1 was not produced. The witness in his further
cross-examination says that registers of casual employees
and regular employees are separately maintained. The
registers of daily wage employees are not produced.
Registers are not destroyed after one year.
11. Workman had submitted application for production
of documents as per order dated 24-4-2010, workman was
permitted to adduce secondary evidence. When IInd party
has not produced documents on the ground that
documents are destroyed, the zerox copy secured by
workman produced as secondary evidence cannot be
rejected. Evidence of workman is supported by documents.
Exhibit W-1 (1 to 9) budget control register. The entires of
the name of workman are found Exhibit W-2/1 to 9 payment
voucher are also corroborating evidence of workman. He
was working with IInd party. He was paid wages by IInd
party. IInd party has produced documents Exhibit M-1 order
engaging workman for the period 16-4-04 to 15-7-04-85 days.
The documents produced by workman payment voucher
Exhibit W-2/3 is dated 25-7-05. Subsequent to the period of
his engagement as per Exhibit M-1. Exhibit W-2/4 is dated
16-8-05. W-2/6 is dated 1-8-05. Exhibit W-2/7 shows labour
payment to workman on 8-8-05. W-2/8 dated 29-8-05, Exhibit
W/2/9 dated 10-9-05. Thus evidence of workman is
corroborated by documentary evidence. Exhibit M-1
produced by management does not explain the working of
workman beyond the period of his engagement.
12. Learned counsel for workman Shri Ahiwasi on point
of burden of proving more than 240 days continuous service
relies on ratio held in Case of Director, Fisheries Terminal
Department versus Bhikubhi Meghajibhai Chavda reported
in 2012(2) MPLJ-30. Their Lordship of the Suprme Court
dealing with Section 25-B of IDAct held burden of proof
shifts to the employer to prove that he did not complete
240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute
continuous service.
He also relies on ratio held in Case of Sanjay Kumar
versus Chief Executive Office, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam
reported in 2010(3) MPLJ-457. Their Lordship dealing with
question of burden of proof of completing 240 days
continuous service held the evidence produced by
petitioner workman was sufficient to prove that petitioner
has worked for more than 240 days. In rebuttal, there is
congent evidence adduced by the respondent. Burden of
proof shifts on the respondent employer to prove that
petitioner did not complete 240 days of service in the
requisite period to constitute continuous service.
Though management's witness syas that he has stated
in his affidavit as per record that workman not completed
240 days continuous service, which record is referred is
not disclosed neither those documents are produced by
IInd party. It is sufficient to hold that evidence of workman
corroborated by documentary evidence deserves to be
accepted. Workman has discharged his burden that he was
continuously working more than 240 days, his services are
terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment
compensation, provisions of Section 25_F was not complied
while terminating his services therefore termination of
service of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1529
13. Point No. 2 — In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of service of workman is illegal, question arises
whether workman is entitled to reinstatement with
backwages. As per evidence discussed above, workman
was working with IInd party on daily wages at the rate
prescribed by Collector office from 1998 to 30-9-05. Post
was not advertised. Workman has not submitted application
but he claims to have been orally interviewed.
13. Learned counsel for Ist party Ahiwasi submits that
workman be reinstated with backwages. In support of his
arguments, he placed reliance on ratio held in Case of
Harjinder Singh Versus Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation reported in 2010(3) SCC 192. Their Lordship
restored award passed by Labour Court for reinstatement
with 50% back wages. From reading of para-2 of the
judgement, it is clear that the appellant in above cited case
was employed in Punjab State Warehousng Corporation
as work charge motor mate w.e.f. 5-3-86. After 7 months
Executive Engineer issued order appointing appellant in
pay scale Rs. 350-525. Further orders were issued on 5-2-87
appointing appellant in Pay Scale 400-600. The appointment
order dated 4-5-87 — the appellant was continued in
employment.
The facts of present case are not comparable as the Ist
party workman was engaged for 85 days as per Exhibit
M-1. Ist party workman was not appointed on regular pay
scale.
In Para-30 of the judgement, their Lordship observed of
late, there has been a visible shift in the courts approach in
dealing with the cases involving the interpretation of social
welfare legislations. The attractive mantras of globalization
and liberalization are fast becoming the raison d'etre of the
judicial process and an impression has been created that
the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic towards
the plight of industrial and unorganized workers. In large
number of cases like the present one, relief has been denied
to the employees falling in the category of workmen, who
are illegally retrenched from service by creating by lanes
and side lanes in the jurisprudence developed by this Court
in three decades. The stock plea raised by the public
employer in such cases is that the initial employment/
engagement of the workman/employee was contrary to some
or the other statute or that reinstatement of the workman
will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the
establishment. The courts have readily accepted such plea
unmindful of the accountability of the wrong doer and
indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong
ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the
employment for year together and that micro wages earned
by him may be the only source of his livelihood.
In para-36 of the judgement their Lordship observed
Judges and specially of the Judges of the highest Court
have a vital role to ensure that the promise is fulfilled. If the
Judges fail to discharge their duty in making an effort to
make the promise a reality, they fail to uphold and abide by
the constitution which is their oath of office. In my opinion,
this has to be put as high as that and should be equated
with the conscence of this Court.
The ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied as
workman was not appointed in regular Pay scale. He not
even submitted application for appointment. The post was
not advertised. He was engaged as per Exhibit M-1 for 85
days as casual employees. Considering period of work on
daily wages of Ist party from 1998 to 30-9-05, reasonable
compensation would be appropriate. In my considered view,
compensation Rs. 2 Lakh would be reasonable.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
15. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Sr. Divisional
Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Satna
MP in not regularizing the services and
terminating Shri Ramesh Kumar Soni S/o Shri
Ramnath Soni, Daily rated workman after working
from 1998 to 30-9-2005 is not legal and proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 2
Lakh to the 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] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 662.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj eksby 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/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 189@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gSa tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 20@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&29012@66@2000&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 662.—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. 189/2000) 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 MOIL and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 20.3.2015.
[No. L-29012/66/2000-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
1530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/189/2000
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Kishan Boppche,
S/o Tikaram Bopche,
Ward No. 10, PO Bharveli,
Distt. Bangalore (Karnataka).
...Workman
Versus
The Chairman cum Managing Director,
MOIL, 3, Mount Road Extension,
Nagpur (MS)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 24.10.2000 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-29012/
66/2000/IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Dy. General Manager
(Pr.), MOIL, 3, Mount Road Extension, Nagpur (MS)
in dismissing the services of Shri Kishan Bopche
S/o Tikaram Bopche, Checker of Bharveli Mine of
MOIL w.e.f. 26.5.86 is justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/9. Case of Ist party is that he was working as
checker in Bharveli Mine. He was initially engaged as labour
in 1975. He was continuously working till date of his
dismissal 26.5.86. In 1982, the labours working inside
Bharveli Mine had formed Union in the name of Krantikari
Mazdoor Panchayat. Workman was elected as general
secretary. Mr. Mankar Mujare was elected as President.
Recognized INTUC Union was opposing the formation of
said Union in collision with the management. On 11.2.82, it
was decided to hold general meeting of labours on 24.6.82.
Workman was served with chargesheet of giving speech
instigating labours in the mine. It was decided to protest
issuing said chargesheet, arranging meeting at Guest House
on 27.6.82. The labours were angry with the chargesheet
issued to workman labours were scating and agitating
issuance of chargesheet to the workman. Management in
collusion with INTUC labours called large police force.
The police had exploded tear gas also resulted to firing
causing death of 3 labours. It is submitted that the labours
were agitating peacefully demanding withdrawal of
chargesheet issued to workman. The activists of INYUC
Union had pelted stones.
3. It is further contented that police filed chargesheet
bearing Case No. 7,8, 9/84 and various offence under
labours and workman. Workman was falsely implicated by
police in collusion with management workman was
acquitted by criminal court. Management had also issued
chargesheet under different clauses of standing orders.
Chargesheet was issued by Dy. General Manager. Workman
was dismissed. He was also suspended for more than 3
years. Workman has contented that statements suitable to
the management were manipulated by the management
enquiry was not properly conducted. He was not supplied
copies of documents. Chargesheet were also issued to other
labours. Those labours were dismissed. His dismissal of
the labours were challenged in Reference No. 33/84, 60/87.
Enquiry conducted in those matters were held illegally by
this Tribunal. Same principles be applied to present case.
That charges alleged against workman are false. Enquiry
was not conducted impartially. Enquiry officer was witness
to the incident therefore enquiry conducted against his is
illegal. That workman was not allowed to avail assistance.
As enquiry conducted is illegal, the punishment of dismissal
is illegal. On such ground, Ist party workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/20
opposing claim of the workman. Preliminary objection is
raised that punishment of dismissal was imposed on 26.5.86
vide order dated 1.9.87. Central Govt. had refused to make
reference observing that order of dismissal was issued after
conducting legal enquiry. Therefore the order of reference
is not legal. IInd party quoted ratio held in various cases
that on point of delay, the reference is not tenable.
5. IInd party further submits that there were peaceful
relation between management and workmen. The disputes
were settled through negotiations and discussions. In 1975,
there was serious riots in Balaghat. One police station was
set on fire, two Inspectors and one constable was burned
to death. The Collector, Blaghat was paraded with garland
of shoes and chappals, Kankar Munjare who was founder
of Krantikari Parishad was resposible for organizing the
agitation to attain international attention. He started
interfering with the affairs of industrial mine. Shri Kankar
Munjare was not a trade Union activist. He wanted to
infiltrate in Trade Union as an experiment. As a part of his
plan to establish his for hold among workers, meeting was
organized on 18.2.82 in front of office of Mine Manager
contrary to the rules. Mine Manager knew about proposed
meeting. Ist party workman was illegal. He refused
permission for meeting any right. Despite of it, workman
taken out procession of workers from mine to residence of
Mines Manager. Chargesheet was issued to him as per
standing orders. Shri Kankar Munjare do not appreciate
action of the management, he instigated 300—400 workers
to organize violent demonstration. On 27th June, 92, workers
assembled in front of office of Mine Manager and started
violent agitation asking withdrawal of chargesheet issued
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1531
to workman that Manager and other officers were gheraoed.
Labours resulted to stone pelting, giving abuses. Despite
of police lathicharge and tear gas, workers did not stop
their violence. Police fired resulting death of 3 persons. It
is retreated that workers were asking Manager to give
apology to workman. Manager tried to assure that the
charge sheet would be withdrawn. Violence was continued
at instigation of workman it is further submitted that charge
sheet was issued to workman, enquiry was conducted as
per rules. Charges against workman was proved from
evidence in enquiry proceedings. Enquiry Officer submitted
his report. It is denied that enquiry was not properly
conducted. It is denied that copies of documents were not
supplied to workman. It is denied that Enquiry Officer
Shri Dwivedi was witness of the incident and as such not
competent for appointment as Enquiry Officer. IInd party
has referred to ratio held in various cases reiterating that
charges proved against workman are of grievous nature.
Order of dismissal is proper and legal. The principles of
natural justice were followed by Enquiry Officer. IInd party
prayed to answer reference in its favour.
6. As per order dated 12.12.12, may predecessor held
enquiry conducted against workman is legal. Considering
pleadings on record and findings on preliminary issue, 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 misconduct
alleged against workman is
Party in Affirmative
proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
dismissal imposed against
In Affirmative
workman is proper and
legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
7. Enquiry conducted against workman is found proper
and legal. Question remains whether charges alleged
against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings. As per Exhibit M-2, charge sheet was issued
to workman pertaining to allegation he instigated workers
on 27.6.82 for resorting to gherao, abusing Mine Manager,
taking out procession, resulting to violence not taking back
the agitations and unuathorized absence etc. covered under
clause 2a(b)(7)(x), (XII), XV of standing orders. Workman
denied charges against him as per reply Exhibit M-3
workman has contented that he was in jail of Balaghat. He
was unable to attend Enquiry Proceedings. He was arrested
by police on suspiciou. That criminal case was registered
against him on the same facts enquiry could not be
conducted. Management did not find his explanation
satisfactorily. Enquiry Officer was Shri K.S. Tripathi.
Enquiry was condoucted. Workman participated in Enquiry
Proceedings and himself cross-examined the management's
witness. Copy of Enquiry Proceedings is produced at
Exhibit M-5, M-6. Management's witness Rewa Ram S/o
Dharmaji, Junglu, Babulal, C.B. Patel fully supported the
allegations against workman. That for demand of withdrawal
of charge sheet against workman. The procession was
taken by the labours to the residence of Mines Manager.
The labours were abusing. They started pelting stones
even tried to burn bunglow of Mines Manager. The violent
acts of the labours were not stopped even after intervention
by police. The witness of management during their cross-
examination have given the locations stones were pelted,
abuses given. The suggestion that Union activist of INTUC
had resorted to pelting stones are denied. To be precise,
Rewa Ram in cross-examination says that he was working
from 1971. He had come to the place of scene obtaining
permission of foreman that he had studied up to
matriculation. He come to the headquarter office for taking
tea. After looking to the incident, he stopped at the place.
He heard agitators are demanding withdrawal of charge
sheet issued to workman said witness says that he was
member of INTUC Union. More than 1000 labours had
participated in the agitations. He attended place of scene
around 9 AM. In this further cross-examination, he says he
had seen agitations near office mine. He identified workman
as he was acquainted with him. Police had come from
Balaghat. He identified Magistrate as other people were
saying he was the Magistrate. That he had seen higher
officers coming to the place of scene. The pleading of both
parties are clear that when violence was not stopped, the
police resorted to firing and 3 persons died in police firing.
The officers were gheraoed from all sides by labours. The
police resorted to firing on labours as Ist party workman
and other persons of his group were intending to beat the
higher officers to take revenge. The evidence of Shri Rewa
Ram on the point of violent acts omitted is not shattered in
his cross-examination. However he was unable to tell exact
time of lathicharge. He was unable to tell on whom police
had fired. After police resorted to firing, he was hiding at
the place. The bullets were fired by police by side of time
office. When stones were pelted, noise was heard at the
window. The noise of firing was also heard by him. The
witness had admitted his statement read over to him in his
further cross-examination, witness says he was standing
at the floor near office of Mine Manager. Other witnesses
of management Janglu, Babulal confirmed incident of
pelting strones and firing by police. Their evidence was
not shattered in their cross-examination. Janglu Babulal
was Security Guard. In his cross-examination, he says that
he was not having any arms but he was having only cane
in his hand. When about 125 labours came agitating near
mines office, he was standing in the verandah of Mines
Office. The labours were giving slogans from 8 AM to
around 2.30 PM. the agitators were giving slogans for
1532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
withdrawal of charge sheet issued to workman. Police had
come around 8 A.M. The witness was unable to tell their
names. Management's witness No. 3 Shri C.V. Patel Head
time keeper corroborated evidence of earlier witnesses. His
evidence is also devoted on point of Ist party workman
marking absent from 9.6.82 to 8.11.82.
8. The management's witness Janglu Babulal in his
further cross-examination says that he had not seen
workman letting fire. That presently said witness had no
enmity with workman the agitating workman were giving
slogans outside office for withdrawal of charge sheet issued
to workman. The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings clearly
shows that charge sheet issued to workman, the agitations
were started, workman was among the agitators. The labours
in procession resorted to violence. The agitations and
violation were not stopped even after intervention by police
and Magistate. The act of resorting to violence for any
kind of demand cannot be justified so far as charge No. 3
regarding unauthorized absence after justified, workman
was arrested by police and released after about 3 months.
During period of his detention, workman could not attend
duty therefore absence of duty of workman cannot be said
willful. The findings of Enquiry Officer w.r.t. charge No. 3
cannot be said proper and legal. Rest of the charges are
proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.
9. Management's witness Babulal in his cross-
examination by workman says that he not stated that
persons were having wooden logs or stones. Agitators
were giving forceful slogans, the agitating labours had
gheraved officers from all sides. That he was on duty. It
was not expected of him to stand idle. His evidence
discussed above squarely proves charges of violent
agitation resulting to stone pelting for demand of
withdrawal of charge sheet issued to workman the evidence
of defence witnesses also confirm the violent agitations
by the labours. The enquiry was completed in 1986 and
workman was dismissed as per argument advanced, the
criminal case was subsequently prosecuted and workman
was acquitted in the year 1999. Though argument were
advanced w.r.t. observations in para-43 of judgment by
Criminal Court, Additional Session Judge, the copy of
judgment is not produced on record therefore I am not able
to make any observations on the point. When enquiry is
completed prior to the judgment by criminal court and
evidence discussed above shows that findings of Enquiry
Officer are supported by evidence. The susequent
judgments by Criminal Court cannot be a ground to hold
that the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse or illegal.
The burden of proof in Domestic Enquiry and criminal case
is different. In criminal case, the prosecution is under
obligation to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
In DE, the burden of proof is based on probabilities and
not strictly beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I records
my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
10. Point No.-2 the punishment of dismissal is imposed
against workman the registration of Union is not produced
in Enquiry Proceedings. Any notice for strike or agitations
was not given by workman for demand of withdrawal of
charge issued to workman, the agitations were taken in the
office of Mine Manager, time office, giving slogans for
withdrawal of charge sheet, manager was gheraoed that
Mine Manager should come out and beg for apology on
his toes from workman such demands are unusal resulting
to violence is also illegal. The employee doing such acts
cannot be shown leniency therefore the order of dismissal
does not call for interference. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the Dy. General Manager (Pr.), MOIL,
3, Mount Road Extension, Nagpur (MS) in
dismissing the services of Shri Kishan Bopche
S/o Tikaram Bopche, w.e.f. 26.5.86 is legal and
proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 663.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj eksby 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/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 190@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gSa tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 20-3-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@65@2000&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 663.—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. 190/2000) 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 MOIL and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 20.3.2015.
[No. L-29012/65/2000-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/190/2000
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1533
Shri Dashrath S/o Tulsi,
Ex-Underground worker of Bharveli,
MOIL, Seoni Camp Bharveli,
Distt. Bangalore (Karnataka)
Workman
Versus
The Chairman cum Managing Director,
MOIL, 3, Mount Road Extension,
Nagpur (MS)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 24.10.2000 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-29012/
65/2000/IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Production Manager
Bharveli Mine of MOIL PO Bharveli, Distt. Balaghat
(MP) in dismissing the services of Shri Dashrath,
S/o Tulsi, Underground worker of Bharveli Mine of
MOIL w.e.f. 29.9.83 is justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/9. Case of Ist party is that he was working as
permanent labour is Balaghat Mine. He was initially
engaged as labour in 1975. He was continuously working
till date of his dismissal 29.3.83. It is submitted that the
labours working inside Bharveli Mine had formed Union in
the name of Krantikari Mazdoor Panchayat. Workman had
played active role in formationof said Union. Shri Kishan
Bopche was elected as general secretary. Mr Kankar Mujare
was elected as President. Management and recognized
INTUC Union was opposing the formation of said Union
in collision with the management. On 11-2-82, it was decided
to hold general meeting the labours on 24-6-82. Workman
was served with chargesheet. It was decided to protest
issuing said chargesheet, arranging meeting at Guest House
on 27-6-82. The labours were angry with the chargesheet
issued to workman. Labours were secating and agitating
issuance to chargesheet to the workman and withdrawal of
chargesheet issued to Kishan Bopche. Management in
collision with INTUC labour called large police force. The
police had exploded tear gas also resulted to firing causing
death of 3 labours. It is submitted that the labours were
agitating peacefully demanding withdrawal of charge sheet
issued to workman. The activists of INTUC Union had
pelted stones.
3. It is further contented that police filed chargesheet
bearing Case No. 7,8,9/84 and various offence under labours
and workman. Workman was falsely implicated by police in
collision with management. Workman was acquitted by
criminal court. Management had also issued chargesheet
under different clauses of standing orders. Chargesheet
was issued by Dy. General Manager. Workman was
dismissed. He was also suspended for more than 3½ years.
Workman has contented that statements suitable to the
management were manipulated by the management enquiry
was not properly conducted. He was not supplied copies
of documents. Chargesheet were also issued to other
labours. Those labours were dismissed. His dismissal of
the labours were challenged in Reference No. 33/84, 60/87.
Enquiry conducted in those matters were held illegally by
this Tribunal. Same principles be applied to present case.
That charges alleged against workman are false.
Chargesheet was issued on 30-8-83 singed by Dy. General
Manager. Workman had requested that for same allegations,
criminal case was prosecuted against him. Enquiry kept in
abeyance. However the management conducted enquiry
illegally and workman was dismissed on 30-8-83. On such
ground, Ist party workman prays for his reinstatement with
back wages.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/20
opposing claim of the workman. Preliminary objection is
raised that punishment of dismissal was imposed on
38-8-83 vide order dated 1-9-87. Central Govt. had refused
to make reference observing that order of dismissal was
issued after conducting legal enquiry. Therefore the order
of reference is not legal. IInd party quoted ratio held in
various cases that on point of delay, the reference is not
tenable.
5. IInd party further submits that there were peaceful
relation between management and workmen. The disputes
were settled through negotiations and discussions. In 1975,
there was serious riots in Balaghat. One police station was
set on fire, two Inspectors and one constable was burned
to death. The Collector, Balaghat was paraded with garland
of shoes and chappals, Kankar Munjare who was founder
of Krantikari Parishad was responsible for organizing the
agitation to attain international attention. He started
interfering with the affairs of industrial mine. Shri Kankar
Munjare was not a trade Union activist. He wanted to
infiltrate in Trade Union as an experiment. As a part of his
plan to establish his for hold among workers, meeting was
organized on 18-2-82 in front of office of Mine Manager
contrary to the rules. Mine Manager knew about proposed
meeting. Ist party workman was illegal. He refused
permission for meeting any right. Despite of it, workman
taken out procession of workers from mien to residence of
Mines Manager. Chargesheet was issued to him as per
standing orders. Shri Kankar Munjare do not appreciate
action of the management, he instigated 300-400 workers
to organize violent demonstration. On 27th June 92, workers
assembled in front of office of Mine Manager and started
violent agitation asking withdrawal of chargesheet issued
to workman, that Manager and other officers were gheroed.
Labours resulted to stone pelting, giving abuses. Despite
of police lathicharge and tear gas, workers did not stop
1534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
their violence. Police fired resulting death of 3 persons. It
is retreated that workers were asking Manager to give
apology to workman. Manager tried to assure that the
chargesheet would be withdrawn. Violence was continued
at instigation of workman. It is further submitted that
chargesheet was issued to workman, enquiry was
conducted as per rules. Charges against workman was
proved from evidence in enquiry proceedings. Enquiry
officer Shri K.N. Tripathi submitted his report. It is denied
that enquiry was not properly conducted. It is denied that
copies of documents were not supplied to workman. It is
denied that Enquiry officer Shri K.N. Tripathi was witness
of the incident and as such not competent for appointment
as Enquiry Officer. IInd party has referred to ratio held in
various cases reiterating that charges proved against
workman are of grievous nature. Order of dismissal is proper
and legal. The principles of natural justice were followed
by Enquiry Officer. IInd party prayed to answer reference
in its favour.
6. As per order dated 12-12-12, may predecessor held
enquiry conducted against workman is legal. Considering
pleadings on record and findings on preliminary issue, 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 misconduct
Party in Affirmative
alleged against workman is
proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Affirmative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and
legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
7. Enquiry conducted against workman is found proper
and legal. Question remains whether charges alleged
against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings. As per Exhibit M-2, chargesheet was issued
to workman pertaining to allegation he instigated workers
on 27.6.82 for resorting to gherao, abusing Mine Manager,
taking out procession, resulting to violence not taking back
the agitations and unuathorized absence etc. covered under
clause 2a(b)(7)(x), (XII), XV of standing orders. Workman
denied charges against him as per reply Exhibit M-3
workman has contented that he was in jail of Balaghat. He
was unable to attend Enquiry Proceedings. He was arrested
by police on suspicion. That criminal case was registered
against him on the same facts enquiry could not be
conducted. Management did not find his explanation
satisfactorily. Enquiry Officer was Shri K.S. Tripathi.
Enquiry was conducted. Workman participated in Enquiry
Proceedings and himself cross-examined the management's
witness. Copy of Enquiry Proceedings is produced at
Exhibit M-5, Exhibit M-5 shows joint enquiry was conducted
against Baba, Heeralal, Sevak, Bhaiyalal, Dashrath and
Mangal Singh. Workman pleaded not guilty of the charges
against him. Management's witness Babulal admitted as
earlier statement read over to him. his evidence in cross-
examination shows that the Mine Manager had come out.
He was gheraoed from all directions. The agitating labours
were asking Manager to get pardon. He was not allowed to
go back or ahead. Somebody had given call to stop the
Manager. In his further cross-examination, Babulal says
that the stones were pelted from western side, Hillok. The
labours were taking stones from Hillok and pelting it. The
land towards canteen side was having some height, so he
was calling it Hillok. The witness has re-affirmed of pelting
stones by labours. The labour did not stop violence even
after intervention by Sub Divisional Magistrte. The cross-
examination of witness further shows that fire was set to
Survey Office. The curtains were destroyed by fire. He was
at Mines office till 4 AM. He had seen smoke at windows.
When teargas was exploded and there was lathicharge, he
was not accompanying police. That after resorted to firing,
he ran towards rest house. After the violent acts were
stopped, he has seen burnt curtains. The violent acts
continued till 2.30 PM.
8. Management's witness in his further cross-
examination says that he had seen labours paprticipating
the agitation. He was knowing their names. When stones
were pelted, he was at distance of 5 feet from Varandah.
Management's witness Rewaram also supported evidence
about violent acts committed by the agitating labours. His
evidence in cross-examination was not shattered. Witness
Babulal was unable to tell the names of labours pelting
stones but he reaffirms that the facts recorded in his
statement are correct. Rewa Ram in his cross has also said
that the glass of the office window were broken. The violent
acts of the labours were not stopped even after intervention
by police. The witness of management during their cross-
examination have given the locations stones were pelted,
abuses given. The suggestion that Union activist of INTUC
had resorted to pelting stones are denied. To be precise,
Rewa Ram in cross-examination says that he was working
from 1971. He had come to the place of scene obtaining
permission of foreman that he had studied upto
matriculation. He come to the headquarter office for taking
tea. After looking to the incident, he stopped at the place.
He heard agitators are demanding withdrawal of
chargesheet issued to workman said witness says that he
was member of INTUC Union. More than 1000 labours had
participated in the agitations. He attended place of scene
around 9 AM. In this further cross-examination, he says he
had seen agitations near office mine. He identified workman
as he was acquainted with him. Police had come from
Balaghat. He identified Magistrate as other people were
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1535
saying he was the Magistrate. That he had seen higher
officers coming to the place of scene. The pleading of both
parties are clear that when violence was not stopped, the
police resorted to firing and 3 persons died in police firing.
The officers were gheraoed from all sides by labours. The
police resorted to firing on labuors as Ist party workman
and other persons of his group were intending to beat the
higher officers to take revenge. The evidence of Shri Rewa
Ram on the point of violent acts omitted is not shattered in
his cross-examination. However he was unable to tell exact
time of lathicharge. He was unable to tell on whom police
had fired. After police resorted to firing, he was hiding at
the place. The bullets were fired by police by side of time
office. When stones were pelted, noise was heard at the
window. The noise of firing was also heard by him. The
witness had admitted his statement read over to him. In his
further cross-examination, witness says he was standing
at the floor near office of Mine Manager. Other witnesses
of management Janglu, Babulal confirmed incident of
pelting strones and firing by police. Their evidence was
not shattered in their cross-examination. Janglu Babulal
was Security Guard. In his cross-examination, he says that
he was not having any arms but he was having only cane
in his hand. When about 125 labours came agitating near
mines office, he was standing in the verandah of Mines
Office. The labours were giving slogans from 8 AM to
around 2.30 PM. the agitators were giving slogans for
withdrawal of chargesheet issued to workman. Police had
come around 8 AM. The witness was unable to tell their
names. Management's witness No. 3 Shri C.V. Patel Head
time keeper corroborated evidence of earlier witnesses. His
evidence is also devoted on point of Ist party workman
marking absent from 9.6.82 to 8.11.82.
9. The management's witness Janglu Babulal in his
further cross-examination says that he had not seen
workman letting fire. That presently said witness had no
enmity with workman the agitating workman were giving
slogans outside office for withdrawal of chargesheet issued
to workman. The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings clearly
shows that chargesheet issued to workman, the agitations
were started, workman was among the agitators. The labours
in procession resorted to violence. The agitations and
violation were not stopped even after intervention by police
and Magistrate. The act of resorting to violence for any
kind of demand cannot be justified so far as charge No. 3
regarding unauthorized absence after justified, workman
was arrested by police and released after about 3 1/2 months.
During period of his detention, workman could not attend
duty therefore absence of duty of workman cannot be said
willful. The findings of Enquiry Officer w.r.t. charge No. 3
cannot be said proper and legal. Rest of the charges are
proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.
10. Management's witness Babulal in his cross-
examination by workman says that he not stated that
persons were having wooden logs or stones. Agitators
were giving forceful slogans, the agitating labours had
gheraved officers from all sides. That he was on duty. It
was not expected of him to stand idle. His evidence
discussed above squarely proves charges of violent
agitation resulting to stone pelting for demand of
withdrawal of chargesheet issued to workman the evidence
of defence witnesses also confirm the violent agitations
by the labours. The enquiry was completed in 1986 and
workman was dismissed as per argument advanced, the
criminal case was subsequently prosecuted and workman
was acquitted in the year 1999. Though argument were
advanced w.r.t. observations in para-43 of judgment by
Criminal Court, Additional Session Judge, the copy of
judgment is not produced on record therefore I am not able
to make any observations on the point. When enquiry is
completed prior to the judgment by criminal court and
evidence discussed above shows that findings of Enquiry
Officer are supported by evidence. The susequent
judgments by Criminal Court cannot be a ground to hold
that the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse or illegal.
The burden of proof in Domestic Enquiry and criminal case
is different. In criminal case, the prosecution is under
obligation to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
In DE, the burden of proof is based on probabilities and
not strictly beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I records
my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
11. Point No.-2 the punishment of dismissal is imposed
against workman the registration of Union is not produced
in Enquiry Proceedings. Any notice for strike or agitations
was not given by workman for demand of withdrawal of
charge issued to workman, the agitations were taken in the
office of Mine Manager, time office, giving slogans for
withdrawal of chargesheet, manager was gheraoed that
Mine Manager should come out and beg for apology on
his toes from workman such demands are unusal resulting
to violence is also illegal. The employee doing such acts
cannot be shown leniency therefore the order of dismissal
doesnot call for interference. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the Production Manager Bharveli
Mine of MOIL PO Bharveli, Distt. Balaghat (MP)
in dismissing the service of Shri Dashrath, S/o
Tulsi, Underground worker of Bharveli Mineof
MOIL , w.e.f. 29.9.83 is legal and proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 664.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhesaV dkjiksjs'ku
vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
1536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 63@01½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&29012@138@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015
S.O. 664.—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. 63/01) 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 Cement Corporation of India Limited and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 20/03/2015.
[No. L-29012/138/2000-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/63/01
Shri Dhirendra Singh S/o Sukh Nidan Singh,
PO & Vill Darautalalpur,
Distt. Fatehpur (UP)
... Workman
Versus
Zonal Manager,
Cement Corporation of India Ltd.,
Samsthargat Office Complex,
Off Mahul Road,
Opp Ashish Theatre, Chembur,
Mumbai
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 26th day of February 2015
1. As per letter dated 30-03-01 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-29012/138/2000-IR (M). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action fo the management of Cement
Corporatin of India Ltd. Indore by verbally
terminating the services of Shri Dhirendra Singh w.e.f.
21.8.99 and non-payment of bonus for the year 97-
98, 98-99 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/8. Case of workman is that he was employed
by IInd party from 6-8-96. He was retrenched by verbal
order w.e.f. 21-8-99. No retrenchment order is writing was
given to him. He was not paid retrenchment compensation,
any reasons for compensation were not given to him.
workman had written 3 letter to Regional Manager, its copy
was addressed to Zonal Manager. Even after receipt of
letter by Regional Manager, any response was not received.
That he worked for more than 3 years 15 days continuously.
He completed 240 days continuous service during each of
the year. His services were terminated without notice in
violation of Section 25-F(a,c). That he was paid salary Rs.
1836/- in 1996 to 99. The salary was increased to Rs. 3021
from April 99. That SAIL office Indore was raised to the
status of Regional office in October 88 and additional posts
were created. Persons junior to the applicant are still
continuing. It is reiterated that he was not paid retrenchment
compensation and junior persons were continued. That
there are no standing orders, the employee can be descried
as adhoc employee. As there are no standing orders of
Cement Corporation of India, Model standing orders apply
to IInd party. Zonal office at Bombay had ordered Indore
to fill his PF form as per letter dated 11-5-99. His PF was
deducted from January 99. He was regularly receiving wages
without reduction. Ist party workman reiterates that
retrenchment of his service is illegal. He prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to
11/9 opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that it
is engaged in production of cement. It was running factory
at Nayagaon including some factory at MP i.e. Neemuch,
Akaltara and Nandan. That for purpose of sale proceedings
various offices were established. That due to various
reasons, company was forced to stop production. The
factories in MP were closed for non-production of sales
offices at various places including Indore were closed. The
dispute is not tenable. That cement industry is scheduled
industry at MPIR Act. The dispute raised under provisions
of ID Act is not tenable. That IInd party has become sick
company under Section 15 of Sick Industry Company's
Act 1985. The reference was made to Board of Industry
and Financial reconsideration. The management of
company was declare as Sick Industry. The dispute is not
tenable. That during 1995-96, management sold 36000 matric
tones cement to improve sales and to keep contact with
customers. Workman was engaged for miscellaneous jobs
on casual basis. Workman was engaged for 89 days. He
was paid minimum wages. The application submitted by
workman for difference of wages. Workman was engaged
for casual work. His engagement on contractual is covered
under Section 2(00)(bb) of ID Act. For regular recruitment,
IInd party has policy. The vacancies are notified to
employment exchange as a staff gap arrangement. It is denied
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 4] 2015@pS= 14] 1937
1537
submitted that workman was engaged on daily wages for
specific period of 89 days. The workman was not continued
as job was not available. His discontinuation does not
amount to retrenchment. Workman has not discolsed
names of the workers continued in employment. IInd party
referred to ratio held in different cases. It is reiterated that
as workman was engaged on contractual basis for job of
casual nature, he is not entitled to protection under Section
25-F of ID Act. The action of the management is proper and
legal.
4. The evidence was adduced by parties. My
predecessor had passed award dated 15-6-09 in favour of
Ist party workman holding that Ist party is entitled for
reinstatement with back wages.
5. Said award was challenged by IInd party in W.P. No.
9348 of 2009. Hon'ble High Court remanderd the matter as
per judgement dated 4-5-2011. Questions to be decided is
whether department of Corporation hold a separate industry
for purpose of applicability of 1960 Act or Cement
Corporation as a whole be treated as sick industry for that
purpose. The impugned award has been quashed allowing
the petition.
6. After remand of matter, parties did not adduce any
evidence. The questions arise as under:—
(i) Whether the establishment
In a Negative
of IInd party is governed by
the provisions of MPIR Act
or ID Act.
(ii) If so, whether action of the
In Negative.
management in terminating
the services of Shri Dhirendra
Singh w.e.f. 21-8-99 and non-
payment of bonus for the year
97-98, 98-99 is justified?
(iii) If not, what relief the
As per final orders.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. Point No. 1- As stated above, both parties did not
adduce any evidence after remand of matter. During course
of argument, there was no dispute that Ist party was working
in Sales Depot at Indore. There was also no dispute between
parties that the cement factories have been closed prior to
termination of service of workman. The counsel for both
parties advanced limited argements whether establishment
of IInd party is covered by MPIR or ID Act. In cross
examination, IInd party establishment is governed by MPIR
Act, the Ist party workman would not be entitled to
protection of the provisions of ID Act. Consequently he
would be entitled to relief of reinstatement with back wages
granted by my predecessor.
8. Cement Factory is included in schedule of MPIR Act
1960 at Sl. No. 7. said position was not in dispute between
counsel for the parties. Industry is defined under MPIRI
Act as—
"Industry means (a) business trade, manufacture,
undertaking or calling of employers, (b) any calling, service,
employment, handicraft or industrial occuption or a
vocation of employees and includes - agriculture and
agricultural operations, any branch of an industry or group
of industries which the State government may by
notification declare to be an industry for the purpose of
this Act.
"9. Learned counsel for workman Shri R.C. Shrivastava
relies on ratio held in Case of Jamul Cement Works, Jamul
versus President, State Industrial Court, MP Indore and
others reported in 1968 MPLJ 1968- Pg. 35. Their Lordship
of the Division bench of MP High Court dealing with
notification issued under Section 1(3) making MPIR act
applicable to Cement Industry held that the constructional
work of the setting up of a cement factory not being an
industry as defined in Section 2(19) of the Act, or a part of
the Cement Industry, the employees working on the
constructional side cannot be regarded as "employees"
within the definition of the term given in Section 2(13) of
the Act.
In present case, there is no evidence that the sales depot
at Indore was part of the Cement Industry. It cannot be
said industry as defined under Section 2(19) of the Act.
That construction site of Cement Factory was not held
industry under said section. The sale depot at far away
place at Indore cannot be said cement factory and therefore
in my considered view, the provisions of MPIR Act are not
applicable. Sale depot i.e. estt. of IInd party at Indore is
covered by provisions of ID Act. Accordingly I record my
finding in Point No. 1.
10. Point No. 2- during course of argument, there was
no dispute if provisions of ID Act are applicable, the
workman would be entitled to relief already granted. In fact
no argument are advanced by counsel for parties on merits
of the matter. My learned predecessor has framed issues
whether workman had completed 240 days continuous
service, whether workman was engaged on daily wages for
a fixed period and whether termination/retrenchment
without complying provisions of Section 25 of ID Act. The
evidence was discussed by my predecessor including
documents. It was observed that there was no specific
denial on part of management in respect of documents
Paper No. 6/11 & 6/21, Paper No. 12/12 to 12/15. Workman
in order to prove he worked continuously for 3 years 15
days since 6-8-96 without break. In absence of any specific
denial of the management, it is established that the workman
was not engaged for a fixed period rather he was allowed to
continue his work and his service was continuous. He
completed 240 days continuous service. Workman was
1538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 4, 2015/CHAITRA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
terminated orally without issuing notice, he was not paid
retrenchment compensation. Termination of service of
workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Therefore
termination of service of workman is illegal. I therefore
record my finding in Point No. 2 in Negative.
11. Point No. 3- My learned predecessor had granted
reinstatement with backwages. Absolutely no argument
are advanced by counsel for parties. Therefore I find no
reason to take different view. Workman is entitled for
reinstatement with back wages from 21-8-99. Accordingly I
record my finding in Point No. 3.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Cement
Corporation of India Ltd. Indore by verbally
terminating the services of Shri Dhirendra Singh
w.e.f. 21-8-99 and non-payment of bonus for the
year 97-98, 98-99 is not legal.
(2) Workman is entitled to reinstatement with
continuity of service with backwages.
R. B. PATLE, 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.