1430 GI/2015

(1539)

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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 665-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973

¼1974 dk vfèfu;e la- 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mièkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznÙk

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

vUos"k.k C;wjks½ }kjk laLFkkfir vkjlh 03¼,½@2004@,lh;w&9] ubZ

fnYyh ¼gfj;k.kk dk tschVh HkrhZ ?kksVkyk½ rFkk blls lEc) ,oa mlh

laO;ogkj ds vU; ekeyksa ls mn~Hkwr vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa esa fnYyh fLFkr

fnYyh mPp U;k;ky;] esa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, Jh jkds'k dqekj [kUuk]

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

[Qk- la- 225@10@2014&,ohMh&II]

lq'khy dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015

S.O. 665.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government

hereby appoints Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for appearing on behalf of Central

Bureau of Investigation in RC 03(A)/2004/ACU-IX, New

Delhi (JBT Recruitment Scam of Haryana) instituted by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Delhi High

Court at Delhi and appeals/revisions or other matters

connected therewith and incidental thereto.

[F. No. 225/10/2014-AVD-II]

SUSHEEL KUMAR, Under Secy.

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 15]

ubZ fnYyh] vizSy 5—vizSy 11] 2015] 'kfuokj@pS=k 15—pS=k 21] 1937

No. 15]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 5—APRIL 11, 2015, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 15—CHAITRA 21, 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 A

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

1540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 666-—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ¼leuq"kaxh cSad½ vfèfu;e]

1959 dh èkjk 25 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼³½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx]

foÙk ea=ky; ds funs'kd Jh v'kksd dqekj flag dks rRdky izHkko ls

vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd] Jh ftrsUnz dqekj esgu ds LFkku ij LVsV cSad

vkWQ =ko.kdksj ds funs'kd e.My esa ljdkjh ukfefr funs'kd ukfer

djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&I]

fefgj dqekj] funs'kd

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2015

S.O. 666.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (3) of Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of The State

Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, the Central

Government, hereby nominates, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh,

Director, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of

Finance, as Government Nominee Director on the Board of

Directors of State Bank of Travancore with immediate effect

and until further orders vice Shri Jitender Kumar Mehan.

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

MIHIR KUMAR, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 667-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh

daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh

èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh jkts'k vxzoky] la;qDr lfpo]

foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd]

Jh vuqjkx tSu ds LFkku ij iatkc us'kuy cSad ds funs'kd e.My esa

ljdkjh ukfefr funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&I]

fefgj dqekj] funs'kd

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2015

S.O. 667.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominates Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, Joint Secretary,

Department of Financial Services, as Government Nominee

Director on the Board of Directors of Punjab National

Bank with immediate effect and until further orders vice

Shri Anurag Jain.

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

MIHIR KUMAR, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 23 Qjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 668-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½ Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh

¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk 3 ds [kaM ¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;

ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr;ksa dks mDr lkj.kh ds dkye ¼2½ esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr;ksa ds LFkku ij dkye

¼1½ esa fofufnZ"V jk"Vªh;d`r cSadksa esa rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] funs'kd ds :i esa ukfer djrh gS%—

Ø-la-

cSad dk uke

orZeku funs'kd dk uke

izLrkfor O;fDr;ksa dk uke

dsujk cSad

Jherh ehuk

Jherh mek 'kadj] lhth,e] eqnzk izcaèu foHkkx] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] vej fcfYMax]

gsepUnz] lhth,e

pkSFkk ry] lj ih ,e jksM] eqEcbZ&400 001

bafM;u cSad

MkW- lR;u MsfoM]

Jh ch- ih- fotsUnz] ihlhth,e] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] fujh{k.k foHkkx] dsUnzh; dk;kZy;]

eq[; egkizcaèd

lh&7] 8oka ry] ckanzk&dqykZ dkEIysDl] ckanzk ¼bZLV½] eqEcbZ&400 051

;wdks cSad

Jh ch- ih- fotsUnz]

MkW- vjfoan 'kekZ] lhth,e] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx] dsUnzh;

ihlhth,e

dk;kZy;] 14oka ry] 'kghn Hkxr flag] eqEcbZ&400 001

flafMdsV cSad

Jh jkts'oj jko]

Jh :nz ukjk;.k dj] {ks=h; funs'kd] dksydkrk] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] 13&15]

lhth,e

,u ,l jksM] dksydkrk&700 001

dkiksZjs'ku cSad

Jh v:.k iljhpk]

Jh izn~;qeu ds- tsuk] lhth,e] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] dsUnzh; ys[kk vuqHkkx] ihch

lhth,e

ua- 118] bZLV gkbZ dksVZ jksM] ukxiqj&440 001

[Qk-la- 6@3@2011&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1541

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2015

S.O. 668.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of the sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalized

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby nominates the

persons specified in column (3) of the table belolw as Directors of nationalized banks specified in column (1) thereof in place

of the persons specified in column (2) of said Table, with immediate effect and unit further orders:—

Sl. No.

Name of the Bank

Name of the Existing Director

Name of the persons Proposed

Canara Bank

Smt. Meena Hemchandra,

Smt. Uma Shankar, CGM, Department of Currency

CGM

Management, Reserve Bank of India, Amar Buliding,

4th Floor, Sir P.M. Road, Mumbai-400 001.

Indian Bank

Dr. Sathyan David, CGM

Shri B.P. Vijayendra, PCGM, Reserve Bank of India,

Inspection Department, Central Office, C-7, 8th Floor,

Bandra-Kurla Complex, Band ra (E) Mumbai-400 051.

UCO Bank

Shri B.P. Vijayendra,

Dr. Arvind Sharma, CGM, Reserve Bank of India,

PCGM

Department of Information technology, Central Office,

14th Floor, Shahid Bhagat Sing, Mumbai-400 001.

Syndicate Bank

Shri Rajeshwar Rao, CGM

Shri Rudra Harayan Kar, Regional Director, Kolkata, Reserve

Bank of India, 13-15 N S Road, Kolkata-700 001.

Corporation Bank

Shri Arun Pasricha, CGM

Shri Pradyumna K. Jena, CGM, Reserve Bank of India,

Central Accounts Section, P.B. No. 118, East High Court

Road, Nagpur-440 001.

[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 Qjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 669-—jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad vfèfu;e]

1981 dh èkjk 7 dh mièkjk ¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 6 dh mièkjk

¼1½ ds [k.M ¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh;

ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ds dsUæh; cksMZ ls Jh nhikadj xqIrk dks vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls

rhu o"kks± dh vofè ds fy, ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad ¼ukckMZ½ ds funs'kd e.My esa

funs'kd ds :i esa iqu% ukfer djrh gSaA

[Qk- la- 7@3@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2015

S.O. 669.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with

sub-section (2) of section 7 of the National Bank for

Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981, the Central

Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India,

hereby re-nominates Shri Dipankar Gupta from the Central

Board of Reserve Bank of India as Director on the Board of

Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development (NABARD) for a period of three years from

the date of notification or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F. No. 7/3/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 Qjojh] 2015

dk-vk- 670-—Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx fodkl cSad vfèfu;e]

1989 ¼1989 dk 39½ dh èkjk 6 dh mièkjk ¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr

èkjk 6 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] MkW- N=ifr f'kokth] vkbZ,,l

¼egkjk"Vª% 86½ ¼tUe frfFk % 12-03-1961½] izèku lfpo ¼O;;½]

foÙk foHkkx] egkjk"Vª ljdkj dks izfrfu;qfDr ds vkèkj ij rRdky

vkesyu ds fu;e ls NwV nsrs gq, muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k

ls rhu o"kZ vFkok vxys vkn'k gksus rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh;

y?kq m|ksx fodkl cSad ¼flMch½ ds v/;{k ,oa izcaè funs'kd ds

:i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 7@6@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2015

S.O. 670.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section (6) read with

sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Small Industries

Development Bank of India Act, 1989 (39 of 1989), the

1542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Central Government hereby appoints Dr. Kshatrapati

Shivaji, IAS (MH:86) [DoB: 12.03.1961], Principal Secretary

(Expenditure), Finance Department, Government of

Maharashtra, as Chairman and Managing Director, Small

Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) on

deputation basis, with exemption from the rule of immediate

absorption, for a period of three years from the date of his

taking over the charge of the post or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 7/6/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 671-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

fot;k c®d ds egkizcaèd Jh gfjnh'k dqekj ch ¼tUe frfFk% 20-05-

1957½ dks 65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa muds }kjk inHkkj

xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls fnukad 31-05-2017 rd] vFkkZr~ vfèof"kZrk

dh vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

dsujk c®d ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk-la- 4@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 671.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri Harideesh Kumar B. (DoB: 20.05.1957), General

Manager, Vijaya Bank as Executive Director, Canara Bank

in the scale of pay of Rs. 65,000-78,000 with effect from the

date of his assumption of charge of the post and upto

31.05.2017 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 672-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds

mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa

varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds

[kaM ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

,rn~}kjk] c®d vkWQ bafM;k ds egkizcaèd Jh pj.k flag

¼tUe frfFk% 01-07-1960½ dks 65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku

esa muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls ikap o"kZ dh vofè ds

fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] ;wdks c®d ds dk;Zikyd

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 672.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri

Charan Singh (DoB: 01.07.1960), General Manager, Bank of

India as Executive Director, UCO Bank in the scale of pay

of Rs. 65,000-78,000 for a period of five years with effect

from the date of his assumption of charge of the post or

until his superannuation or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 673-—jk"Vªh; cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½ Ldhe]

1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½

ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk ds egkizcaèd Jh vkj-ih- ejkBs ¼tUe

frfFk% 17-11-1958½ dks 65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa muds

}kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls fnukad 30-11-2018 rd] vFkkZr~

vfèof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr

djrh gSA

[Qk-la- 4@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 673.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri R. P. Marathe (DoB: 17.11.1958), General Manager, Bank

of Baroda as Executive Director, Bank of India in the scale

of pay of Rs. 65,000-78,000 with effect from the date of his

assumption of the change of the post and upto 30.11.2018

i.e. the date of his attaining the age of superannuation, or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1543

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 674-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk ds egkizcaèd Jh ds- osadV jkek ewfrZ ¼tUe frfFk%

12-01-1959½ dks 65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls fnukad 31-01-2019 rd] vFkkZr~

vfèof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr

djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 674.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri K. Venkata Rama Moorthy (DoB: 12.01.1959), General

Manager, Bank of Baroda as Executive Director, Bank of

Baroda in the scale of pay of Rs. 65,000-78,000 with effect

from the date of his assumption of the change of the post

and upto 31.01.2019 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 675-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

dsujk ds egkizcaèd Jh ,u- ds- lkgw ¼tUe frfFk% 24-02-1959½

dks 65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k

djus dh rkjh[k ls fnukad 28-02-2019 rd] vFkkZr~ vfèof"kZrk dh

vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

bykgkckn c®d ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 675.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri N.K. Sahoo (DoB: 24.02.1959), General Manager, Canara

Bank of India as Executive Director, Allahabad Bank in the

scale of pay of Rs. 65,000-78,000 with effect from the date

of his assumption of charge of the post and upto 28.02.2019

i.e. till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation

or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 676-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

c®d vkWQ bafM;k ds egkizcaèd Jh iou dqekj ctkt ¼tUe

frfFk% 21-09-1958½ dks 65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa muds

}kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls fnukad 30-09-2018 rd] vFkkZr~

vfèof"kZrk dk vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] bafM;u vksojlht cSad ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa

fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 676.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj (DoB: 21.09.1958), General

Manager, Bank of India as Executive Director, Indian

Overseas Bank in the scale of pay of Rs. 65,000-78,000

with effect from the date of his assumption of charge of

the post and upto 30.09.2018 i.e. the date of his attaining

the age of superannuation or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

1544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 677-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

;wfu;u c®d bafM;k ds egkizcaèd Jh jfo 'kadj ikaMs ¼tUe frfFk%

06-10-1957½ dks 65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls fnukad 31-10-2017 rd] vFkkZr~

vfèof"kZrk dk vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] flafMdsV c®d ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr

djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 677.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri

Ravi Shankar Pand ey (DoB: 06.10.1957), General Manager,

Union Bank of India as Executive Director, Syndicate Bank

in the scale of pay of Rs. 65,000-78,000 with effect from the

date of his assumption of charge of the post and upto

31.10.2017 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 678-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

c®d vkWQ cM+kSnk ds egkizcaèd Jh fd'kksj fijkth [kjkr ¼tUe

frfFk% 04-09-1958½ dks 65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa muds

}kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls fnukad 30-09-2018 rd] vFkkZr~

vfèof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa

fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 678.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri Kishore Piraji Kharat (DoB: 04.09.1958), General

Manager, Bank of Baroda as Executive Director, Union Bank

of India in the scale of pay of Rs. 65,000-78,000 with effect

from the date of his assumption of charge of the post and

upto 30.09.2018 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 679-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

;wfu;u c®d bafM;k ds egkizcaèd Jh vkj-lh- yks<+k ¼tUe frfFk%

14-02-1957½ dks 65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa muds }kjk

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls fnukad 28-02-2017 rd] vFkkZr~

vfèof"kZrk dk vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] lsaVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa

fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2015

S.O. 679.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri R.C. Lodha (DoB: 14.02.1957), General Manager, Union

Bank of India as Executive Director, Central Bank of India

in the scale of pay of Rs. 65,000-78,000 with effect from the

date of his assumption of charge of the post and upto

28.02.2017 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1545

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 680-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k ds egkizcaèd Jh vthr dqekj jFk ¼tUe

frfFk% 25-07-1967½ dks 65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa muds

}kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls ikap o"kZ dh vofè ds fy,

vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] vkUèzk cSad ds dk;Zikyd

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 680.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri Ajit Kumar Rath (DoB: 25.07.1967), General Manager,

Union Bank of India as Executive Director, Andhra Bank in

the scale of pay of Rs. 65,000-78,000 for a period of

five years with effect from the date of his assumption of

charge of the post, or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 681-—jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad vfèfu;e]

1981 ¼1981 dk 61½ dh èkjk 6 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼³½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

fuEufyf[kr O;fDr dks bl vfèlwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls

26-07-2016 rd dh vofè ds fy, jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl

cSad ¼ukckMZ½ ds funs'kd e.My esa funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gS%—

¼i½ vij eq[; lfpo ,oa fodkl vk;qDr ¼,lh,l ,aM Mhlh½

d`f"k] i'kqikyu] xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx]

dukZVd ljdkj] csaxyq:A

[Qk- la- 7@4@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 681.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981

(61 of 1981), the Central Government hereby appoints the

following person to be Director on the Board of Directors

of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

(NABARD) for a period upto 26.07.2016, with effect from

the date of issue of this notification:—

(i) Addittional Chief Secretary and Development

Commissioner (ACS and DC) Agriculture, Animal

Husbandry, Rural Development and Co-operation

Departments, Government of Karnataka,

Bengaluru.

[F. No. 7/4/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 682-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

Jh Vh- ,e- Hklhu ¼tUe frfFk% 23-05-1956½] v/;{k ,oa izcaè

funs'kd] bafM;u cSad ds dk;Zdky dks ikap o"kZ dh mudh vuqeksfnr

dk;kZofè] tks fnukad 31-03-2015 dks lekIr gksus okyh gS] dh bafM;u

cSad ds izcaè funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zdkjh vfèdkjh ds :i esa muds

dk;Zdky dks fnukad 31-05-2016 rd vFkkZr~ vfèof"kZrk dh vk;q

izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] c<+krh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@4@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th March, 2015

S.O. 682.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby extends the

tenure of Shri T.M. Bhasin, Chairman and Managing

Director (DoB 23.05.1956), Indian Bank beyond his

approved term of 5 years which is coming to an end on

31.03.2015, as MD and CEO, Indian Bank upto 31.05.2016

i.e. the date of his attaining the age of superannuation, or

until further order, whichever is earleir.

[F.No. 4/4/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

'kqf)&i=

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 683-—ikfjr iapkV fnukad 21@07@2014 vkfèdkfjd

jkti= esa vfèlwpuk fnukad 08@09@2014 ds vUrxZr izdkf'kr gqvk

FkkA

1546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

2- mDr vfèlwpuk esa iapkV ds vafre i`"B esa iSjk 8 ds rhljh

iafDr ls lkroha iafDr dks fuEuksDr :i esa i<+k tk ldrk gSA

"I hold that the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India in terminating the service of

Shri Bhopal Tiwari instead of regularizing the service

is not legal and justified, Hence it is ordered to take

the workman into service at once against regular post

without giving him any back wages."

[la- ,y&22012@384@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 683.—The award passed on 21.07.2014 was

published in the official gazette vide notification No. 22012/

384/2004-IR(C-II) dated 08.09.2014.

2. In the aforesaid notification under the last page of the

Award in para 8 of 3rd line to 7th line may be read as follows:

"I hold that the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India in terminating the service of

Shri Bhopal Tiwari instead of regularizing the service

is not legal and justified, Hence it is ordered to take

the workman into service at once against regular post

without giving him any back wages."

[No. L-22012/384/2004-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 684-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj bZuksjh dksd fyfeVsM

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] csxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 30@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 684.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award of the Cent. Govt. Indus.

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore (ID/20/2013) as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of Ennore

Coke Limited and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 30.3.2015.

[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

22nd JANUARY 2015

PRESENT: Sh. S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

ID No. 20/2013

Applicant:

Sh. Tarachand ,

S/o Hirachand Kholapure,

H. No. 20, Hosur, Basavanagalli,

BECGAUM.

Respondent:

The President and CEO, Whole

Time Director, CEO, Ennore Coke. Ltd.,

No. 85A, S B Road, Flat No. 38,

3rd Floor, KOLKATTA.

The Chief Operating Officer, Ennore

Coke Limited No. 25, 3rd Floor,

Flowers Road, Kilpauk, CHENNAI.

Appearances

I Party :

Miss Kalpana T M, Advocate

II Party :

None

AWARD

1. The Aplicant alleging that he was appointed as Sales

Assistant in the Respondent Company and is alleged to

have been terminated w.e.f. 12.02.2011 without any enquiry,

invoking the provisions of Section 2A(2) of the ID Act,

1947 initiated this dispute to set aside the termination order

with direction to reinstate him into service with full back

wages and all other consequential benefits. On the

registration of the dispute when notices were issued to

Respondent No. 1 and 2 since both did not enter their

appearance inspite of due service of the notices the

applicant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim.

2. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant who

on 23.07.2014 made a submission that she has learnt the

party has settled amicably later inspite of grant of two

adjournments did not turn up but in the meanwhile

Sh. Ramesh Srinivasa, General manager—Hr and

Administration of Ennore Coke Limited sent a letter the

matter being settled accompanied with self attested copy

of Memorand um of Settlement dated 15.11.2013; copy of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1547

receipt signed by the workman and copy of the notice

issued by this Tribunal dated 24.11.2014. Under the

circumstances, in view of the submission that was made

by the learned advocate appearing for the applicant on

23.07.2014 and the receipt of the letter reporting compromise

accompanied by the copies of Memorandum of Settlement,

Receipt given by the applicant acknowledging receipt of

Rs. 60000 towards full and final settlement of the claim it

appears the Applicant who has received Rs. 60000 towards

full and final settlement of his claim has abandoned this

proceedings/dispute. In the result, I pass the following

ORDER

The Application is Dismissed as Settled out of Court by

the Applicant by receiving Rs. 60000 from Respondent

towards full and final settlement of his claim giving up his

claim of reinstatement.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 685-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ,Q-lh-vkbZ- ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 30@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@220@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 685—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award of the Ref.26/2007 of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum.labour Court, Lucknow as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of Food Corporation of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.3.2015.

[No. L-22012/220/2006-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 26/2007

Ref. No. L-22012/220/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 03.07.2007

BETWEEN

The State Secretary

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh

DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Shri Ajay Kumar and 5 others)

AND

The Sr. Regional Manager

Food Corporation of India

DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand

Gomti Nagar

Lucknow.

The District Manager

Food Corporation of India

Hussanganj

Sitapur (U.P.)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-22012/220/2006-IR(CM-II) dated

03.07.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

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

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

industrial dispute between the State Secretary, Bhartiya

Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh, DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand ,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and the Sr. Regional Manager, Food

Corporation of India, DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand , Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow and the District Manager, Food Corporation of

India, Hussanganj, Sitapur (U.P.) for adjudication to this

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF FOOD CORPORATION OF

INDIA IN NOT GIVING REGULAR APPOINTMENT

TO SIX WORKMEN, VIZ., S/SHRI AJAY KUMAR,

RAMESH CHANDRA, SHUSHIL KUMAR, BAIJ

NATH, ABDUL KHALIQUE AND MAHA DEO

FROM 6.5.1986 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT,

TO WHAT RELIEF ARE THE WORKMEN

ENTITLED?"

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

workmen viz. S/Shri Ajay Kumar, Ramesh Chandra, Sushil

Kumar, Baij Nath, Abdul Khalique and Maha Deo have

been casual/daily rated labours and worked with the

opposite party at Sitapur for more than 90 days since their

engagement as on 02.05.1986. It is submitted by the

workmen's union that the opposite parties issued a Circular

No. EP.1(4)/85-Vol.-11 dated 06.05.1987 regarding

1548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

regularization of those workmen who worked for more than

90 days as on 02.05.1986; accordingly, the workmen are

entitled for regular appointment w.e.f. 02.05.1986 for the

reasons having worked with the opposite party for more

than 90 days as on 02.05.1986. It is stated that the workman

applied for the benefits of the said circular but all in vain. It

has been alleged that the District Office did not send the

details of the workmen as the matter was again taken up at

FCI, Head Quarter, New Delhi and placed before Board;

and accordingly a circular for immediate action was issued

on 09.01.1996 by the Executive Director (P), FCI, New Delhi.

Further, it is submitted that the FCI, Head Quarter, New

Delhi and Zonal Office, New Delhi required the opposite

party No. 1 to implement the circular dated 06.05.1987 vide

their letters dated 24.08.1992 and 01.09.1992. The workmen's

union has alleged that the management did not take up

their case which led to the non-regularization of the

workmen; and accordingly, it has been prayed by the

workmen's union that the workmen be appointed with the

opposite party since 06.05.1987 with consequential benefits.

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

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

it has been submitted by the management that the workmen

had only performed intermittent nature of work and after

verifying their records it was found that none of them has

completed 90 days continuous working as such the circular

dated 25.5.86 was not applicable on the workmen. It has

been pleaded that the Circular No. EP.1(4)/85-Vol.-11 dated

06.05.1987 was not applicable to their case; in as much as

none of them was working with the FCI when the circular

dated 06.05.1987 came into existence. It is stated that to

scrutinize the claims, a committee of three Dy. Managers

was formed but it could not give any result due to transfer

of members. The management has also pleaded that the

claim of the workmen is time barred as well as the workmen's

union cannot raise the claim before this Tribunal as the

same was meant for class III and IV employees. Accordingly,

the management has prayed that the claim of the workmen's

union be rejected being devoid of any merit, without any

relief to the workmen concerned.

5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein

apart from reiterating the averments already made in the

statement of claim, it has submitted that there is no limitation

has been provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

and also that the matter was in active consideration of the

opposite parties which is evident from their letter dated

08.7.2003. It has also submitted that the applicants/workmen

are member of the union therefore; the union is eligible to

espouse their cause.

6. The workman's union has filed photocopy of

documentary evidence in support of their claim vide list

dated 15.09.2007, detailed as under:

(i) Letter dated 6.5.1987.

(ii) Circular No. 38/1996 dated 9.9.96.

(iii) Letter dated 24.8.92.

(iv) Telegram/telex dated 1.9.92.

(v) Application of Ajay Kumar.

(vi) Application of Ramesh Chandra

(vii) Application of Sushil Kr. Rastogi.

(viii) Application of Abdul Khalik.

(ix) Application of Baij Nath.

(x) Letter dt. 30.12.94 of AM (D) Sitapur.

(xi) Statement of AM (D), Sitapur regarding daily

wages.

(xii) Letter dt. 15.11.94 of AM (IR) Sitapur.

(xiii) Letter dt. 11.4.97 of FCI class IV Employees Union

to SRM, FCI, Lucknow.

(xiv) Letter dated 18.3.98 of DM (IR) RO, Lucknow to

DM, FCI, Sitapur.

(xv) Letter dt. 13.10.94 of DM, FCI, Sitapur to JM (IR),

Lucknow.

(xvi) Order dt. 7.7.2001.

(xvii) Letter dt. 7.8.2003.

(xviii) Letter dated 8.7.03/16.07.03 of RO, Lucknow to

DM, Sitapur.

The management of the railways has not filed any

documentary evidence in support of its claim.

7. The workmen's union has examined one of the

workmen viz. Baij Nath; whereas the management has

examined Shri R.K. Singh, Area Manager in support of

respective stands. The parties have availed opportunity to

cross-examine the witnesses of each other apart from

forwarding oral arguments.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival

contentions of the authorized representatives of the parties

and perused the entire evidence available on record in

light thereto.

9. The authorized representative of the workman has

argued that the Circular No. EP. 1(4)/85-Vol.-11 dated

06.05.1987 was regarding regularization of Casual/Daily

rated employee in the FCI who have completed three month's

period of services as on 02.05.1986, therefore, the workmen

were eligible for regularization since 06.05.1987 as they had

worked for more than 90 days with the opposite parties as

on 02.05.1986.

10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the Circular No. EP. 1(4)/

85-Vol.-11 dated 06.05.1987 is not applicable to the workmen

as they are not covered with it since they were not in service

when the said circular was issued therefore, the workmen

are not entitled for its benefits; and accordingly they have

no legal right to claim benefit of the said circular. It has

stressed that since the workmen have not completed

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1549

90 days' continuous working as such circular dated 25.5.86

was not applicable on these cases. It has also urged that

the matter is belated one and the union is not competent to

raise the present industrial dispute. It has relied on

Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi

(3) and others (2006) SCC 1.

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

up with a case that since the workmen have worked for

more than 90 days as on 02.05.1986, as required in the

Circular No. EP. 1((4)/85-Vol.-11 dated 06.05.1987, therefore,

they were entitled for regularization from the date of

issuance of the said circular dated 06.05.1987.

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

workmen have not completed 90 days' continuous working

as such circular dated 25.5.86 was not applicable on these

cases. Regarding Circular No. EP.1(4)/85-Vol.-11 dated

06.05.1987 the management has denied the benefit of

regularization for not being in service when the said circular

dated 06.05.1987 was issued.

13. The workman in his cross-examination has stated

that he worked with FCI on each day, except holidays. He

also stated that the workers after 1985, the workmen junior

to him got regularized.

On the other hand , the management witness Shri R.K.

Singh, Area Manager, in his cross-examination, verified

the Circular No. EP.1(4)/85-Vol.-11 dated 06.05.1987, paper

No. A-1/8 and 8/2. He also verified the working details of

the workmen, page No. 8/15 and 8/16.

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

parties, documentary evidence relied upon and oral

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

whether the workmen fall within the purview of the Circular

No. EP. 1(4)/85-Vol.-11 dated 06.05.1987 or not.

15. Admittedly, the workmen have been engaged as

casual daily rated labourers and the management formulated

a scheme for regularization of such casual/daily rated

employees vide Circular No. EP.1(4)/85-Vol.-11 dated

06.05.1987. The management denied the benefit of said

circular to the workmen for reasons that they were not in

the service of FCI on the date of issuance of said circular.

The management has also pleaded that the workmen are

not entitled for benefit circular dated 25.5.86 for not having

worked for 90 days continuously; but has not come with

the copy or content of said circular dated 25.5.86; whereas

the claim of the workmen's union, which has been referred

to this Tribunal, lies on the Circular No. EP.1(4)/85-Vol.-11

dated 06.05.1987, therefore, it would be prudent to analyze

the contents of the circular dated 06.05.1987 and examine

as to whether the workmen were eligible for regularization

as per terms of the circular dated 06.05.1987. The relevant

portion of the circular, providing eligibility criteria is quoted

hereunder:

"4. In view of the above decision of the Board of

Directors, it has been decided to relax the ban on

recruitment for filling in entry level category III and

IV posts by considering full time casual daily rated

employees who have been performing duties of

regular employees of the Corporation under FCI

(Staff) Regulations, 1971 and who have completed

three months period of service as on 2.5.1986 and

posses the requisite qualification etc. The casual

employees who do not fulfill the conditions of

appointment for any entry level category. III and IV

posts shall be retrenched by paying retrenchment

compensation as required under the provisions of

I.D. Act, 1947. The age limit may, however, be relaxed

by the competent authority as specified in Appendix-

II of the FCI (Staff) Regulations to the extent of

service rendered by such casual employees in the

Corporation on daily rated/casual basis. This

decision shall not apply for part-time casual

employees and causal labour/workers and they shall

not be regularized."

A bare perusal of the circular No. EP. 1(4)/85-Vol.-11

dated 06.05.1987 makes is crystal clear that the management

of FCI launched a scheme for regularization and those

casual workmen who had completed three months services

as on 2.5.1986 and possessed requisite qualification where

within the ambit of above circular dated 06.05.1987. It is

apparent on the face of the circular No. EP. 1(4)/85-Vol.-11

dated 06.05.1987 that there was no such condition that the

workman ought to have been in service on 02.05.1986 or he

have been working for more than three months continuously,

as contended by the management in its pleadings as well

in its evidence.

The management witness, Shri R. K. Singh, in his cross

examination, has verified the paper No. 8/15 and 8/16 which

details of working of the workmen under dispute, the

relevant extract of the same is as under:

Name of the

Working period

No. of days

No. workmen

worked

Shri Sushil Kumar

4.6.84 to 30.11.84

145 days

17.5.85 to 17.6.85

32 days

Shri Ajay Kumar

7.5.84 to 15.12.84

164 days

Shri Abdul Khaliq

27.4.84 to 15.12.84

183 days

Shri Ramesh Chand

29.5.84 to 15.12. 84

148 days

20.5.85 to 17.8.85

68 days

Shri Maha Deo

7/84 to 8/84

Number of days

not mentioned

10/84 to 12/84

-do-

4/85 to 8/85

-do-

Shri Baij Nath

1.-.84 to 15.-.84

181 days

28.4.82 to 5.10.82

Number of days

not mentioned

1.4.85 to 1.8.85

-do-

1550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Further, the table provided in para 8 of the affidavit of

the management witness provides details of working of

the workmen with the management for the period 5/84 to

12/84 only and during this period each workman has been

shown to have worked for more than 90 days. Although

the management witness has stated that since none of the

workman has completed the 90 days working continuously,

therefore, they were not fit for appointment as such there

claim was rejected; but as discussed above, there was no

such requirement in the circular No. EP. 1(4)/85-Vol.-11

dated 06.05.1987.

16. The management has argued vehemently that the

claim of the workmen's union suffers with the vice of delay.

The workmen's union has tried to explain the delay with

submission that it was the management who did not

constituted the committee to consider the claims, which

led to delay on the part of workman. It has been submitted

in the para 13 of the written statement that a committee of

three Dy. Managers was formed but due to the transfer of

committee members, it could not reach to result. However,

presently the management is blaming the workmen for delay.

Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in The Chief General

Manager, State Bank of India, Chief Office, Lucknow vs. B.

C. Verma and another 1994 LLR 29; wherein the question

for consideration before Hon'ble High Court was whether

inaction or delay in raising industrial dispute by the

workman can be condoned; Hon'ble High Court observed

as under:

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

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

together lead to conclusion that 'at any time' the

Reference can be made in the exercise of the

administrative power by the Central Government

provided there exists an industrial dispute or the same

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

both the sub-sections clearly indicates that

legislature never intended any limitation to be

imposed for making reference."

In the present case, the management has contended

that there is delay of 21 years as the matter pertains to the

year 1986; but from the documentary evidence available

on record it is apparent that the matter had been under

consideration with the management. Paper No. 8/23, which

is order dated 7.7.2001, whereby a committee had been

constituted to consider the claim of daily wagers and as

per version of the management, the said committee could

not arrive at any conclusion due to transfer of its members.

Another communication, paper No. 8/24, which is letter

dated 07.08.2003 of Assistant Manager (Admn), FCI,

Sitapur, goes to show that the matter was under with the

management on that date too. Therefore, it could be well

calculated that there was a delay of only four years in

raising/referring the present industrial dispute. Moreover,

it is also noteworthy that the workmen's union certainly

has raised the dispute before Assistant/Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) prior to reference of present dispute

to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government. Hon'ble

Apex Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative

Marketing-cum-Processing Services Society Ltd. and

another 1999 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay

of seven years has held that the Court can mould relief by

refusing back wages or directing payment of part of back

wages.

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

and the case laws cited hereinabove, I am of considered

opinion that the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India in not giving regular appointment to

workmen w.e.f. 06.05.1986 is illegal and unjustified.

Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that all the six

workmen viz. S/Shri Ajay Kumar, Ramesh Chandra, Sushil

Kumar, Baij Nath, Abdul Khalique and Maha Deo are

entitled for reinstatement/regularization w.e.f. 06.05.1986

with consequential benefits however, they would be liable

for payment of only 50% of back wages, in view of delay in

raising the present industrial dispute.

18. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

19. Award as above.

Lucknow, 2nd January, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 686-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 7@2008½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@339@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 686.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award Ref. 7/2008 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 Western Coalfields Limited, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30/03/2015.

[No. L-22012/339/2007-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1551

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/7/2008

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Santram S/o Bihari,

Ex. T.R. Damuna Mines,

R/o Nandana, PO Nandan,

Chhindwara,

...Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria,

Chhindwara

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of November, 2014

1. As per letter dated 3-1-2008 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-22012/

339/2007-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s WCL

in dismissing Shri Sant Ram S/o Shri Bihari from

service w.e.f. 9-4-2003 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. Receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman failed to appear and participate

in reference proceeding despite of repeated notices. Ist

party workman was proceeded ex-parte as per order dated

3-7-2012.

3. Ist party workman submitted application for restoration

of reference. Said application was allowed as per order

dated 7-6-2013. Inspite of workman was given opportunity

to file statement of claim on 12-9-2013, 19-12-2013, 3-4-2014.

Ist party workman failed to submit statement of claim. Again

Ist party was proceeded ex-parte without statement of claim.

4. The proceeding was fixed for exparte Written Statement

of management on 16-7-2014, 19-7-2014. IInd party also

failed to submit exparte Written Statement of management

on 16-7-2014, 19-7-2014. IInd party also failed to submit

exparte Written Statement. It is clear from above that both

parties did not participate in reference proceeding therefore

award is passed as under. Parties failed to participate in

reference proceeding. The dispute under reference could

not be adjudicated.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 687-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds izcaèr=

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@78@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 687.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2010) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Sohagpur Area of SECL and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 30/03/2015.

[No. L-22012/78/2008-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/15/2010

Secretary,

SKMS (AITUC)

P.O. Sanjay Kaoyla Nagar,

Distt. Annuppur,

Shahdol, (MP)

....Workman/Union

Versus

CGM

Sohagpur Area of SECL,

P.O. Dhanpuri, Distt. Shahdol

Shahdol (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of November, 2014

1. As per letter dated 29-1-2010 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-22012/

78/2008-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. SECL

in allegedly retiring Shri Raghuvar S/o Shri Manaran

prematurely is legal and justified? To what relief the

claimant entitled for"?

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman did not submit statement of claim. As per

order dated 5-9-12, Ist party was proceeded exparte.

1552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

3. IInd party submitted exparte Written Statement. IInd

party submits that workman had raised dispute about his

date of birth. As per workman, his date of birth was

15-6-55 as his age was recorded 34 years on 1-4-81 in Form

B Register. Workman was initially appointed on 31-3-76.

He worked at Different collieries Amlai Mine, Vivek Nagar

etc. That under provisions of Mines Act, statutory registers

are required to be maintained in mine under Rule 77 Register

of Employment known as Form B register is required to be

maintained. It is reiterated that in Form B register, age of

workman was recorded as 1-4-47. It also bears his thump

impression in acceptance of correctness of details. On its

basis, date of birth of workman was recorded 1-4-47. In

claim of workman, date of birth was 15-6-55 is denied.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of M/s. SECL in

allegedly retiring Shri Raghuvar

S/o Shri Manaran prematurely

is legal and justified"?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?

entitled to relief

claimed by him.

REASONS

5. Though present reference relates to legality of

premature retirement of workman and his correct date of

birth, as workman has not participated inn reference

proceeding, he failed to submit statement of claim.

Management submits that as per Form B Register, date of

birth of workman was recorded 1-4-47. The affidavit of

evidence of management's witness Manish Bhand ari

supports contentions in Written Statement filed by IInd

party. The evidence of management's witness remained

unchallenged. The documents are produced by IInd party.

Copy of the rules for determination/verification of its

employees Annexure M-1, M-2, copy of Service Book

annexure M-3. Date of birth of workman is recorded 1-4-81

in Service Book and Form B Register Annexure M-4.

Unchallenged evidence of management's witness and

documents on record, I find no reason to discard the

evidence produced by management. Considering the same,

I record my finding on point No. 1 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of M/s. SECL in

allegedly retiring Shri Raghuvar S/o Shri Manaran

prematurely is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 688-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15@95½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@337@1994&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 688.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/95) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Western Coalfield

Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 30/03/2015.

[No. L-22012/337/1994-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/15/95

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

Koyla Khand an Mazdoor Panchayat,

Post Junnardeo,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Workman/Union

Versus

Manager,

Eklahra Colliery,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

Post Eklehra,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10th day of October, 2014

1. As per letter dated 5-1-95 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/337/94-IR

(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1553

"Whether the action of the management of Eklehra

Colliery of Western Coal Fields, Pench Area, P.O.

Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in dismissing Shri Tejbali

S/o Tijju, General Mazdoor of Eklehra Colliery of

WCL, Pench Area from service w.e.f. 25-7-93 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the worker is

entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Union submitted statement of claim at Page 3. Case

of Ist party Union is that workman Tejbali S/o Tijju was

working for 30 days with IInd party i.e. from 27-7-63 to

25-7-93. That due to his illness, workman was demoted

from Category IV to Mistri Category IV General Mazdoor.

Services of workman was governed by NCWA. Workman

had applied to declare him medically unfit and his son may

be employed in his place. Management did not accept his

application. Management had some other plan so as he

was dismissed from service on 25-7-93. That workman was

not served with chargesheet neither any enquiry was

conducted against him. He was not given chance for his

defence. Principles of natural justice were not followed. On

such ground, Union submits that dismissal of workman

from service is illegal. Union prayed for reinstatement with

back wages of workman Tejbali.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to 4/4.

Claim of Union is opposed. It is submitted that workman

Tejbali was working as General Mazdoor having Token No.

1957. Since his appointment, workman was in habit of

regular absence without intimation or sanctioned leave.

Inspite of several warnings, he did not show any

improvement. On 11-10-92, workman was issued

chargesheet for absence for the period 29-2-92 to 11-10-94.

Chargesheet was served by Registered post on his

permanent address. Workman did not reply to the

chargesheet. Enquiry Officer Shri P.C. Chakravorty was

appointed vide order dated 6-12-92. Shri R.D. Vishwakarma

Executive Engineer was appointed as management

representative. Enquiry Officer issued several notices of

hearing of enquiry on permanent address of workman.

Workman did not appear on any of the dates. Enquiry was

proceeded exparte. Enquiry Officer examined management's

witnesses. Enquiry was completed and report was

submitted by Enquiry Officer holding workman guilty of

the charges against him. After considering report of Enquiry

Officer that charge of absence was proved, workman was

dismissed from service vide order dated 25-7-93.

4. Earlier workman was absent from 11-5-90, 12-7-91.

The chargesheets were issued to workman. On apology

submitted by workman, management has taken lenient view.

Despite of it, workman remained absent. He was on duty

for 34 days in 1990, 160 days in 1991, 9 days in 1992.

Workman was irregular in attendance. It affected production

of coal. Management lost confidence in workman. Enquiry

was conducted exparte and workman remained absent

despite of notices issued to him. Workman was given

opportunity for his defence. Enquiry was conducted

following principles of natural justice. On such ground,

IInd party submits that action of the management dismissing

workman Tejbali is legal and proper.

5. As per order dated 13-9-2014, enquiry conducted

against workman is found 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 action of the

In Negative

management of Eklehra

Colliery of Western Coal

Fields, Pench Area, P.O.

Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara

in dismissing Shri Tejbali

S/o Tijju, General Mazdoor

of Eklehra Colliery of WCL,

Pench Area from service

w.e.f. 25-7-93 is legal

and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

6. As per order dated 13-9-2013, enquiry conducted

against workman is found legal. Union has not adduced

evidence. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri M.B.

Kumbhare. Witness of the management has stated that DE

was conducted against workman by Enquiry Officer

Shri D.C. Chakravorty and Shri R.D. Vishwakarma was

Presenting Officer. Enquiry was fixed on 16-12-92. Workman

did not attended Enquiry Proceedings. Workman remained

absent on 23-12-92. Enquiry was not attended on 18-12-02,

23-12-92 therefore enquiry was conducted exparte. Finding

of Enquiry Officer is submitted at Exhibit M-7.

The documents of Enquiry Proceedings are proved at

Exhibit M-1 by witness of the management. The evidence

of management's witness remained unchallenged.

The chargesheet issued to workman Exhibit M-1 was

unauthorized absence for more than 10 days and habitual

absence. Statement of management's representative was

recorded by Enquiry Officer. The statement of

management's representative Shri R. D. Vishwakarma

shows that workman was absent from duty from 15-2-92.

He was earlier absent and chargesheet was issued on

11-5-90, 12-7-91. Enquiry was conducted exparte as workman

did not participate. Thus the charges proved from record

of Enquiry proceedings about unuauthorised absence of

workman from 15-2-92 to 11-10-92 for about 8-1/2 months.

The pleadings in Written Statement filed by IInd party

clearly shows that workman was in service of IInd party

from 1963 for about 30 years. The punishment of dismissal

from service for unauthorized absence for 8-1/2 months

appear exorbitant and disproportionate. The dismissal of

1554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

service therefore could not be justified. Punishment is

exorbitant, disproportionate. Though the workman has not

participated in Enquiry Proceedings as well in reference

proceeding, the punishment of dismissal of service cannot

be sustained. In my considered view, punishment of

compulsory retirement would be appropriate. For above

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

7. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Eklehra Colliery

of Western Coal Fields, Pench Area, P.O. Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara in dismissing Shri Tejbali

S/o Tijju, General Mazdoor of Eklehra Collier of

WCL, Pench Area from service w.e.f. 25-7-93 is

not legal and proper.

(2) Order of dismisal of workman is modified to

punishment of compulsory retirement. IInd party

shall give retiral benefit to the workman.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 689-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;y;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2010½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@14@2009&vkbZvkj¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 689.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2010) of the

Central. Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of WCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30/3/2015.

[No. L-22012/14/2009-IR (C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/27/2010

Shri R.S. Rathor,

Secretary Legal,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh INTUC,

Regional Office,

Chandametta,

Chhindwara.

....Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia,

Chhindwara.

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of February, 2015

1. As per letter dated 5-3-2010 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-22012/14/2009-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s.

WCL in allegedly not correcting the date of birth of

Shri Shameen Beig S/o Shri Gafoor Beig from 1-7-48

to 20-8-55 is legal and justified? To what relief is the

claimant/workman entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman and Union jointly submitted

statement of claim at Page 1 to 14. Case of Ist party is that

he raised dispute that management about correction for

his date of birth 1-7-78 to 28-8-55. His repeated

representations were not accepted by management. Union

also raised said dispute with management. However the

management did not consider his grievance. After failure

report submitted, Govt. refused to refer dispute. Workman

filed Writ petition No. 1397/10 only after order passed by

Hon'ble High Court. The dispute is referred. Workman

further submits that he was initially appointed as telephone

line mazdoor in Chandametta Colliery on April 73. His date

of birth was recorded 20-8-85 in Statutory record Form B

same date of birth was also recorded in PAN card, PF record,

Insurance Policy taken by workman. That workman was

served notice of retirement dated 30-5-08. That he would

be retired from 30.6.08. Workman submits that he is

prematurely retired 7 years before treating his date of birth

1-7-48. His correct date of birth is 20-8-55. The

representations by workman and Union were not

considered. The dispute about date of birth was not referred

to Age Determination Committee as per JBCCI Circular No.

76. The premature retirement of workman is illegal.

3. The circular No. 76 is reproduced in statement of

claim. It is reiterated that his correct date of birth is 20-8-55.

He was retired assessing his date of birth was 1-7-48 it is

also alleged that his date of birth was illegally changed in

record. On such ground, workman is praying for

reinstatement with back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 2/1 to 2/3.

Claim of workman is denied. It is submitted that dispute

about correction of date of birth is raised by workman at

fag end of service is not tenable. Considering the delay,

Government refused to make reference. Only after making

direction from Hon'ble High Court, dispute is referred.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1555

Workman was initially appointed on General Mazdoor Cat-I

at Rawanwara Khas colliery. He was transferred to

Chandametta colliery as per provisions of Mines Act.

Statutory registers were maintained in Form B Register.

Personal information of employees including name, father's

name, date of birth were recorded. Date of birth of workman

was recorded 1-7-48 in Form B and Service Book. After

introduction of such scheme, service excerpts were

submitted to conerned workmen. Ist party workman had

declined his date of birth as 1-7-48. No objection was

submitted by workman about his date of birth. Workman

was served notice of retirement on 1-1-08. On 30-5-08,

workman is retired after completion of 60 years of age.

Despite of the objection invited by management workman

did not submit any objection. There were no discrepancies

about date of birth of workman in his service record.

Therefore it was not required to refer to Age Determination

Committee. On such ground, IInd party submits claim of

workman is not legal.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) whether the action of the

In affirmative

management of M/s WCL in

allegedly not correcting the

date of birth of Shri Shameen

Beig S/o Shri Gafoor Beig

from 1-7-48 to 20-8-55 is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

6. Workman has raised dispute that his correct date of

birth is 20-8-55. He was retired assuming his date of birth

1-7-48. He prays for correction of his date of birth.

Managment has denied his claim for detailed reasons given

in Written Statement.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions in statement of claim. That his correct date

of birth is 20-8-55. His date of birth was illegally corrected

as 1-7-48 in service record. He had submitted various

representations. That he received primary education at

Bhamori Distt. Chhindwara. His date of birth was recorded

20-8-55. In I Card, PAN Card, Insurance Policy, PF record,

his date of birth was recorded 20-8-55. His representations

for correction of date of birth were not accepted. In his

cross-examination, workman says as Ist appointment was

at Chand ametta Colliery, Form B was fitted. He not

submitted documents regarding his educational

qualifications. Witness was referring documents 7/6.

He admitted his signature but denied contents of

documents. He signed the said document on say of the

officers of management. He did not go through its contents.

That his service book was prepared. He denies thump mark

on it. That he had not disclosed his date of birth in document

7/8. That he had requested management for employment of

his son. At that time, he had come to know that only one

year of his service was left. He also came to know about his

date of birth. Workman further says that his date of birth

recorded 1-7-48 is incorrect. Management's witness filed

affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of

management that date of birth of workman in Form B

of management's witness documents Exhibit M-9 to 12 are

proved. Management's witness in his cross-examination

says that he had not seen school certificate produced by

workman. In 2009, he was working in Ganpati Mine of NCL.

In 2011, he was transferred to Rawanwara colliery. The

witness of management denies that date of birth of workman

in 20-8-55. Workman was not referred to Age determination

Committee. In service record, date of birth is recorded

1-7-48 on basis of Form B Register. In documents produced

by management Exhibit M-9 to M-12, date of birth of

workman is recorded 1-7-48. Though workman has

produced zerox copy of School Certificate, workman has

not taken any efforts to prove such document. In Form B

1-7-48 i.e. the documents produced by workman himself.

Documents Exhibit W-3 is retirement order, Exhibit W-4 is

notice of retirement, Exhibit W-5 is copy of I.I. No. 76, Para

iv (B) ii provide—

"Where ever there is no variation in records, such

cases will not be reopened unless there is a very

glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the

notice of the Management, the management after

being satisfied on the merits of the case will take

appropriate action for correction through Age

Determination Committee cannot be accepted.

8. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K. Shashi

submits that date of birth not to be corrected at fag end of

service. In support of his argument, reliance is placed in

ratio held in

"Case of State of UP and others versus 2005-6-SCC-

45. Their Lordship held date of birth as recorded

should be decisive. Correction thereof may be only

in accordance with procedure prescribed and within

time fixed under rules or order within the reasonable

time in absence of any rule or order."

Reliance is also placed in case of 1994-6-SCC-302. Their

Lordship held date of birth recorded after entering service

and countersigned by Govt. servant could not be permitted

at fag end of service.

1556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

For above reasons, I record Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of M/s. WCL in

allegedly not correcting the date of birth of Shri

Shameen Beig S/o Shri Gafoor Beig from 1-7-48 to

20-8-55 is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 690-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds izcaèra=

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;y;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@213@2004&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 690.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 39/05 of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Amadand Sub Area of SECL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 30/3/2015.

[No. L-22012/213/2004-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/39/05

Secretary/President,

Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh,

C/o Sanjay Mishra, Telephone Exchange,

PO Kotma Colliery,

Shahdol

....Workman/Union

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Amadand Sub Area of SECL

PO Chokan,

Shahdol

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of March, 2015

1. As per letter dated 24-5-05 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/

213/2004-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager,

Amadand Sub Area of SECL in not regularizing Shri

Tularam S/o Dadole to the post of Coal Tub Repairer

and not making payment of difference of wages for

the entire period which he rendered in the higher

category than his own designated category is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 5/1 to 5/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

appointed as General Mazdoor Category I in SECL. Since

time of his appointment, he was continuously working.

Though he was appointed as General Mazdoor Category I

since 1-11-99, he was working as Tub Repairer rather he

was paid wages of General Mazdoor category I. Workman

submitted application for payment of difference of wages

of higher post of tub repairer. His application was not

considered. IInd party got annoyed by his application and

transferred workman from Harad Incline to Amadand incline

in 2002. The job of workman as tub repairer was changed to

loader. He is paid wages of General Mazdoor Category I.

that as per policy applicable to SECL, workman working on

higher post more than 190 days underground or 240 days

on surface is entitled for regularization of higher post. That

workman further submits that after completing 3 years

working on higher post, he was entitled to be regularised

on the post of Category V and after 3 years on Category V,

he was entitled to regularization on the post of Cat-VI. In

the dispute raised by workman before ALC, failure report

was submitted and dispute has been referred. On such

contentions, workman is claiming regularization on the post

of Mazdoor Cat-V from 1-11-99 and after completion of

3 years on respect post, he claims promotion to the post of

Cat-V, VI under SLU.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/4

opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that

reference is vague. No specific claim is given with the terms

of reference. Such reference cannot be adjudicated. That

the claim relates to period 1990. The dispute is raised in

2005 is not tenable.

4. IInd party submits that workman was appointed as

General Mazdoor at J&K Area. It is denied that workman

was working as tub repairer Cat-IV. It is reiterated that the

workman was working as General Mazdoor on which he

was appointed. He was not given job of Tub Repairer

Ct-IV. Workman is not entitled to promotion to the post of

Cat-V, VI claimed by him.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1557

5. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/2

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 Affirmative

Sub Area Manager, Amadand

Sub Area of SECL in not

regularizing Shri Tularam

S/o Dadole to the post of Coal

Tub Repairer and not making

payment of difference of wages

for the entire period which he

rendered in the higher

category than his own

designated category is legal

and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

7. Though workman has raised present dispute claiming

wages of tub repairer Cat-IV and promotion to the post of

Cat-V, VI after completion of 3 years working in respective

category. Claim of workman is denied by management, it is

denied that workman was assigned work of tub repairer at

any point of time.

8. Workman failed to adduce evidence. His evidence is

closed on 6-4-2010.

9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri Santosh Pandey, Sr. Personal Manager supporting

contentions of management in Written Statement.

Management's witness was not cross-examined. His

evidence remained unchallenged.

10. The claim of workman is not supported by any

evidence. On the other hand , the evidence of

management's witness remained unchallenged. I find no

reason to disbelieve his testimony. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

11. Workman has failed to adduce evidence in support

of his claim. He also failed to cross-examine management's

witness. Claim of workman is not supported by any

evidence therefore workman is not entitled to any relief.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the Sub Area Manager, Amadand

Sub Area of SECL in not regularizing Shri Tularam

S/o Dadole to the post of Coal Tub Repairer and

not making payment of difference of wages for

the entire period which he rendered in the higher

category than his own designated category is

proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 691-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&22012@263@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II)]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 691.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2013) of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of M/s. Western Coalfields Limited, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/263/2012-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/52/2013

Shri Lochan Prasad,

President, Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union,

Pench Area PO, Parasia

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

....Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Pench Area

P.O. Parasia

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of February, 2015

1. As per letter dated 5-3-2013 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-22012/

1558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

263/2012-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the demand of the Union/workman for

pay protection to Shri Rambilas S/o Ramnath, T.No.

156 Tub Loader on his conversion from underground

to surface job by the management of the Chief General

Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Pench Area,

Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) is justified, valid

and reasonable. If yes, to what extent the workman

is eligible for pay protection?'

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. After his appearance workman submitted

application for withdrawal of the case. It is submitted that

Union has discussed issue with management and

management agreed to look into the matter willing to settle

dispute out of Court. Management's counsel has given no

objection. As such the dispute between parties appears to

be tried to settle out of Court. Workman is not desiring to

prosecute his claim therefore No Dispute Award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 692-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Q-lh-vkbZ- ds

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 64@90½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&22012@281@,Q@1989&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 692.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/90) of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Food Corporation of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/281/F/1989-IR(C-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/64/90

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

The Secretary,

Food Corporation of India Employees Association,

C/o FCI, Ajni,

Nagpur

....Workman/Union

Versus

Sr. Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Regional Office, Chetak Building,

Maharana Pratap Nagar,

Habibganj,

Bhopal

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of February, 2015

1. As per letter dated 21-2-90 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-22012/

281/F/89-IR (Coal-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action taken by the Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Bhopal vide order

No. V&S/4/91/84 dated 11th Feb. 1988 against Shri

K.B. Panchbhai, A.G.I.(D) is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

through FCI Employees Association at Page 3/1 to 3/11.

Case of Ist party is that he was working as Incharge of

Chhola Depot under District Manager, Bhopal. Chargesheet

was issued to Ist party workman on 2-1-85 for alleging

misconduct, misappropriating 210.01-500 quintals of rice

in connivance with Shri R.N. Saini. Transit loss of rice was

shown 10.62 to 11.41%. Workman denied the charges.

Enquiry officer was appointed to Shri P. Radhakrishnan

Rao. On his death, Shri N. Krishna Murthy, Dy. Manager

(Finance) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. That transit

loss in Shed No. E was investigated. Workman submitted

that a common enquiry can be conducted only in the event

that the employees are working in the same grade and their

involvement is also identical. The employees of different

grade were involved in the common enquiry including the

employees of lower grade. Conducting common enquiry

was humiliating the workman. The Enquiry Officer while

dealing with individual cases against CSE has dealt with at

page 17 to 22. it is alleged that workman himself submitted

report about transit losses. During investigation, the

weighment was not properly made. Instead of stock

No. 2/7, the Investigating Officer had carried stock No. 3/8.

Enquiry Officer did not consider possibility of theft in the

night. The transit loss of food grains to the Railway siding.

Enquiry was not properly conducted. Workman was not

supplied documents requested by them. Enquiry Officer

did not consider that no 100% weighment was done despite

the transit loss was more than 500 gms per bag. The

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1559

weighment at dispatching end indicated various bag to

bag from 85.5 to 100.4 Kg. the findings of Enquiry Officer in

Para-6 of Page 20 is inconclusive for proper evidence.

Enquiry officer had also expressed that Ist party workman

was entitled to some benefit of doubts. The witness of

management was deputed for investigation of wagons

received at Chhola godown. The charges leveled against

workman were on basis of presumption and assumption

without any investigation. Enquiry Officer committed error

in holding that the defence was not established. That every

effort was made to procure all documents to give fair

opportunity of defence. It is not proper. The statement of

claim submitted by workman is very extensive about the

evidence of Investigating Officer Shri R.S. Pillai, witness of

the management and reasons and findings given by the

Enquiry Officer.

3. Ist party further submits that the documents demand

ed by workman were not given to him. The fact that stock

was loaded in 5 wagons received at Bhopal in "C" Shed.

The workman was incharge was loaded from stocks

resulting heavy losses. However Enquiry Officer has totally

failed to consider specific deliberation in his report. Point

remained unanswered that in Form Exhibit D-1, it is seen

that 2988 bags of rice were dispatched from depot to

Railway Tilda. Document Exhibit D-4 shows 2638 bags from

depot to Tilda Rail Head on 12-13-/7/84. That shortage of

350 bags from were made out of the available stocks

reducing quantity in all the bags loaded. That document P-

1(c) and P-1(1) shows 55 bags. Both the exhibits shows

weight of 55 bags rice. In both exhibits, the weight of one

set of 10 bags are identical. It is emphasized that in stand

ing orders, the management has no right to impose any

penalty upon any workman after expiry of 3 months. The

punishment was imposed after long lapse of time beyond

six months of the chargesheet issued. That principles of

natural justice were not followed by Enquiry Officer.

Workman was made scape goat in the enquiry. The amount

of transit loss caused due to shortage was recovered from

other employees. The total recovery cannot exceed the

amount of loss suffered by management. Ist party workman

is not responsible for the charges related to other officials.

The enquiry was delayed. Workman was not supplied

additional documents. The material record was not

considered by Enquiry Officer. The findings of Enquiry

Officer suffers from non-application of mind. The

appointment of Enquiry officer was not technically qualified

is not proper. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse.

On such ground, Ist paty prays that punishment order

dated 11-2-88 be set-aside. The amount already recovered

be refunded back with interest.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/10

opposing the claim of workman. Preliminary objection is

raised that the terms of reference relates to the action taken

vide order dated 11-2-88 against workman Shri K.B.

Panchbhai. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go beyond

the terms of reference and set aside the order of reduction

of pay scale for period of 5 years etc. The terms of reference

is not related to reduction of pay scale of minimum of 5

years.

5. IInd party further submits that workman was

appointed in 1972 as Assistant Grade III. He was promoted

to the post of Asstt. Grade II and Assistant Grade-I, the

service record of workman was not proper. Seven

chargesheet were issued to him in 1987, details given in

Para-5 of Written Statement. That Shri K.B. Panchbhai Grade

I was working in Chhola Depot in connivance with Shri

R.N. Saini. The transit loss shown 210.02.500 quintals rice

against 5 wagons received at "C" shed Chhola Depot on

17-7-84 which is given in Para-7 of Written Statement. That

Shri K.B. Panchbhai in conspiracy with Shri Saini shown

transit loss and misappropriated rice. The details of the

documents and investigation carried are narrated in detail

by IInd party. That Shri Radhakrishnan was appointed as

Enquiry Officer, P.N. Nair as Presenting Officer. After death

of Shri Radhakrishnan, Shri N.M. Mukheree was appointed

as Enquiry Officer. On transfer of Shri Mukherjee, Shri N.

Krishna Murthy was appointed as Enquiry Officer. IInd

party reiterates that enquiry was properly conducted. The

documents requested by workman were supplied and

inspection of documents were given. Workman was given

full opportunity for his defence. Enquiry Officer submitted

his findings on 30-6-87. The findings of Enquiry officer

were served on Ist party workman alongwith showcause

notice. Considering grave nature of misconduct of

misappropriation of 210.02.500 quintal rice. Disciplinary

Authority shown leniency imposing punishment of

reduction of pay of workman at lower stage for period of 5

years etc. IInd party reiterates that the order of punishment

is proper and legal. The reference be answered in favour of

management.

6. As per order dated 14-11-13, enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal. Considering

pleadings on record and findings on preliminary, 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

In Affirmative

alleged against workman is

proved from evidence in

Enquiry proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

reduction of pay imposed

against workman is proper

and legal?

1560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(iii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

7. As per order dated 14-1-2013, enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal, question

remains for consideration whether the misconduct alleged

against workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings or findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse.

The next question is whether the punishment of reduction

of pay imposed against workman is proper and legal. For

deciding point, only evidence in Enquiry Proceedings

needs to be considered as enquiry is found proper and

legal.

8. Management's witness Shri R.S. Pillai submitted his

report of inspection is marked Exhibit W-2. The note of

inspection shows that the stock was dispatched from Tilda

on 12-13/7/84. The witness has visited one stock from FCI

godown for test weighment. The stock was contemporary.

Some despatches were made from the stock recently the

average dispatch weight was found 98.4 kg. One complete

block from bottom layer to 16th layer and two part blocks

were weighted alongwith some standing refill bags, no torn

bag were weighed. Weighment sheets No. 01101 and 102

signed by all concerned were enclosed with Inspection

Note. The moisture content of stock was determined prior

to weighment observing general conditions of stock and

condition of stock no. E/3/8 in particular case for abnormal

transit loss and FSD Bhopal could not be attributed to pre-

loading act in Tilda Depot. Management's witness Shri

Pillai was examined before Enquiry Officer. He has

specifically stated that it was recorded as 12.8% at note 3

in the weighment sheet. That 10% weight of component

loaded in wagons from ER30101, SE 79466, ER 78234 and

ER84494. In his cross, Shri R.S. Pillai says he was given

order for investigation in writing. That was the note he had

signed. In reply to Q.7, the witness says he selected 4

wagons because he was asked to inspect his 4 wagons

only. In his further cross-examination says he did not know

amode of transportation to Tilda depot. That he did not

consider it relevant to inspect because the weight recorded

in the concerned weighment sheet is the weight of

consignment loaded into wagons and not into the

transporters vehicle. The reply given by witness is the

complete answer to all questions. When weighment at the

time of loading the wagons was recorded, there was no

point in inspecting the transport or weighment of stocks

prior to loading at Tilda Depot. Management's witness in

his cross-examination says that he remember the weighment

sheet book concerning despatches from Neora depot from

12th and 13th July 84, the stock wise register and the daily

diary maintained by the Depot Incharge. That Exhibit

P-1(a) records weighment of 30 bags, in Exhibit P-1B-out of

stocks loaded into wagon. 55 bags plus 2 bags out of stocks

loaded into Wagon. From stack No. 2/7 as per page 37

Exhibit D-4, despatches were made to Chhola Depot on

12th and 13th July 84. He selected stock No. A-3/8 he used

his discretion, Stock No. 1/2/7 had only 177 bags which

recorded disproportionately higher weight. That in his

report, management's witness stated average of 98.1 Kg as

belonging to recent despatches made below the stocks

dispatched appear to be locally issued. The evidence of

management's witness is not shattered in his cross-

examination. In his cross, he has given reasons for selecting

stock No. A/3/8 for test weighment as Stock No. A/2/7 was

having only 177 bags and higher stocks. If the

measurements from Stock No. 2/A, 2/7 would have been

carried by the management witness, certainly the transit

loss would have been on higher side. The evidence of

management's witness that no fault or unusual transit loss

was found at Tilda Depot is not shattered in his cross-

examination. When invoices of loading at Tilda depot the

weighment was recorded, the management's witness has

explained that CSE has not accounted loss of grain of

damage bags in wagons. It is clear that the transit loss of

10.66 to more than 11% is not explained by the workman/

CSE.

9. The evidence of management's witness No. 2 Shri

S.S. Gujrati is clear that after unusual transit loss was

reported, he had submitted its information to District

Manager. Immediately inspection was started. That in

Exhibit P-12 (a to e), the weighment of check memos of 5

wagons received Ex-Tilda in C shed on 17-7-84 given the

wagon numbers. According to the document, out of 1995

bags received, 1949 are shown sound and 46 slack and

torn. Total weight of these 5 wagons are shown 1734-93-

500 loss. All the details of weighment of wagons is given in

his evidence. That he had signed the statement document

Exhibit D-6(a) in respect of C Shed.

10. Written notes of arguments are submitted by both

parties. The written arguments submitted on behalf of

workman refers to different facts for the losses is explained

by management's witness Shri R.S. Pillai that weighment

was recorded at the time of loading rice bags, wagons at

Tilda Siding, said aspect is also considered by Enquiry

Officer in his report at page 21,22. The Enqury Officer has

observed even if the bags were torned/slack, contented by

workman, there should have equal quantity of spillage in

the wagon as the wagons have been received seal in tact.

There should not be any possibility of this much

quantity of rice pilfered in route. They should have been

available in the wagon itself as pallas and as stated by

Shri K.B. Panchbhai have been collected and refilled in the

bags. Another point the defence brought out is that when

ever there is variation of weight of 500 grams per bag,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1561

100% weighment should be conducted. When these stand

ing instructions are existing the defence was not conducted

inspite of the fact the variation was beyond 500 gms per

bag to bag. I donot find any defect in the above

observations made in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer has

further observed it is only hypothetical argument that

Investigating Officer had not taken in his investigation the

wagons received in the particular shed. As a test check the

investigation officer had taken the 5 wagons received in E

Shed for his investigation as the transit loss shown in the

E shed was very much higher. Shri R.S. Pillai has also test

checked the average weight of a separate stack in the Neora

depot and found that it more or less tallies with the average

dispatch weight. The evidence of management's witness

discussed above supports the reasons given by Enquiry

Officer. The scope of judicial review is restricted. The

evidence cannot be re-appreciated as Appellate Authority.

Enquiry Officer has considered evidence of the witnesses

in context of the charges alleged against all chargesheet

employees. The findings of enquiry cannot be said perverse

as there is evidence of the management witness supporting

his findings. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

11. Point No. 2-the charge proved against workman

pertains to mis-appropriation of 210.02.500 quintal rice in

connivance with Shri R.N. Saini. the transit loss of the rice

dispatched to Chhola depot was unusual more than 10 to

11%. Such huge transit loss was found unusual. The

punishment imposed against workman CSE reducing his

pay to lower stage of 5 years cannot be said shockingly

disproportionate or excessive. 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 taken by the Regional Manager, Food

Corporation of India, Bhopal vide order No. V&S/

4/91/84 dated 11th Feb 1988 against Shri K.B.

Panchbhai, A.G.I.(D) is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 693-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds izcaèra=

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 73@92½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSa tks

dsUæh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@256@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2014

S.O. 693.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/92) of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Chirimiri Colliery SECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/256/1991-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/73/92

Vice President,

National colliery workers federation,

PO Koria Colliery,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Chirimiri Area of SECL

PO West Chirimiri Colliery,

Distt., Surguja (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of January, 2015

1. As per letter dated 7.4.92 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-22012/256/91-IR

(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Chirimiri

Area of SECL in recovering Rs. 10,000 from the wages

of Shri K.D. Sahai, Store Keeper, Regional Store,

Korea and his supersession by his juniors in

promotion is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim on

behalf of workman Shri K. D. Sahai. Union submits that it is

registered under Trade Union Act. That recovery of

1562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Rs. 10,000 was illegally started against Shri K.D. Sahai,

store keeper. He was superseded by his juniors in

promotion. That Shri K.D. Sahai was wrongly punished

vide order dated 20.1.89 for recovery of Rs. 10,000 from his

salary. Shri K.D. Sahai was appointed on 1.8.58 as Store

Issuer in SECL. He was promoted as Asstt. Store Keeper in

1971. Again promoted as Store Keeper in 1979. Chargesheet

was issued to workman on 2.4.87 relating misconduct

alleged dated 6.10.85. It is alleged that the enquiry was not

properly conducted. Principles of natural justice were

violated. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Order

of recovery of Rs. 10,000 is illegal. The punishment is

excessive. Workman was victimized and superseded in

promotion for post of store keeper. Ist party prays to quash

order of recovery of Rs. 10,000 against Shri K.D. Sahai and

he be given promotion from the date of promotion of his

juniors.

3. IInd party filed separate Written Statement about order

of recovery of Rs. 10,000 and supersession of workman

Shri K.D. Sahai in the matter of promotions. IInd party

submits that workman on 6.10.85 was disputed for delivering

from Railway Station Chirimiri from PR No. 432557, 532558,

432559. Again he was instructed by Sr. Store Officer to

hand over pipes to contractor after completed. The workman

had given delivery of pipes without counting. 90 pipes

were given in excess. Because of above loss of pipes,

management issued chargesheet dated 2.4.87. Workman

was given proper opportunity or his defence. Workman

had admitted in enquiry that delivery was given without

counting. The negligence of workman was proved. The

transport contractor was also found involved. Amount of

Rs. 24,000 was recovered from contractor. Amount of

Rs. 8000 was recovered from Shri Bannerjee, Rs. 10,000

from workman, 6000 from labour involved in the matter.

IInd party further submits that workman was not victimized

in the matter of promotions. The promotions were made on

recommendations of DPC. The CRs of workman for 87-88,

88-89 were considered. Workman was found not suitable

for promotion. Candidates from SC-ST category were

considered. Only 4 posts were available. Workman could

not be promoted.

4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 8 to 10 reiterating his

contentions in statement of claim.

5. As per order dated 23.10.2013, enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal. 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 Affirmative

management of Chirimiri Area

of SECL in recovering

Rs. 10,000 from the

wages of Shri K. D. Sahai,

Store Keeper, Regional

Store, Korea is legal and

justified?

(ii) Whether the supersession

In Affirmative

of workman by his juniors in

promotions is legal and

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

6. As stated above, enquiry conducted against workman

is found proper and legal. The question remains whether

order of recovery of Rs. 10,000 from workman Shri K.D.

Sahai is proper. The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs

to be considered to decide whether charges alleged against

workman are proved. Exhibit M-1 is letter initiating enquiry

against workman alleging negligence in duty on his part in

delivery of pipes Management's witness Shri V.S.

Vishwanathan was examined in Enquiry Proceedings. He

has stated that Shri KD. Sahai was entrusted work of taking

delivery. On 6.10.85, the contractor transported pipes on

7.10.85. Last trip was taken on 11.10.85. 90 pipes were

received less. He submitted report to Sr. Store Officer.

In his cross-examination by workman, the witness says he

was working in receipt section. He was assisted by Baby

Thomas. He did not remember how may challans were

received by him from contractor. He did not remember the

number of pipes and its size. He further says that signature

of sender were required on challan. The witness was unable

to tell whether signature of Shri R.K. Das were necessary

on challan. The witness further says that except work of

unloading, no other work was given to the workman, the

management's witness Shri A.K. Das corroborate his

evidence that workman was entrusted work of taking

delivery of pipes. Delivery of 90 pipes less was found.

The evidence of those witnesses shows negligence on

part of workman the evidence cannot be re-appreciated as

Appellate Authority. The findings of authority is supported

by same evidence rather the findings of Enquiry Officer

cannot be said perverse. Therefore, recovery of Rs. 10,000

from workman cannot be said illegal.

7. W.r.t. IInd part of charge, superior of workman in the

matter of promotion, service record of workman is produced

at Exhibit M-2 disclosing his service details. Copy of

recommendation of DPC for post of Sr. Store Keeper,

Chirimiri Area is produced. Workman was also considered.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1563

The copy of conciliation report, considered by DPC were

found average on some counts. Considering the post

available and reservation of two posts for SC, ST

candidates, DPC did not recommend Ist party workman for

promotion. Promotion cannot be said illegal or act of

victimization. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No. 1, 2 in Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Chirimiri Area of

SECL in recovering Rs. 10,000 from the wages of

Shri K.D. Sahai, Store Keeper, Regional Store,

Korea and his supersession by his juniors in

promotion is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 694-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ,l-lh-vkbZ- ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 98@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gSa] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@349@2005&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e&II)]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 694.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/07) of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Food Corporation of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/349/2005-IR (CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/98/07

General Secretary,

SC/ST/OBC Karmchari Kalyan Parishad

9, Sanwer Road,

Ujjain.

...Workman/Union

Versus

Sr. Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Regional Office, Chetak Building,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of November, 2014

1. As per letter dated 27.9.07 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-22012/349/2005-

IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the Sr. Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Bhopal in not considering

the case of Shri Amit Lodhwal for providing him

compassionate appointment is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief Shri Amit Lodhwal is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Dependent of workman submits his father was

appointed as watchman in 1977. He belong to SC. His father

died on 7.3.00 leaving his widow Sonibai, son Amit and

Shailesh, Daughter Kamini. Widow Soni bai was suffering

from illness. For family support, application for appointment

on compassionate ground of Amit was submitted. Amit

was interviewed for compassionate ground by Competent

Officers. He was selected for appointment on

compassionate ground. However appointment order was

not given to him. SC Welfare Council had submitted

representations. Despite of it, Ist party was not given

appointment. The dispute has been referred. Ist party is

praying for his appointment on compassionate ground w.e.f.

1.7.00.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing relief

claimed by Ist party dependent. That FCI is established as

per FCI Act, 1964. It is undertaking of Central Govt. the

dispute is not raised by Trade Union rather it is raised by

General Secretary of SC ST Employees Welfare Council.

The reference is not tenable. The welfare council is not

registered as Trade Union. It is not competent to raise the

dispute.

4. Father of Ist party A.K. Lodhwal was appointed on

15.11.77 as watchman. On 29.12.97, he was promoted as

dusting operator. His date of retirement was 30.6.2016.

However father of Ist party died on 7.3.00 leaving his widow

Soni Bai, Son Amit, Shailesh, Daughter Kamini. It is

submitted that the circulars issued by Govt. of India

provides 5% vacancies to be filled on compassionate

ground. Said decision was upheld by Delhi High Court in

LPA 181/2010. Ist party workman Shri Amit Lodhwal had

applied for appointment on compassionate ground.

However within period of 3 years, he could not be appointed

for want of vacancies. The list for appointment on

1564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

compassionate ground of Ist party was cancelled from

17.2.06. Its information was given to him. It is further

submitted that Ist party is not entitled to any relief.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether SC ST Welfare

In Negative

Council has locus standi to

raise and prosecute the

dispute.

(ii) Whether action of the

In Affirmative

Sr. Regional Manager, Food

Corporation of India, Bhopal

in not considering the case

of Shri Amit Lodhwal for

providing him compassionate

appointment is legal and

justified?

(iii) If not, what relief the

Ist Party is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. As per terms of reference, denial of appointment of

compassionate ground of Ist party is in dispute. Said

dispute is raised by SC ST Welfare council which is not

registered under Trade Union Act, 1926 has not locus to

raise or prosecute present dispute. The documents are

produced at Exhibit W-1 to W-7. Exhibit W-1 is copy of

death certificate of Shri Kamlesh Kumar S/o Ist party, W-2

is application submitted by widow Sonabai for appointment

on compassionate ground for her son Amit Kumar. Exhibit

W-3 shows copies of applications addressed to various

authorities. Exhibit W-4 is letter sent by Asstt. General

Manager informing that the proposal was forwarded to

Mumbai office who was under is consideration. Exhibit W-

5 shows that said letter was addressed to various

authorities. W-6 shows 5% post were reserved for

appointment on compassionate ground. W-7 is circular

dated 14.5.01 to take action as per circulars in the matter of

appointment on compassionate ground. Exhibit W-8 is

circular dated 5.5.03 prescribing filling of 5% post through

direct recruitment quota. W-9 is letter dated 5.2.04 by Joint

Direction for taking action as per circular dated 5.3.02.

Exhibit W-10 is letter given by Asstt. Manager dated 15.7.04

for taking action as per circulars. Similar documents are

produced by IInd party at Exhibit M-1 to M-7. IInd party

has not disputed Ist party Amit was included in list for

appointment on compassionate ground. The documents

Exhibit M-8 to M-16 are produced by IInd party.

7. Ist party has not adduced evidence in view of

admission of documents. Shri Ram Nagwanshi has given

letter dated 26.2.2013. Management's witness Shri William

Kirki in his affidavit of evidence supported the contentions

of IInd party in Written Statement about 5% post were

reserved for appointment on compassionate ground. The

application submitted by Soni Bai widow of deceased for

appointment of her son Amit for appointment on

compassionate ground was submitted to higher officer. On

12.9.03, its information was given to the Union. The register

for appointment on compassionate ground is maintained.

In 5% post reserved for compassionate ground, Ist party

could not be appointed within 3 years his name was

cancelled from list of 17.2.06. Its information was also given

to him. The evidence on record clearly shows that name of

Ist party was considered for appointment on

compassionate ground but he could not be appointed within

period of 3 years against 5% reserved post therefore the

action of the IInd party cannot be said illegal. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 that SC ST

Welfare Council has no authority to raise or prosecute the

proceeding, Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the Sr. Regional Manager, Food

Corporation of India, Bhopal in not considering

the case of Shri Amit Lodhwal for providing him

compassionate appointment is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 695-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 100@95½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gSa] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@575@1994&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 695.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/95) of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Western Coalfield Limited, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/575/1994-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1565

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/100/95

Shri Pritam,

S/o Jaganlal

Village Sukari Basti,

Ward No. 16, PO Junnardeo,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP) ...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

Nagpur Area,

Jarlpataka,

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of March, 2015

1. As per letter dated 26.5.95 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/

575/94-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of W.C. Ltd., Management

Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri Pritam S/o

Jaganlal from 20.7.89 is legal, proper and 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 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is his father

Jaganlal was working on the post of switch attendant in

Bipla Colliery of Kanhan Area, Distt. Chhindwara. His father

was declared medically unfit and terminated from service.

Workman was appointed on compassionate ground.

Chargesheet was issued to workman on 12.12.92 for

allegation of unauthorized absence. Chargesheet was not

supplied to him. The memo for appointment of Enquiry

Officer was not supplied. Notice of enquiry fixed on 12.6.93

was sent by registered post was received by him on 12.6.93.

That he requested Enquiry Officer to adjourn enquiry and

supply chargesheet and documents for his defence. His

request was not replied. Neither chargesheet or suspension

orders were supplied to him. The dismissal order was also

not supplied to him. Workman reiterates that he was

dismissed for allegation of unauthorised absence in

violation of standing orders. As per standing order,

workman is given opportunity to explain the allegations

after receiving chargesheet the punishment order cannot

be issued. Workman further submits that after dismissal

from service, management fabricated the record of Enquiry

Proceedings with motive to support the order of his

dismissal. Workman had suffered pain in abdomen. He was

operated of Appendix. He was under treatment from

11.4.89 to 17.7.89. The Medical officer had declared him

fit for light duty. He was not assigned light duty. His

request for transfer to other mine was not considered.

Workman was not informed about the rejection of his

request. On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement

with back wages.

3. Management filed Written Statement at Page 4/

1 to 4/5 opposing claim of workman. it is submitted that

Coal Mines are nationalized. The service conditions are

covered by NCWA. Workman was appointed on

compassionate ground as per provisions under NCWA.

He was posted at Pipla Mines. Any intimation was not

received by management about treatment of workman.

Workman himself has contented that he was declared fit

for duty from 18.7.89. He was supposed to report duty

on 19.7.89. Workman remained absent from duty from

1.5.89 to 3.12.92. Chargesheet was issued to workman

for unauthorized absence as per Clause 17(1)(n) of the

standing orders. Workman was absent from duty for more

than 3½ years. Enquiry was properly conducted despite

of notices issued to workman about enquiry fixed on

7.4.93, 8.6.93, 12.6.93. Workman did not participate in

enquiry therefore enquiry was conducted in absence.

Enquiry Officer submitted his findings that charges are

proved beyond doubt. In view of proved charges, workman

was dismissed from service. The punishment of dismissal

is proper. Workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/4

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

5. Management submitted reply to rejoinder at Page

5/1 to 5/5 reiterating its contentions in Written Statement.

6. As per order dated 29.11.11, my predecessor held

enquiry conducted against workman is illegal and not

proper. Management was granted permission to prove

misconduct adducing evidence.

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 charges against Ist

party are proved by

In Negative

management of IInd party?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

dismissal imposed against

In Negative

workman is proper and legal?

(iii) If not, what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?

order

REASONS

8. As stated above, enquiry conducted against

workman was found illegal and not proper. Management

was permitted to prove misconduct by adducing evidence.

1566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

In pursuance of said permission, management has filed

affidavit of writness Smt. V. Laxmi Shankar. The affidavit

of management's witness deals with chargesheet No. 240

dated 12.10.92 issued to workman under clause (17)(1)(b)

for continuous absence without permission. That NCWA

doesnot provide privilege to workman that dependent

should be given particular mine only. Since no records

were available and the attendance clerk, personal officer

are retired, the Committee is constituted to search the

records of the documents as per advice of Dy. General

Manager, Nagpur Area. The Committee met on 15.1.2013

and examined Form 'B' No. 2304. That workman himself

submitted that he was under treatment and declared fit for

duty on 18.7.89. He had to resume duty on 18.7.89. Workman

did not report for duty till 31.12.92. In her cross-examination,

management's witness says she joined duty from 5.2.08.

From available records, she has stated the date of joining

of workman. She had seen Form B of workman. zerox copy

is produced. That witness says documents were detroyed

in fire in 1994. She received said information from office

members. She has no authentic information about the

documents desroyed in fire. In Form B, there was entry

that workman was terminated for unauthorized absence. In

her further cross, witness of management says she is not

aware about chargesheet issued to workman. Zerox copy

of Form B register bears her signature marked Exhibit M-9.

She signed on it as true copy. She has not brought original

Form B Register. That she stated in her affidavit that

workman had not received treatment in WCL Hospital. As

Manager transferred, she inquired about documents of

treatment. That she does not know about the documents

relating to operation of workman at Kanhan. The

information is available about PF. The witness says that

said documents are produced on record. management's

witness is not cogent about the unauthorized absence of

workman or treatment received by workman in Kanhan

Hospital.

9. Workman has produced documents Exhibit W-1 to

W-8. Workman had submitted applications that he was

operated of appendix. He requested light duty as per

application dated 29.9.89 (Exhibit W-2). The application

Exhibit W-1 finds reference that his father was declared

unfit on 15.4.88 and he was appointed in place of his father

at Pipla Mine. The certificate issued by Medical officer

produced at Exhibit W-4 shows that workman was declared

fit for light work. Exhibut W-5 also shows that workman

was operted of Appendix on 5.6.89. He was under treatment

of the Area Hospital. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence

supporting his contentions. From his evidence, documents

Exhibit W-1 toW-6 are proved. The workman in his cross-

examination says he had sent application through his son

by registered post Exhibit W-5, W-6. Workman in his further

cross-examination says he studied upto Vth standard. At

fag end of his cross, workman says he cannot do any work.

The evidence adduced by management is not sufficient to

prove the workman was unauthorisely absent. His request

for transfer or assigning light duty were not decided.

10. In the written notes of arguments, it is submitted

that the management's witnesses was working as Welfare

Officer. As per provisions under Mines Act, Welfare Officer

cannot give evidence on behalf of management except as

independent witness. Evidence of management's witness

is not as independent witness rather it is based in

information received from other staff members. The evidence

is not sufficient to prove charges of unauthorized absence

against workman. therefore I record Point No. 1 in Negative.

11. Charges against workman are not proved by

cogent evidence, the attendance clerk and other staff

receiving direct information are not examined. The record

of attendance is also not produced. Workman was

terminated for aunauthorized absence. However said

charges are not proved from evidence of management's

witness. Therefore punishment of dismissal against

workman cannot be said proper and legal. Workman says

he cannot do any work therefore reinstatement of workman

could not be appropriate. Considering workman was

dismissed for unauthorized absence, charges are not

proved, question arises what relief be granted in the matter.

12. Shri R.S. Verma for workman on the point relies

on ratio held in Case of Deepali Gundu Surwase versus

Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others

reported in 2013(10)(SCC) 324. Their Lordship dealing with

the question of reinstatement with back wages considered

conduct of employer and sufferings of employee. Their

Lordship held denial of backwages would amount to

indirectly punishing the employee and rewarding the

employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay

backwages.

In present case, it was not case of the management

that no enquiry could be held against workman rather IInd

party conducted enquiry against workman but enquiry is

found vitiated therefore ration held in above cited case

cannot be applied to case at hand.

Reliance is also placed by Shri A.K. Shashi on ratio

held in Case of M.P. State electricity Board and Jarina Bee

reported in 2013-III-LLJ-244. Their Lordship dealing with

question of awarding full back wages held award of whole

backwages not natural consequence of setting aside

dismissal of workman. It has discretionary element and no

strait jacket formula can be evolved. Their Lordship held

Even when the unfortunate workman died during the

pendencey of matter before the Industrial Court in appeal,

the appellant employer Board contested its liability to pay

be respondent widow of the workman full back wages,

fastened on it by the Industrial Court. The High Court only

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1567

confirmed the Industrial Court's order of removal from

service was set aside, award of back wages was the natural

consequence. Hence the present appeal by the electricity

board. The Supreme Court allowed it, observing that award

of full back wages was not be natural consequence of

setting aside a removal from service. However in the

circumstances of the payment of Rs. 85,000 towards

backwages to the respondent, it was held would meet the

ends of justice.

In present case, workman was appointed on

compassionate ground in April, 1988. For unauthorized

absence, chargesheet was issued to him and ultimately

dismissed from service on 30.7.89. Workman attended his

duties for about 1 year before chargesheet was issued to

him. considering above facts and evidence in cross-

examination of workman, he cannot do any work,

compensation Rs. 1,50,000 would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

13. In the result, award is passed as under:

(1)

The action of W.C. Ltd., Management Nagpur

in terminating the services of Shri Pritam S/o

Jaganlal from 20.7.89 is not legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 1,50,000 to the workman within 30 days

from the date of publication is 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] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 696-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 113@2003½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- & 22012@337@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 696. In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/

03) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Ghorawari Colliery of WCL,

and their workman, received by the Central Government

on 30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/337/2002-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/113/03

General Secretary,

RKKMS (INTUC),

PO Chandametta,

Chhindwara

...Workman/Union

Versus

The Manager,

Ghorawari Colliery of WCL,

Kanhan Area, PO Ghorawari,

Chindwara

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of November, 2014

1. As per letter dated 16.6.03 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-22012/337/

2002-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of Manager, Ghorawari

Colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area, PO Ghorawari,

Distt. Chhindwara, MP in not giving light job to Shri

Md. Arif, S/o Sheikh Sharif, General Mazdoor is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued

to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at

page 4/1 to 4/4. Case of workman is that he was employed

as General Mazdoor from 4.10.90 in Ghorawari colliery

of WCL. He was directed to perform duties of electrician.

On 2.6.92, He was directed by Colliery Manager to

perform duty on electric pole for removing electrical

conductors. During course of employment removing

conductors on electric poles, he fell down to sustain

serious injuries to both of his legs. He was taken to

hospital whether he was treated and ultimately Doctor

certified that he sustained 100% disability because of his

legs. Workman was removed from service.

3. Workman further submits that he had filed

application under Workmen Compensation Act 1923

before Labour Court, Chhindwara bearing 15/93. Said case

was contested by management. Labour Court, Chhindwara

as per award dated 26.5.99 held that workman become

permanently disabled due to the accident occurred during

course of employment. Compensation of Rs. 89,084 with

6% interest was allowed. Management was directed to pay

said amount.

4. Workman further submits that the service conditions

of the employees of WCL are covered by NCWA. As per

Clause 9.41 of NCWA, the dependents of employee

1568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

permanently disabled are entitled for appointment on

compassionate grounds. Workman further submits that

he has three brothers Mohd. Abid, Mohd. Tahir & Mohd.

Firaz. After his treatment, he was removed from

employment by management without any notice.

Workman prays for his reinstatement with full back wages.

5. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 5/1 to

5/7 denying claim of workman. Preliminary objection is

raised that Ist party workman was not its employee rather

he was employee of contractor. There is no employer

employee relationship. The reference is not tenable. That

management of WCL awarded contract of dismantling,

loading and transporting to colliery store. The contractor

engaged certain persons for execution of said work.

Principle employer is permitted to get work executed by

contractor except work of prohibited category. Ist party

workman was engaged by contractor. There is no employer

employee relationship. Workman was not deployed for work

on electric pole as claimed. It is submitted that Ist party is

not covered as workman under ID Act. Workman was

engaged by contractor Noor Mohd. In proceeding under

Case No. 578/93, it was held that workman was engaged by

contractor. As contractor died, IInd party was directed to

pay compensation amount Rs. 89,084 with interest.

That total amount Rs. 1,29,171.80 was deposited by IInd

party on 29.12.99. The documents of said proceeding are

relied. All other adverse contentions of workman are denied.

It is reiterated that workman was engaged by contractor.

He is not employed by IInd party therefore workman is not

entitled to relief claimed by him.

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

Manager, Ghorawari Colliery

In Affirmative

of WCL, Kanhan Area, PO

Ghorawari, Distt. Chhindwara

M.P. in not giving light job

to Shri Md. Arif, S/o Sheikh

Sharif, General Mazdoor is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to relief

claimed by him.

REASONS

7. The terms of reference relates to denial of light

job to workman by management of IInd party whereas in

statementof claim filed by workman, he is praying for

reinstatement with backwages. Thus the claim of workman

in statement of claim is beyond the terms of reference.

Documents produced by workman are admitted by IInd

party. Exhibit W-1 is application submitted by workman

under Workman Compensation Act disclosing injuries to

both of his legs. Opposite party No. 2 Gulmohd. 2 was

engaged as petty contractor. Exhibit W-2 is copy of

evidence of workman Kishnan w.r.t. injuries suffered by

workman. Certified copy of statement of claim of workman

admitted by IInd party shows that workman was working

with contractor. Exhibit W-3 is copy of evidence of Dr.

Krishnan. Exhibit W-4, 5 is copy of statement of witness

Shri B. Mallick recorded by Labour Court in Case No. 57/

93. Copy of order passed by Labour Court Exhibit W-6

shows IInd party was directed to deposit amount of

Rs. 1,27,171/-. Documents Exhibit M-1 to M-7 are

produced by management. It is clearly shows that workman

was working with contractor Gulmohd.

8. The evidence of workman in his cross-

examination shows that he filed application before Labour

Court, Chhindwara under Workmen Compensation Act

against management and Gul Mohd. His evidence was

recorded in said proceeding. He claimed compensation

for injuries suffered during employment. His claim for

Rs. 1,29,000 was accepted by labour Court. He denies

that WCL had never employed him.

9. Management submitted affidavit of witness Shri

Shambhu Sharan Sinha supporting contentions for

management that workman was engaged by contractor, he

was not engaged by IInd party. In his cross-examination,

management's witness says on 2.6.92, Ist party workman

fell from pole. He was admitted in Colliery Hospital. When

treatment is provided to contractor's employees, the

contractor has to pay the expenses or amount of expenses

are deducted from his account. The award passed by Labour

Court Chhindwara Exhibit M-1 is clear that workman was

employee of contractor Gul Mohd. suffered injuries in

accident. After Late Gulmohd contractor, IInd party

management was held responsible for payment of

compensation. Ist party has suppressed said finding of

Labour Court and claims that he was employee of IInd

party management. Therefore his evidence cannot be

believed. As Ist party workman was engaged by contractor,

there is no employer employee relationship between the

parties. Claim of Ist party workman for reinstatement with

back wages is beyond the terms of reference. It cannot be

said legal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No. 1 in Affirmative.

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

(1) The Whether the action of Manager, Ghorawari

Colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area, PO Ghorawari,

Distt, Chhindwara, MP in not giving light job

to Shri Md. Arif, S/o Sheikh Sharif, General

Mazdoor is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to reinstatement.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1569

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 697-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 128@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&22012@153@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh-,e&II]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 697.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 128/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of SECL, H.Q. Sipat

Road, Bilaspur, Kusmunda Area of SECL, Kusmunda, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/153/2012-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/128/2012

General Secretary,

Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),

Qr. No. M/91, Vikas Nagar,

Post Kusmunda,

Distt. Korba (CG) ...Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager (P&A)

SECL, HQ, Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh ...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of February, 2015

1. As per letter dated 16-11-2012 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-22012/153/2012-IR (CM-II). The dispute under

reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of (i) The

General Manager, Kusmunda Area of SECL

Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (CG) and (ii) the General

Manager (P&A), SECL HQ Bilaspur CG in not

correcting the date of birth in service sheet in respect

of Smt. Padma Bai, General Mazdoor Cat-II on the

basis of the attestation Form & Pre-Metric Certificate

as submitted at the time of appointment was legal,

proper and justified? What relief the said workman is

entitled to and from what date?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union has submitted statement of

claim at Page 1 to 5. It is submitted that date of workman

Smt. Padma Bai was recorded 18-4-65. The Sr. Personnel

Officer issued notice to Medical Officer wherein without

competency her date of birth was mentioned as 4-7-1960.

Ist party prayed correction of date of birth as 18-4-65.

3. Management of IInd party filed Written Statement

denying claim of workman. It is reiterated that workman

has declared her date of birth 4-7-1960. It was recorded in

the record. Appointment of workman on compassionate

ground was approved by management on 18-3-96. The date

of birth of workman was recorded 4-7-65.

4. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating her contentions

in statement of claim.

5. When matter is fixed for admission/denial of

documents, the parties settled the dispute out of court.

Management's representative Shri P.V. Satyanarayan and

Union Representative Shri Santosh are present and admits

the contents of settlements. As dispute is settled out of

court, it appears dispute seized to exist. As such No Dispute

Award is passed in terms of settlement between parties.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 698-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 131@2000½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- & 22012@533@1999&vkbZ-vkj-¼lh-,e&II)]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 698.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 131/2000) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

1570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Sohagpur Area of SECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/533/1999-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Office

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO.CGIT/LC/R/131/00

Vice President,

M.P. Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU),

Rajendra Project Branch,

PO Khera,

Shahdol (MP) ...Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager

Sohagpur Area of SECL,

PO Dhanpuri,

Distt. Shahdol (MP) ...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 28th day of January, 2015

1. As per letter dated 6-7-00 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-22012/533/99-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the General Manager,

Sohagpur Area of SECL, PO Dhanpuri, Distt.

Shahdol (MP) in not making the pay difference of

wages in respect of Grade-II to Shri Laxpati Tripathi

is legal and justified? if not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices issued to the

parties. Statement of claim is submitted by vice

President of MP Koyla Shramik Sangh. Case of

Union is workman Laxpati Tripathi was regularized on

24-4-95 on post of Clerk Grade III as per award by this

Tribunal. That at the time of said award, NCWA-IV was in

operation in SECL. Pay Scale Rs. 1595-37-1613 was

applicable to post of Clerk Grade-III. At the time of his

regularization, workman was assigned work of magazine

incharge in Rajendra Colliery underground. Workman

was continuously performing the duty of magazine

incharge with honesty and devotion. Work of magazine

incharge was extracted from him by management

but he was not paid its salary. The post of magazine

incharge is equivalent to post of Clerk Grade II.

The representation submitted by workman and Union to

regularize him on the past of magazine was not accept by

management. The dispute has been raised. It is submitted

that action of the management is arbitrary. It amounts to

unfair labour practice. It is also in violation of principles of

natural justice. On such ground, Union is praying for

regularization of Ist party workman on post of magazine

incharge.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to

7/2 denying claim of workman. IInd party submits that it is

incorporated under Section 6/7of Company's Act. SECL

has operating many collieries in Chhattisgarh and MP. For

smooth functioning of the work, 12 area offices are set up

by the company. Each area has been divided in further sub

areas/collieries. IInd party denies that workman is posted

as Magazine incharge. As per IInd party, he was posted as

Magazine clerk for job of clerical nature along with other

clerks. The work performed by him is different since

qualification of workman does not give him right to the

post of magazine incharge. He was not engaged as

Magazine Incharge neither he was authorized by

management to work as such. Claim of workman is baseless.

On such ground, IInd party prays that claim of workman

cannot be accepted.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of

the General Manager,

Sohagpur Area of SECL,

In Affirmative

PO Dhanpuri, Distt. Shahdol

(MP) in not making the pay

difference of wages in respect

of Grade-II to Shri Laxpati

Tripathi is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

5. Though workman has raised dispute for

regularization on the post of magazine incharge, he failed

to properly participate in reference proceedings. No

evidence is adduced by workman in support of his claim.

His evidence is closed on 26-4-2010.

6. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri V.

Abraham and Shri S.P. Patnaik supporting contentions of

IInd party. Both witnesses of management are not cross-

examined by Ist party workman. Their evidence reamined

unchallenged. The claim of Ist party is not suported by

any kind of evidence for regularization of workman on the

post of Magazine Incharge. Therefore I record my finding

in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1571

7. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the General Manager, Sohagpur

Area of SECL, PO Dhanpuri, Distt. Shahdol

(MP) in not making the pay difference of

wages in respect of Grade-II to Shri Laxpati

Tripathi is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 699-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 158@2002½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- & 22012@117@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-&II)]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 699.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.

158/02) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of SECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.3.2015.

[No. L-22012/117/2002-IR(CM-II]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/158/02

The Secretary,

MP. Koyala Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),

Sohagpur Branch,

PO Dhanpuri,

Shahdol ...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager

Sohagpur Area of SECL

PO Dhanpuri,

Distt. Shahdol ...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 28th day of January, 2015

1. As per letter dated 28-11-02 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, 1947as per Notification No. L-22012/

117/2002-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the demand of the M.P. Koyala Mazdoor

Sabha from the management Sohagpur Area of SECL

for promoting Shri Revendra Singh to the post of

Driver from 1990 is legal and justified? If so, to what

relief is the workman entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Pages 2/1 to 2/3. Case of workman is that he was

appointed as Tub Loader on 13-8-80. He was working on

said post. In the year 1990, workman was asked to work

as Driver. He was continuously working as Driver. On

22-8-95, he was promoted in Cat-II as Driver. The case

of workman was that he was continuously working as

Driver since 1990. He claimed promotion to Cat-I from

day of his working in 1990. The management did not allow

his claim. The dispute was raised by him had been referred

for adjudication.

3. Workman further submits that he was asked to

work as Driver in National programme at Budhar in the year

1992. Certificate was issued by Tehsildar. He was working

as Driver at Vehicle No. MBA 4029. While going to Village

Khannodhi, said vehicle met with accident. The claim was

filed against IInd party. In Written Statement filed in said

matter, the fact was admitted that workman was driving

vehicle. That he was transferred as Driver from Chachai to

Area of Timber Sale of Sohagpur Area. In 1991. Prior to

accident, Vehcile No. MBA 4029 was driven by him therefore

he acquired status of driving and deserves to be classified

as such. Workman further submits that promotion to the

post Cat-II was accepted from the year 1995. For the period

of 4 years, he received payment as tub loader though he

was working as Driver. That he worked continuously against

permanent vacant post for period six months. He deserves

to be classified as Driver since 4-5 years prior to his

promotion. Action of the management is unfair on depriving

is salary for driver. Accordingly, he has paid for proper reliefs.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Pages 6/1

to 6/6. Claim of Ist party workman is opposed. IInd party

submits that workman was initially appointed as tub loader.

He was given promotion time-to-time. Present he is working

as Driver Cat-IV. Workman claims said post from year 1990.

The dispute is raised after lapse of 11 years is not

maintainable for inordinate delay. Ratio held in different

cases is relied. IInd party further submits that workman is

claiming promotion by raising dispute. The promotion is

given subject to various recommendations of DPC

1572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

considering availability of sanctioned post, administrative

requirements. Merely eligibility of employee for promotion

does not give him right to the promotional post.

5. It is further submitted that IInd party is registered

under Company's Act having subsidiary officers at various

places. Service conditions of employees of IInd party are

covered by settlement called as NCWA. The promotional

channel of the department are covered by cadre Scheme.

As per Scheme, post are Lorry Cleaner, Driver Trainee and

Driver. The educational qualification is required 7th, 8th

and requiring driving licence of heavy vehicle on

recommendation of DPC. Earlier the dispute was settled

on 8-7-91. In pursuance to said settlement, the workman

working at Chachai underground mines are released to

Timber Sale Sohagpur Area as Truck Helper/Lorry Cleaner.

His seniority was from date of his transfer to timber sale i.e.

from 13-7-91. As per cadre Scheme, workman was promotted

as Trainee Driver Cat-II. All adverse allegations of workman

are denied. From trainee Category II, workman was

promoted to Driver Cat-V w.e.f. 22-8-95 as per order dated

6-1-96. In pursuance of I.I.No. 11 issued by Member

Secretary of JBCCI further instruction No. 12 was issued

on 8-3-01. As per notesheet dated 12-2-04, workman along

with others remaining in same grade for 7-8 years were

upgraded to Driver Cat-VI from 1-1-04. Above contentions

are reiterated by IInd party and submit that workman is

claiming time bound promotion on his own accord, giving

promotion is managerial function. As per norms of cadre

Scheme, recommendation by DPC, workman is not entitled

to any relief.

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 demand of the

M.P. Koyala Mazdoor Sabha

from the management

Sohagpur Area of SECL for

In Negative

promoting Shri Ravendra Singh

to the post of Driver from 1990

is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

7. Workman fully aggrieved by denial of promotion

to the post of Driver Cat-VI in 1990 raised the dispute. IInd

party has opposed relief claimed by workman. Workman

has failed affidavit of his evidence stating that he was

continuously working as Driver from 1990. Prior to it, he

was working as Tub Loader since 30-8-90. He was promoted

as Driver Cat-VI w.e.f. 22-8-95. Documents are produced in

support of his claim. Exhibit W-2 is copy of failure report

submitted to Government by ALC. Exhibit M-1 is copy of

cadre Scheme produced by management. The cadre Scheme

provides promotions of Lorry cleaner/helper. The post of

lorry cleaner is shown Cat-II, Driver Trainee-qualifications

reauired 8th standard. The mode of promotion is Trade,

DPC. In the year 1990, workman was not recommended by

DPC for promotion as Driver. Exhibit M-2 is the order of

appointment of Ist party workman as under ground Badli

Tub Loader. Exhibit M-3 shows workman had agreed to

work in Cat-II as Truck Helper on transfer to Area Timber

Call, Sohagpur Area. His seniority was to be counted from

date of his transfer. Workman relied on order dated 13-7-91.

Exhibit M-4 release order for his promotion to the post of

Driver from 1990. The document M-4 does not support his

claim. Workman had agreed to work as Truck Helper Cat-II.

Exhibit M-5 shows on recommendation of DPC, workman

was appointed as Driver Trainee on 22-8-94. Said post is

shown in Cat-II. Exhibit 5/A order dated 5-1-96 workman

was promoted to Driver Cat-V. Exhibit 5/B shows workman

was promoted as Driver Cat BI from 1-1-04. Workman in his

cross-examination says he doesnot know English. Affidavit

of his evidence was submitted in Hindi.

8. Management's witness Shri S.P. Patnaik in his

affidavit of evidence supported contentions of

management. Promotions as per cadre Scheme is narrated.

The promotions given to workman time-to-time are stated

by the management's witness. In his cross-examination,

management's witness says workman was transferred as

per order Exhibit M-6 in the post of Timberman to Truck

Helper Category-II. In 2004, he was promoted to the post

of Driver Trainee. The channel of promotion is helper to

Driver subject to vacancy and helping driving licence.

Management's witness denies that workman is entitled to

promotion w.e.f. 1990 instead of his promotion in 1995. The

Claim of workman is not supported by any rules. Merely

working as Driver holding licence cannot give right of

promotion to the workman. Name of workman was not

recommended for promotion to the post of Driver in 1990

by DPC therefore, I do not find substance in demand

submitted by Union. For above reasons, I record Point

No. 1 in Negative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The demand of the M.P. Koyala Mazdoor

Sabha from the management Sohagpur Area

of SECL for promoting Shri Ravendra Singh to

the post of Driver from 1990 is not legal and

proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1573

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 700-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Q-lh-vkbZ- ds

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

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

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 173@2003½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-3-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y-&22012@276@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O.700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 173/03) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.3.2015.

[No. L-22012/276/2002-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/173/03

The Unit Secretary,

FCI Employees Association,

C/o Food Corporation of India,

Old Vidhan Sabha Complex,

Bhopal. ...Workman/Union

Versus

District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

District Office,

Old Vidhan Sabha Complex, Bhopal ...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of November , 2014

1. As per letter dated 22-10-2003 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-22012/

276/2002-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India, Bhopal in not paying the

overtime in respect of Class III & IV employees from

October 2000 to March 2001 after taking work beyond

the working hours is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workmen are entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. On behalf of Ist party Unit Secretary,

Shri R.S. Sharma of BKMS submitted statement of claim at

pages 4/1 to 4/2. The case of Ist party Union is that District

Manager, FCI Bhopal has not paid overtime wages from

October 2000 to March 01 of its employees after sanctioning

the same, list is annexed calculating amount of R.s 7,30,151/

-, said amount is unpaid. The claim of Ist party is based on

documentary evidence available with management. The

work was carried out by workman beyond duty hours by

watch and ward staff. An per existing procedure of the

corporation, the claim so preferred by the employees on

completion of each month from October 2000 to March 01

was verified and recommended by the immediate office to

the sanctioning authority. Ditrict Manager sanctioned same

but said amount was not paid. Ist party Union is praying

for payment of said amount with penal interest and cost of

Rs. 10,000/-.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Pages 6/1 to

6/6. Claim of Union for recovery of overtime wages is denied.

It is submitted that as per Notification dated

24-11-1972 of MP Govt., the offices of FCI allocated in MP

are exempted from operations of the M.P. Shop and

Establishment Act, 1958. As per rules, FCI is making

payment of overtime to its employees at the single rate of

their original rate of wages. That under Section-3 of MP

Shops and Establishment Act, 1958, when provisions are

not applicable to certain persons according to said

provisions. The employees working inherent intermittent

such as drivers, watchman etc. The provisions of MP Shop

and Establishment Act are not applicable.

4. IInd party further submits that the reference is

vague. It is made without applying mind considering the

notification issued by State of MP under Shop and

Establishment Act. It is prayed that reference is answered

in Negative. IInd party did not dispute employees working

in FCI. The dispute was referred after failure report

submitted by Government. It is reiterated that as per Circular

dated 15-7-98 issued by FCI Hqrs. maximum limit of overtime

allowance is 1/3rd of the wages during month. Therefore

employees are not entitled to unpaid wages. There is no

question of paying amount of Rs. 7,30,151 claimed by

Union. That certificate issued by Hqr. dated 15-7-98 and

Notification issued by MP State are pure questions of law.

It is reiterated that in view of circular and Notification issued

by MP Govt. employees are not entitled to unpaid wages

claimed by Union.

In Para-10 of the reply IInd party submits that Chhola

Depot of FCI had prepared and send overtime allowance to

District Office, Bhopal for its payment. Taking into

1574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

consideration circular dated 15-3-98, the employees were

permitted to overtime to the extent of 1/3rd of wages

during the month and 1/3rd overtime payment have already

been paid to the concerned employees. Employees are

not entitled to overtime allowance beyond the ceiling

limit. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of

claim. IInd party also submitted list of employees with

amount of unpaid wages.

5. Ist party Union submitted rejoinder at pages 7/1

to 7/2. That non-payment of overtime allowance from

October, 2000 to March 01 for actual hours worked.

Management in pursuance of Circular dated 15-3-88 is

restricted to overtime allowances above ceiling of 1/3rd

that Non-applicant placed blind reliance on department

Circular dated 15-7-88 and notification issued by MP

State Govt.

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 Food

Corporation of India,

Bhopal in not paying the

overtime in respect of Class

III & IV employees from

October 2000 to March

2001 after taking work

beyond the working hours is

legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workmen are

entitled?"

(ii) If not, what relief the As per final orders.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. Present proceeding relates to non-payment of

overtime wages Rs. 7,30,151/- by IInd party. IInd party is

not denying that overtime wages claimed by Union is for

the work of employees beyond normal working hours.

Union Secretary Shri R.S. Sharma filed affidavit of evidence

supporting claim of Union. In his cross-examination,

witness of Union denies that the circulars at Pages 6/7 to

6/10 are applicable to them. That the circular applies to

the Watchman. He claims ignorance whether FCI Office

Establishment was exempted under Shop and Establishment

Act. In his further cross-examination, the witness says

overtime wages are paid at hourly rate and not single time

rate. The management's witness Shri Jagdish Prasad in his

affidavit of evidence has stated that the FCI Establishment

are exempted from provisions of MP Shops and

Establishment Act. That Circular was issued on 24-11-72.

The witness of management was not cross-examined. Other

witness of management in his affidavit of evidence has

stated about Notification issued by State of MP under

Shop and Establishment Act. The FCI Establishment are

exempted. Union Representative remained absent and not

cross-examined. Evidence of management's witness

remained unchallenged.

8. Union Representative remained absent on several

dates. No argument are advanced. Counsel for management

Shri Pandy submitted notes of argument supporting

contentions in Written Statement. Written Statement

submitted by IInd party did not dispute the employees had

performed overtime work and amount of Rs. 7,30,151/- was

recommended by office to the Sanctioning Authority, the

amount was sanctioned but same was not paid only for the

reasons that overtime allowance was exceeding 1/3rd ceiling

limit. The exemption of FCI Unit from provisions of Shops

and Establishment Act can hardly take away right of

employees for overtime wages to which they are entitled

under Section 59 of Factories Act.

9. The statutory right of workman for overtime wages

cannot be taken away by management issuing circular No.

2698 are produced. Said circular can very well followed by

management while providing overtime work but once work

is performed by employee, payment of overtime wages

could not be taken away. IInd party has also produced

statement of paid, unpaid overtime wages at R-3. Amount

of Rs. 7,30,151/- unpaid was forwarded for payment to the

sanctioning authority. As per pleading of IInd party, it is

clear that payment of said amount was sent but only

because of circular issued by FCI, the amount was not

paid. The action of management of IInd party cannot be

said proper and legal. When employees are working, they

have right for payment of wages. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

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

(i) The action of the management of Food

Corporation of India, Bhopal in not paying the

overtime in respect of Class III & IV employees

from October 2000 to March 2001 after taking

work beyond the working hours is not legal.

(ii) IInd party is directed to pay overtime wages

Rs. 7,30,151/- to the employees as shown in

Annexure-II. Annexure-II shall form part of

award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

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

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 701-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1575

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

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 187@96½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&22012@576@1995&vkbZ vkj- ¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 187/96)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Rajnagar

Area of SECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/576/1995-IR(C-II]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/187/96

Vice President,

Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

Near Panchayati Mandir,

Shahdol (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Rajnagar RO of SECL,

Post Rajnagar Factory,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of January, 2015

1. As per letter dated 26-9-96 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

22012/576/95-IR (C-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of

Rajnagar RO of SECL Hasdeo Area in dismissing

Shri Ishwardeen S/o Sitaram, Expl. Carrier, Rajnagar

Colliery from company services w.e.f. 13-4-95 is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued

to the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim.

Case of Union is that workman Ishwardeen was appointed

as General Mazdoor on 26-4-84. In due course, he acquired

permanent status as per standing orders. He was promoted

to the post of exclusive career. The service record was

good. On 23-12-94, chargesheet was issued to Ishwardeen

alleging misconduct under Clause 26.9. the allegations

against him were of giving false information regarding

his name, age, father's name, qualification for securing

employment. Workman had replied to chargesheed

denying the allegations. However assuming his explanation,

Enquiry Officer was appointed to Shri R.N. Das and B.N.

Tripathi as Enquiry Officer. Workman had proposed name

of Union leader as his co-worker. Said letter was not replied.

3. It is further submitted that Ishwardeen and his

elder brother were called by personal Manager, Rajnagar

on 19-2-95. The management's representative in presence

of Enquiry Officer threatened them that management was

determined to send them behind bar. They were dictated

their statements by Pandey and forced them to sign the

statements. It is further submitted that incident was

reported to police with approval of Competent Authority

relating to the same matter. Ishwardeen was arrested. he

was released on bail under offence under Section 419, 420

IPC. The dispute was raised on submission of failure report.

4. Union submits that the punishment of dismissal

imposed against workman is based on forced statement

obtained from workman. The charges against workman

are not substantiated in enquiry. Enquiry was not conducted

fairly. Principles of natural justice were not followed.

During pendency of criminal case, enquiry was completed.

Workman suffered prejudice for defence in criminal case.

The charges allelged against workman were vague. Co-

worker was not available to the workman. That misconduct

are not proved from the evidence. On such ground, Union

prays for setting aside order of dismissal and prays for

reinstatement of workman with back wages.

5. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 6/

1 to 6/5. IInd party submits that Ishwardeen was appointed

as casual labour as per order dated 24-4-84. He was also

promoted as exclusive career from 1-1-88. The written

complaint was received from villagers on 8-9-94 to

Collector, Shahdol and Suptd. of Police, SDO, Sub Area

Manager, Dy. General Manager etc. That Ishwardeen

obtained employment giving false information. His name

was Ramanand S/o Sitaram. Ishwardeen was his elder

brother. Preliminary enquiry was made confidentially

calling information from Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat,

Revandra, Distt. Shahdol and other authorities. Information

was called from Primary School. The date of birth of

Ishwardeen was informed 1-6-67 and date of birth of

Ramadeen 1-6-69. It is submitted that chargesheet was issued

to workman. Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry Officer

Shri N.R. Das conducted enquiry giving full opportunity

for defence of workman. Enquiry Officer submitted his

report that charges were proved. Considering findings of

Enquiry Officer in light of admissions of work, Disciplinary

Authority aggrieved with those findings considering

gravity of misconduct, punishment of dismissal was imposed.

The dismissal of workman is legal.

1576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

6. IInd party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1

to 7/3 reiterating his contentious in statement of claim.

7. As per order dated 10-7-13, enquiry against

workman was found legal. Considering pleadings and

findings of 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

In Affirmative

alleged against workman are

proved from evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

removal from service

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

8. Enquiry conducted against workman is found

proper and legal. For deciding the point whether misconduct

alleged agaist workman are proved from evidence in Enqiry

Proceedings, the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs

to be considered. At the time of hearing, learned counsel

for workman Shri R.C. Shrivastava submits that Enquiry

Officer did not record statements of any witnesses. There

is no evidence to prove misconduct alleged against

workman. Learned counsel for management Shri A.K. Shashi

draw my attention to the chargesheet issued to workman.

The record of Enquiry Proceedings is filed. The charges

relates to workman Ishwardeen secured employment in IInd

party in false name Ishwardeen S/o Sitaram whereas his

correct name was Ramanand, S/o Sitaram. Workman

fraudulently misused employment registration No. 3307/79

which was issued in favour of Ishwardeen S/o Sitaram, his

elder brother. Workman joined accepting the appointment

letter suppressing the fact that he was not Ishwardeen.

That from record, it was observed that his date of birth was

recorded 25-4-64 in the list of Employment Exchange. The

date of birth of Ishwardeen was shown 23-7-63. The last

charge was Ishwardeen S/o Sitaram joined on transfer from

Bijuri and posted as Raj Incline 7/8 from same village and

family. This shows that the workman played mischief with

management of SECL inducting himself in employment on

false ground. Shri Shashi also pointed out my attention to

the reply submitted by workman at Page 3 of record of

enquiry. He had stated that he got employment in name of his

elder brother Ishwardeen S/o Sitaram. His correct name was

Ramanand. He requested that whatever action was

to be taken should be taken against him. His elder brother

who is already in employment was innocent. Management's

representative also disclosed same facts in Enquiry

proceedings dated 19-2-95. When workman has admitted

his charge/misconduct against him, submission by Shri R.

C. Shrivastava that there is no evidence to establish the

charges cannot be accepted. Enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal and proper therefore I find no reason

to disbelieve admission of charge by workman in reply to

the chargesheet.

9. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K. Shashi

relies on ratio held in case of Chairman Cum Managing

Director, Coal India Ltd. versus Mukul Kumar Choudhuri

reported in AIR 2010-SC-75. Their Lordship held delinquent

admitting charges in DE conclusion arrived at by Inquiry

Officer about proof of charges. Absence of any procedural

illegality or irregularity in conduct of departmental enquiry.

It has to be held that charges against delinquent stood

proved and warranted no interference.

10. Shri A.K. Shashi also relies on ratio held in

Case of Vivekanand Sethi versus Chairman, J & K

Bank Ltd. and others reported in 2005(5) SCC 337.

Their Lordship held term governing abandonment

of service/voluntary retirement in settlement arrived

at between group of employers and employees in a

particular industry. The settlement being an admitted

document should have been considered in its proper

perspective by the Tribunal.

‘‘The ratio held in the case also deals with application

for medical leave without medical certificate. In para-

22, their Lordship held the principles of natural

justice are required to be complied with having regard

to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be

applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant

facts and circumstances of the case. Principles of

natural justice is, it is trite is no unruly horse. When

facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty

formality."

When workman has admitted charge against him that

he secured employment in name of his elder brother,

it is surprising to say that enquiry was formality. The

charges against workman are proved.

11. While deciding Issue No. 1, the admissions of

charges by delinquent were considered. It was further

submitted that Enquiry Officer did not discuss other

evidence. In evidence when workman himself has admitted

charges in reply the chargesheet, it is sufficient to hold

that charges are proved. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

12. Point No. 2, 3 punishment of removal is imposed

against workman. The charges are proved against workman

as per his admissions that workman had secured

employment in name of elder brother Ishwardeen is very

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1577

serious. The punishment of removal therefore cannot be

said excessive or exorbitant. No interference in punishment

is called for. I record my finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

13. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Rajnagar RO

of SECL Hasdeo Area in dismissing Shri

Ishwardeen S/o Sitaram, Expl. Carrier, Rajnagar

Colliery from company services w.e.f. 13-4-95

is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 702-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 192@91½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 30-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@300@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 702.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 192/91) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Western Coalfield Limited, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/300/1991-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/192/91

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE

The Secretary,

SKMS (AITUC),

Chandametta,

Post Chandametta,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Workman/Union

Versus

Manager,

Bhamori Colliery,

Post Bhamori,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of September, 2014

1. As per letter dated 16/21-10-91 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-22012/

300/91-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the Superintendent (Mines)/

Manager, Bhamori Coliery of WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in

chargesheeting Shri Omprakash Dubey, Mining

Sirdar, Bhamori Colliery for unauthorized absence

from 2-4-87 on 17-6-87 starting the enquiry against

him and then during the course of pending enquiry

not taking him on duty w.e.f. 17-6-87 onwards nor

communicating the result of enquiry and in between

transferring him from Bhamori colliery to saoner

project, Nagpur area w.e.f. 1-11-87 is justified and

legal.? If not, to 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 5/1 to 5/9. Case of workman is that he was working

on post of Mining Sirdar, Bhamori colliery of WCL, Distt.

Chhindwara. He rendered continuous service with

devotion. Ist party workman was elected as President of

RKKMS Union Branch Bhamori during 1984-85. Being

President of said Union, workman was required to raise

demands with management for welfare and better service

conditions of employees. That Manager Shri A.K. Das was

annoyed from workman as he raised grievance of workman

before higher authorities. It is alleged that workman was

implicated for false charges issuing chargesheet for

unauthorised absence. Workman filed reply to the

chargesheet contending that he was on duty between2-4-

87 to 17-6-87. Workman called documents Form C register.

Manager was annoyed by it. It is reiterated that workman

was on duty. However he was falsely shown absent from

duty at instance of Manager Shri A.K. Das.

3. Management decided to hold enquiry appointing

Presenting Officer Shri Karkata as Enquiry Officer. On his

transfer, Dy. Personnel Manager Mr. D. Mewar was appointed

as Enquiry Officer. Despite of repeated applications by

workman for supply of copy, the documents were not

supplied to him. Request of workman to engage lower for

his defence was rejected. Enquiry Officer was biased. He

was violating principles of natural justice. Co-worker of

Lochan Prasad was threatened by Enquiry officer if he

present in enquiry, he will face dire consequences.

4. Application by workman to engage General

Secretary Shri P.K. Bannerjee as his co-worker was turned

down. Workman was denied opportunity for his defence.

Documents were not supplied. That false reports were

1578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

submitted against workman to police. Police officer forced

him to give letter about his willingness for transfer. Workman

was transferred from Bhamori Colliery to Saoner Project,

Nagpur Area. Workman had complained to the higher

authorities about forcibly obtaining his signatures under

coercion by police. After his transfer, workman had

submitted joining at saoner project, he was told that when

the documents are not received, workman was not allowed

to join duty. The findings of Enquiry Offices were not

informed to him. Workman submits that enquiry is vitiated.

That the acts of management are illegal by way of

victimization. Workman prays for his reinstatement with

full back wages.

5. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 12/1 to

12/3. Terms of reference are clarified (1) for justification of

chargesheet issued to workman for unauthorised absence,

(2) not taking workman on duty from 7-6-87, (3) transfer

workman from Bhamori Colliery to Saoner Project.

According to IInd party, reference is illegal. It is made

contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. That

workman was working as Mining Sirdar in Bhamori Colliery.

For his unauthorized absence from 2-4-87 to 17-6-87,

chargesheet was issued to him. Shri Karkata was appointed

as Enquiry Officer. On his transfer, Dy. Personnel Manager

Mr. D. Mewar was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Before

completion of enquiry, workman was transferred to saoner

project. Therefore enquiry could not be completed. During

pendency of enquiry, workman was not suspended.

However workman did not perform his duties. It is reiterated

that workman was not suspended pending enquiry. The

chargesheet was forged by workman adding the word

suspended. Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by

him. It is submitted that workman was known anti-social

element. Various complaints and cases were registered

against him proceedings was initiated by police authorities

apprehending those proceedings. Workman has applied

for transfer to saoner project. His transfer was also

recommended by DSP Parasia considering the transfer of

workman in public interest, he was transferred to saoner

project by order dated 1-9-87. He was relieved on 1-11-

1987. IInd party submits that there is no merit in reference

and prays for its rejection.

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

Superintendent (Mines)/

In Affirmative

Manager, Bhamori Coliery of

WCL, Pench Area, PO

Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara

(MP) in chargesheeting

Shri Omprakash Dubey,

Mining Sirdar, Bhamori Colliery for

unauthorised absence from

2-4-87 on 17-6-87 starting the

enquiry against him is legal?

(ii) Whether the action of the

Superintendent (Mines)/

In Affirmative

Manager, Bhamori Coliery of

WCL, Pench Area, PO

Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara

(MP) in not taking him on

duty w.e.f. 17-6-87 onwards

pending enquiry nor

communicating the result of

enquiry and in between

transferring him from

Bhamori Colliery to saoner

project, Nagpur area w.e.f.

1-11-87 is justified

(iii) If so, to what relief the

As per final order

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. The terms of reference is relating to termination of

workman from service rather terms of reference clearly

relates to issuing chargesheet to workman for unauthorised

absence, during pendency of enquiry transferring workman

to Saoner Project and not allowing him on duty. Workman

filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman in his affidavit

says about chargesheet issued to him for unauthorised

absence. Appointment of Enquiry Officer, document Form

B Register was not supplied to him on his application neither

said document was called by Enquiry Officer. His request

for engaging Shri P.K. Bannerjee as co-worker was rejected.

He was not permitted to engage legal practitioner for his

defence. That he was suspended from 17-6-87. He was not

paid subsistence allowance during suspension period is

illegal. In his cross-examination, workman says he was

working in colliery from 1973. That he was under suspension

when his evidence was recorded. He had received

suspension letter. In 1987, Shri A.K. Das was the Manager.

There are higher authorities like General Manager. In 1987,

he had no quarrel on dispute with Shri A.K. Das. out of

revenge, previously he was suspended by Manager. The

workman claimed ignorance in how many copy chargesheet

was issued. He has received one copy of chargesheet. He

claims to be on duty during 2-4-87 to 16-6-87. He was not

paid wages of said period despite of application in writing

submitted by him. In his further cross-examination workman

say he had not received chargesheet, he denied to have

received document 17/2. Suspension was written in the

chargesheet and not by separate order. He had submitted reply

to the chargesheet. He claims ignorance about histransfer

was on his requested letter.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1579

8. In his further cross-examination, workman says

after his transfer to Saoner project, he had submitted joining

report. He was told by concerned officers that documents

about his transfer were not received and he was not allowed

to join duties. I will deal with evidence of other witnesses

at later stage. Document Exhibit W-8 produced by workman

himself and admitted by the management shows that

workman had requested for his transfer to Saoner project.

The evidence of workman is contrary to said document

and therefore cannot be relied. Document Exhibit W-1 is

reply to chargesheet. Workman has denied he was absent

from 2-4-87. Reply is absolutely silent about his suspension

from duty. Exhibit W-2, W-3 are intimations given to

workman about enquiry proceedings. W-4 workman was

allowed co-worker Lochan Prasad. W-5 workman requested

legal practitioner for his defence. Document Exhibit W-6

request of workman for engaging legal practitioner for his

defence was rejected. Exhibit W-7 request of workman to

engage co-worker Shri P.K. Bannerjee was rejected. The

findings of Enquiry officer are not submitted, any

punishment is not imposed against workman. The

contentions of workman and his evidence about illegality

in conducting enquiry therefore is of no consequence.

9. The workman submits that he was suspended and

not allowed on duty as per evidence the workman,

suspension was shown in chargesheet itself. Document

Page 9/2 is produced. Said document in not proved by

workman. Copy of the chargesheet issued to workman finds

reference about his suspension from 17-6-87 till further

orders. The witness of workman Shri Shekhar Chepi in his

affidavit says that in 1987, he was working in colliery

hospital. Chargesheet of Shri Om Prakash Dubey S/o Ramlal

Dubey Mining Sirdar was received in the hospital. The

chargesheet was also indicating suspension of Shri Om

Prakash Dubey from 17-6-87. Copy of chargesheet at Page

27/2 is produced. It contains order of suspension of

workman from 17-6-87 till further orders. Witness has not

proved said document. His evidence is silent how he

received copy of chargesheet. Workman was working as

Mining Sirdar underground. The evidence of above witness

is not explaining the source of receiving copy of

chargesheet by him. His evidence cannot be relied. In his

corss-examination, chargesheet issued to workman on 17-

6-87, his affidavit was prepared in 1999, he was recollecting

dates. That he had not seen chargesheet issued to workman

neither readover chargesheet issued to workman. The evidence

of other witnesses of workman Shri Kuddus Khan, Hafiz Khan,

Ashok Kumar, Mansukhlal, Hamid Khan, Guru Prasad

Bharvav, Hasan Khan, Pannalal Ravtel is devoted that Shri

A. K. Das had directed for not taking attendance of workman

in muster roll. In his cross-examination, Kuddus Khan says

he was not taking entries in Attendance Register, only he

was dealing with leave register. He was working with Shri

A. K. Das for about 10 years. He was not happy with

working of Shri A. K. Das. That he wrongly filled leave

says he could not tell from his memory about stopping

attendance of any employee in 1987. Manager had given

directions to Token clerk to stop attendance of Shri A. K.

Dubey, he was suspended on 17-6-87. Workman was on

duty during 17-1-87 to 17-6-87. He has seen suspension

oder whereas workman in his evidence says no separate

suspension order was issued, the suspension order was

mentioned in chargesheet itself therefore evidence of

witness cannot be relied. Shri Hamid Khan in his cross-

examination says that workman had not dispute with Shri

A. K. Das. The evidence of those witnesses is not

consistent and could hardly be considered about

attendance of workman on duty or about order of his

suspension. The primary evidence is about attendance of

workman his attendance register itself. It appears that

workman being President of Union witnesses are

supporting his cause. All those witnesses have come

forward to support name of workman. In the document

produced by management Exhibit M-13, there is no

reference of suspension of workman. Said document is

proved from evidence of management witness. In his cross-

examination, no question is asked to said witness about

suspension in document. Management witness Hargovind

says carbon copy of chargesheet produced by him was

received from custody of Sub Area Manager in each area

which bears signature of Shri A. K. Das. In his cross-

examination, witness says after enquiry initiated against

workman, he was transferred on 1-11-87. He claims

ignorance about request application received from

workman to the management. That chargesheet was

prepared from his section. The chargesheet was given to

workman. One set of chargesheet was prepared. He claims

ignorance whether workman was transferred under

pressure of police. Ducument Page 9/2, 27/2 chargesheet is

not proved whereas copy of chargesheet Exhibit M-13 is

proved by management's witness. His evidence is not

shattered about the absence of suspension of workman in

said document. In view of document Exhibit W-10

application given by workman requesting for his transfer

to Bhamori, it is admitted by management. The transfer of

workman cannot be said illegal.

10. The enquiry was not completed after his transfer

to Saoner Project. Workman in his cross-examination says

he had gone to Saoner Project for joining and he was not

allowed to join duty explaning that any document in that

regard was not received. Thereafter workman remained

silent. He did not submit any grievance to higher authorities.

So far as transfer orders are produced. Exhibit W-9, W-10

with copy to Manager Saoner Project, Bhamori Project. The

evidence in cross-examination of workman, he claims

ignorance whether in 1996, he was in jail. He further

1580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

says that his counsel has submitted application in Court

for adjournment on ground that he was in jail. Thus evidence

of workman is not consistent. Issuing chargesheet for

unauthorized absence falls within managerial powers.

Enquiry was not completed and any punishment is not

imposed against workman. Evidence of workman about his

suspension is not consistent. Document at Page 9/2, 27/2

are not proved. Management has proved document Exhibit

M-13. Workman was not under suspension as per said

document.

11. Workman has submitted application claiming

subsistence allowance on 17-3-92. Said application was

supported by affidavit that workman was not paid

subsistence allowance. In Written Statement filed by

management on 13-5-92, IInd party had contented that

workman was not suspended. The application for

subsistence allowance filed by workman was rejected long

back. Management denied suspension of workman in 1992

itself. The evidence of workman is not explaining reasons

why he did not report to duty after management contented

that he was not placed under suspension. Rather thereafter

workman was in jail as per submission of his counsel in

1996. There appears some reasons other than suspension

for which workman did not report to duty. He had not

submitted grievance against Manager of Saoner Project

why he was not allowed to join duty despite orders of his

transfer.

12. Evidence of management's witness Shri D.K.

Chourey is devoted on point of issuing chargesheet for

issuing chargesheet, transfer of Ist party workman to

Saoner Project on request by workman. That original record

of Form C register from June 1987 is missing, its zerox copies

are produced on record. Workman was released as per order

dated 30-11-87. Workman did not report to duty at Saoner

Project. Management's witness in his cross-examination

says he joined IInd party in 2009. He had no personal

knowledge about workman. He claims ignorance whether

workman had submitted any grievance to the management.

Attendance register is maintained in colliery. Workman was

Mining Sirdar. Attendance used to be marked in Form C

was issued chargesheet but he claims ignorance about

suspension of workman. Workman denied chargesheet

dated 16-6-87 referred to him. He has denied that charges

against workman are false. He claims ignorance whether

workman had gone to join duty but he was not allowed in

duty.

13. Careful consideration of evidence of workman

and his witnesses and evidence of management's witnesses

clearly shows that chargesheet was issued to workman

for unauthorised absence but enquiry was not completed.

Any punishment was not imposed against workman on said

chargesheet. Workman was transferred to Saoner Project

on request letter Exhibit W-8. When he reported for joining

duty, he was not allowed to join duty. The evidence of

workman shows his silence from 1-11-87 why he had not

reported about it so the higher authorities and requested

to allow him on duty. In 1996, workman was in jail as per

submission made by his counsel. Workman did not join

duty at Saoner till date of his superannuation. For reasons

discussed above, I record my finding in Point No. 1, 2 in

Affirmative.

14. Point No. 3-In view of my finding in Point No. 1,

2 chargesheet issued to workman and his transfer to Saoner

Project is legal in view of request letters Exhibit W-10

submitted by workman himself. Evidence about suspension

of workman is not cogent. As per Document Exhibit M-13

workman was not placed under suspension. The application

for subsistence allowance filed by workman was rejected

in 1992. The proceeding under P.W. Act filed by workman

was also rejected. Since 1992, workman did not report to

duty or make appropriate request to the higher authorities

for allowing him on duty. The workman cannot be allowed

back wages on the principles of no work no pay.

15. Learned counsel for workman submitted written

notes of argument along with bunch of citations.

In case of Allahabad Jal Sansthan versus Daya

Shankar Rai and another reported in 2005(5) SCC 124

considering facts that no pleading was raised in

Written Statement no evidence was adduced by

workman-50% backwages was awarded.

The facts of the present case are not comparable

since there is absolutely no evidence why workman

did not report to duty when the management

contented in 1992 that he was no placed under

suspension, application for subsistence allowance

was rejected. Ratio held in the case cannot be applied

to present case.

In case of Union of India versus Madhusudan Prasad

reported in 2004(1) SCC 43. Their Lordship dealing

with entitlement for back wages and reinstatement

held that dismissal order was passed in

contravention of principles of natural justice. The

employee is entitled to reinstatement.

The ratio cannot be applied to case at hand as no

punishment was imposed against workman on

chargesheet issued to him.

For same reasons ratio held in 2004(4) SCC 560 cannot

be applied to present case. In case of Rattan Singh

Sandhu vrs Punjab and Sind Bank Amritsar and

another reported in 2007 LAB. I.C. 446, their Lordship

of Punjab and Haryana High Court dealing with

consequences of non-supply of Enquiry Report held

order of dismissal passed by Disciplinary Authority

be liable to be set aside. The ratio cannot be applied

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1581

to present case as any punishment is not imposed

against workman on chargesheet issued to him.

16. At the time of argument, learned counsel for IInd

party Shri A.K. Shashi submits that workman has attained

age of superannuation in 2008. IInd party is ready to give

benefits of retirement. The pleadings and evidence of

workman shows that workman was in service of IInd party

for about 20 years prior to the chargesheet issued to him.

Any punishment is not imposed on workman. However he

failed to attend duty after his transfer from 1-11-1987

therefore the workman cannot be denied benefit of

superannuation/retiral benefit. Workman deserves to be

granted retiral/superannuation benefit for service period.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 3.

17. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) Chargesheet issued to workman was proper.

(2) Transfer of workman during pending enquiry

is legal as the same was allowed on request

of workman.

(3) IInd party is directed to allow benefit of

superannuation/retiral benefits to workman

considering duty period till 1-11-1987. All

retiral benefit and statutory dues be paid to

workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

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

from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 703.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh,eihMhvkbZ,y

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

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

U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 205@94½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@301@1994&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 703.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award Ref. No. 205/94

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of CMPDIL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/301/1994-IR(C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/205/94

Secretary,

National coal Organisation Employees Association,

Branch CMPDIL, RI-V, M.V. Market,

Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Director,

CMPDIL, RI-V, M.V. Market,

Distt. Bilaspur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of February, 2015

1. As per letter dated 14-11-94 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-22012/301/94-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of CMPDIL,

RI-V, Bilaspur in reducing the subsistence allowance

of S/Shri Jafar Mohd., UDC, N. Ghosh, Draftsman

and D.K. Sahu Draftsmant from their full wages to

1/4th of wages w.e.f. 18-6-93 and not payment of

subsistence allowance for the days for which

headquarter leaving permission was granted is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued

to the parties, Ist party employees Association submitted

statement of claim at Page 2/2 to 2/10. Case of Ist party is

that employees Shri Jafar Mohd., N. Ghosh, and D.K. Sahu

are officer bearers of the Union. They had complained about

illegal activities of Additional Chief Mining Engineer Shri

K.A. Pant to State Minister of Coal Shri P.N. Sharma.

Vigilence Enquiry was carried.Shri K.A. Pant impliciated all

those employees making false allegations. Chargesheet was

issued to workman. Workman were suspended as per

Clause 28.2 of standing orders. It is submitted that workmen

were not paid subsistence allowance. Their application for

leaving headquarter was rejected. They were granted leave.

He enquiry was not delayed for their conduct. As per order

dated 2-5-93, subsistence allowance was reduced to 1/4th

as per clause 28.4 of standing orders they were entitled to

subsistence allowance. It was illegally reduced.

Management has not paid subsistence allowance for the

period they were granted permission to leave headqurter

or leave was granted to them. Workman were prosecuted

1582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

in criminal case. They were acquitted as per clause 28.5 of

standing orders. After acquittal in criminal case, they were

entitled to subsistence allowance. Management did not

pay subsistence allowance, it was illegally reduced to

1/4th. On such ground, Ist party prays for appropriate

direction to the management.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 17/1 to

17/8. Claim of workman is opposed. IInd party submits that

workman alongwith others approached on 4-6-92. They

abused him in filthy language. Shri Pant was assaulted

physcially . Incident was reported by Pant to Regional

Director taking serious view of the matter. Chargesheet

was issued to workman. Workmen were suspended on

8-6-92 pending enquiry. Shri B.S. Goswami was appointed

as Enquiry Officer. After his transfer N.K. Kesari was

appointed as Enquiry Officer. Workmen were paid

subsistence allowance for 30 days and 50% subsistence

allowance for 30 days. They were paid 3/4th wages as

subistence allowance from 8-7-92 to 7-8-92. Workman filed

civil suit in Civil Court. After dismissal of suit for injunction,

workman filed appeal before Additional District Judge,

Bilaspur, The same was dismissed on 2-2-93. Enquiry was

delayed. Workman avoiding to participate in enquiry. The

details of their absence in enquiry is given. That as per

clause 28.2 of standing order, the suspended employee

cannot leave headquarter without permission. His enquiry

was not completed, Enquiry Officer reviewed the matter

and reduced subsistence allowance of workman to 1/4th of

wages. Workman were acquitted giving benefit of doubts.

They were no exonerated in Enquiry proceedings. Workmen

are therefore not entitled to subsistence allowance claimed

by them. On such ground, IInd party prays that reference

be answered in its favour.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 16/1 to 15/2

reiterating their contentions in statement of claim.

5. Management filed rejoinder at page 13/1 to 13/8

reiterating their contentions in Written statement.

6. 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 action of the

management CMPDIL, RI-V,

Bilaspur in reducing the

subsistence allowance of

S/Shri Jafar Mohd., UDC,

N. Ghosh, Draftsman and

In Affirmative

D.K. Sahu Draftsman and

D.K. Sahu Draftsman from

thier full wages to 1/4th of

wages w.e.f. 18-6-93 and not

payment of subsistence

allowance for the dyas for

which headquarter leaving

permission was granted is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workmen are not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

5. The terms of reference relates to denial of

subsistence allowance to the workman and reduction os

subsistence allowance. Workmen are claiming that after

their suspension, chargesheet was issued to him. Enquiry

was conducted. They were granted permission to leave

headquarter therefore they are entitled for subsistence

allowance. However IInd party did not pay subsistence

allowance to them. Workman failed to adduce evidence in

support of their claim. Management has produced

documents of Enquiry Proceedings. Any witness is also

not examined by management. record of Enquiry

Proceedings shows several applications submitted by

workman about their difficulty to attend Enquiry

Proceedings. When claim of Ist party is not supported by

any kind of evidence neither management has adduced

evidence to substantiate its contentions, burdern of proof

lies on workman to establish their claim about illegal

deduction or non-payment of subsistence allowance to

them. Such burdern is not discharged by Ist party.

8. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K. Shashi

relies on ratio held in—

Case of management of Reserve Bank of India versus

Shri Bhopal Singh Panchal reported in 1994-I-LLJ-

642. Their Lordship dealing with scope of Section

33(C)(2) of ID Act held that period of suspension

pending cirminal proceedings. Competent authority

has to take into consideration circumstances of each

case to decide as to how period of suspension has

to be treated. Power to treat the period of suspension

either as on duty or as on leave. Labour Court while

acting under Section 33(C)(2) has no jurisdiction to

decide such question.

The ratio has no bearing to the controversy between

parties as the present proceedings is dispute referred

under Section 10 ID Act and not proceeding under

Section 33(C)(2).

Copy of standing order is produced by IInd party

under clause 28.3 of standing order provides for

payment of subsistence allowance half the wages

till 30 days, 3/4th of his wages beyound 30 days if

enquiry is pending. It also authorize management

to reduce subsistence allowance to 1/4th wages if

the enquiry is not completed within 60 days.

Clause 28.5 of standing order provides if after

enquiry or conclusion of criminal proceedings, a

workman is held guilty of the charges alleged against

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1583

him or some other charges brought in the course of

enquiry or is convicted in the criminal proceedings

and is consequently discharged or dismissed, he shall

not be entitled to any remuneration.

Workmen have not adduced evidence about violation

of above provision in standing order therefore I

record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The Action the management of CMPDIL, RI-V,

Bilaspur in reducing the subsistence allowance

of S/Shri Jafar Mohd., UDC, N. Ghosh,

Draftsman and D.K. Sahu Draftsman from their

full wages to 1/4th of wages w.e.f. 18-6-93 and

not payment of subsistence for the days for

which headquarter leaving permission was

granted is legal and proper.

(2) Wormen are not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 704-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

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

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

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 213@97½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@294@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 704.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 213/

97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Coalfield Limited, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/294/1996-IR(C-II)

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/213/97

The President,

Pench Kanhan Koyala Khadan Karmchari

Sangh, At & PO Damua,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Workman

Versus

The Sub Area Manager,

Ambara Sub Area of WCL,

P.O. Ambara,

Distt. Chaindwara (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of February, 2015

1. As per letter dated 11.7.97 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-

22012/294/96-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the Addl. Chief Security

Officer, WCL Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur in

demoting shri Insan Ali from the post of Security

Sub Inspector to the post of Asst. Security Sub

Inspector w.e.f. 26-5-92 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from

which date?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued

to the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim

at Page 3/1 3/5. Case of Union is Insan Ali working in

Rawanwara Colliery of WCL as Security Sub Insepctor

demoted to law rank as Assistant Security Sub Inspector

from 26-5-92. It is submitted that workman was appointed

as Security Guard on 23-5-74. He was promoted as Head

Security Guard on 13-9-97 and promoted as Security Sub

Inspector on 16-10-81 Chargesheet was issued to him on

28-1, 83 for allegation of accepting bribe of Rs. 100

from Rameshwar Joshi, contractor. Workman was

transferred to Rajgamar Sub Area of Korba. After lapse

of 18 months, 2nd Chargesheet was issued to him on 7-

5-84 for the same incident. The allegations were while

working was posted at Gevra Project of WCL, in

December 1982, he demanded Rs. 1000/-As illegal

gratification from Krishna Awar Joshi, Petty contractor

of WCL to release 6 bags cement seized by him. That

workman was caught redhanded while receiving Rs. 100/

- from Krishna Awar Joshi. Workman submitted reply to

chargesheet denying allegation. Enquiry was conducted,

opportunity of reasonable defence by workman was given.

The evidence of witnesses was recorded. Enquiry Officer

submitted report that charges against workman were

proved. Workman submits that witnesses were

pressurized for giving their statements before Enquiry

Officer. CBI constable and Inspector were permitted to

remain present while statement of witnesses were

recorded. The enquiry is thereby vitiated. Chargesheet is

not issued by Competent Authority. On such ground,

workman is praying for setting aside order of his

reversion.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to

4/8. IInd party did not dispute appointment of Insan Ali as

1584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Security guard on 23-5-74. His promotion as head security

guard on 13-9-77. Workman was promoted as Sub Inspector

on 16-10-81. Chargesheet was issued to workman for the

allegations accepting amount of Rs. 100/-from petty

contractor Rameshwar Joshi. Chargesheet issued to

workman. After his transfer, 2nd Chargesheet was issued.

Enqiry was conducted following rules. statement of

witnesses were recorded. The witnesses were also cross-

examined by co-worker. It is reiterated that enquiry is

properly conducted. Punishment of reversion is proper and

legal. All adverse contentions of workman are denied. The

charges against workman are proved.

4. As per order dated 12-4-2013, enquiry against

workman is found proper and legal. 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

Addle. Chief Security Officer,

WCL Coal Estate, Civil, Lines,

Nagpur in demoting Shri Insan

Ali from the post of Security

In Affirmative

Sub Inspector to the post

of Asstt. Security Sub

Inspector w.e.f. 26-5-92

is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

5. As per order dated 12-4-2013, enquiry conducted

against workman is found legal and proper. Questions

remains whether charges against workman are proved from

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Whether punishment of

demotion of workman is proper and legal. For deciding

Point No.1, the evidence in Enquriy Proceedings needs to

be considered. As enquiry is found proper and legal, any

other evidence cannot be considered for deciding whether

charges against workman are proved or not. The statements

of witnesses of management Shri R.K. Saxena, I.B. Singh,

Krishna Anwar Joshi complainant contractor have

supported version of management. Workman accepting

Rs. 100 from contractor Krishna Anwar Joshi. The note of

Rs. 50/-,2 note of Rs. 20/- and one note of Rs. 10/- was

recovered from workman. The hands of workman were

dipped in water. The clothes of workman were seized, new

clothes were given to him for change. The evidence of

other witnesses also corroborates their evidence. It is

surprised to say that evidence of management's witness

was not shattered in cross-examination. The evidence

cannot be re-appreciated as Appellate Authority. It is

surprised to see the findings of Enquiry Officer are

supported by evidence, same cannot be said perverse. For

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

Affirmative.

6. Point No.2- As per may findings in Point No. 1

Charges against workman are proved by evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings, proved charges against workman are

of receiving bribe of Rs. 1000/- for releasing 6 bags of

cement seized by him the proved misconduct is of serious

nature. The punishment of demotion by one stage, already

shown lenient view taken against workman. The

punishment imposed cannot be said excessive or

disproportionate therefore no interference is called in the

punishment imposed against workman. For above reasons,

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

7. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the Addl. Chief Security Officer,

WCL Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur in

demoting Shri Insan Ali from the post of

Security Sub Inspector to the post of Asstt.

Security Sub Inspector w.e.f 26-5-92 is legal

and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 705-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

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

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

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 270@99½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&22012@436@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 705.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 270/

99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of of

Western Coalfield Limited, and their workman, received

by the Central Government on 30.03.2015.

[No. L-22012/436/1998-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1585

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

JABALPUR

No. GGIT/LC/R/270/99

The President,

RKKMS (INTUC),

PO Chandametta,

Distt. Chindwara

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on the 25th day of November, 2014

1. As per letter dated 30.7.99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/

436/98/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Hirdagarh

Siding of WCL, Kanhan Area, General Manager,

WCL, Kanhan Area PO Dungaria, Distt. Chhindwara

(MP) in not promoting Shri Keky Panthakey as

Loading Supdt. Grade B from 1985 and Sr. Loading

Supdt. A from 1990 is justified? If not, to what relief is

the workman entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at

Page 4/1 to 4/8. Union submits it is registered under Trade

Union Act. Dispute has been referred for adjudication.

Workman Keky Panthakey was appointed and working on

the post of Clerk Grade I. on introduction of Cadre Scheme

I.I. No. 34 dated 17.7.84, the post of loading Suptd. Grade I

was re-designated and replaced by Technical Supervisor

Grade "C". That workman Keky Panthakey who was

working as Loading Suptd. Grade I was placed in the post

of Technical Supervisor Grade "C". That his father is

working as Senior Loading Suptd, in technical Grade A at

Hirday Siding of WCL, Kanhan Area. On 1.1.1984, Shri

Keky Panthakey Grade I Clerk Loading Supervisor Grade C

was transferred from Hirday Siding to Neemdhana Weigh

Bridge. His father Shri H.T. Panthakey working as Sr.

Loading Suptd. Grade A at Hirday Retied on 28.8.84.

therefore order of transfer of Shri Keky Panthakey was

kept in abeyance to continue him at Hirdaygarh Siding. As

per I.I. No. 34 dated 17.7.84, the post of clerical Grade I was

re-designated as Technical Supervisor Grade "C" looking

to the performance of Shri Keky Panthakey, he was

recommended by Sr. Sales Officer for redisignated post of

Asstt. Loading Suptd. (T&S) Grade C.

3. It is submitted that on retirement of 28.8.84, there

was no eligible person for promotion on the said post.

Management directed Shri Keky Panthakey to work as

Sr. Loading Suptd. He had taken charge from his father. Since

7.4.90, Dy. Sales Manager recommended Shri Keky

Panthakey for post of Asstt. Loading Suptd. Grade "C" to

the post of Loading Suptd. Grade "B". In view of said

recommendations, note sheet was prepared by Sr. Sales

Officer Kanhan Area on 12.9.90 for promotion to Shri Keky

Panthakey to the post of Loading Suptd. The DPC after

considering case of Shri Keky Panthakey found him fit for

post of Loading Suptd. As per order dated 29.10.91, he

was promoted to the post of Loading Suptd., T&S Grade B.

Union further submits that Shri Keky Panthakey was posted

in pay scale Rs. 1290-2426. It is reiterated that Shri Keky

Panthakey was eligible for promotion to the post of Suptd.

Grade B in 1985, Suptd. Grade A in 1990. He was not given

promotions to above post though the post was vacant

after death of his father. Union prays that Shri Keky

Panthakey be promoted to the post of loading Suptd. Grade

B from 1985 and Loading Suptd. Grade A from 1990.

4. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 7/

1 to 7/8. Preliminary objection is raised by IInd party that

promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Promotion

depends upon eligibility availability and sanctioned post.

That there are cadre schemes for the ministerial staff

classified as General Clerical Cadre, Store Personnel Cadre,

Loading/dispatch Personnel Cadre, Cash Personnel Cadre,

secretariat Cadre. IInd party reiterates that selection of

candidate for filling vacancies in higher categories are made

on recommendations of DPC. Cadre scheme for ministerial

staff provides eligibility for promotions to Loading Suptd.

(T&S) & NCWA IV also provides the matter of such

promotions.

5. On recommendations of DPC, workman working

as Loading Suptd. Was promoted to the post of Sr. Loading

Suptd. Grade A on 28.4.01 only fulfilling eligibility for

promotional post doesnot give right to workman for

promotion. All adverse contentions of workman are denied.

It is submitted that as per I.I. No. 34, employees working in

post of clerk Grade I are re-designated as Technical

Supervisor Grade III equal to Asstt. Supervisor (T&S) Grade

C. IInd party denies that there was no eligible person for

post of Sr. Loading Suptd. After death of Shri Keky

Panthakey. It is submitted that promotion is given subject

to vacancies and recommendation of DPC after of 5 years

to the post of Loading Suptd. (T&S) Grade A. Shri Keky

Panthakey was nor recommended by DPC for promotion

in the year 1985 or 1990 therefore his claim for

promotion to Grade B, Grade A post cannot be allowed.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are

as under. My findings are recorded against each of them

for the reasons as below:—

(i) "whether the action of the

management of Hirdagarh

In Affirmative

Siding of WCL, Kanhan

Area, General Manager,

WCL, Kanhan Area

1586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

PO Dungaria, Distt. Chhindwara

(MP) in not promoting

Shri Keky Panthakey as

Loading Supdt. Grade B

from 1985 and Sr. Loading

Supdt. A from 1990 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

7. Union has raised dispute contending that

Shri Keky Panthakey be promoted to the post of Loading

Suptd. Grade B from 1985 and Loading Suptd. Grade A from

1990. Copy of cadre Scheme is produced on record. Clause

3.2 provide promotion for post upto technical Grade B shall

be on basis of Seniority cum Merit and Technical Grade B

to A shall be on the basis of merit cum seniority. Para-4 of

the cadre Scheme provides the selection of candidates for

filling vacancies in higher categories shall be made on the

recommendations of DPC to be constituted by the

competent authority or any other officers who may be

delegated with such power by him from time to time. The

decision of the competent authority on such

recommendations shall be final. The cadre Scheme provides

that 5 years experience as Asstt. Loading Inspector/Asstt.

Loading Suptdt. In Tech & Supervisor Grade C gor

promotion to the post of Loading Inspector/Loading

Superintendent Grade B. for promotion to the post of Sr.

Loading Inspector Grade A, 5 years experience as Loading

Inspector/Loading Suptdt. In Tech and Supervisory Gr. B

is necessary. The office order about promotion of Shri Keky

Panthakey to the post of Loading Suptd. Grade B is

produced and promotion to the post of Loading Suptd.

Grade A dated 28.4.01 re produced on record. During course

of argument, promotion of Shri Keky Panthakey to above

post was not in dispute.

8. Affidavit of evidence is filed by Shri Keky

Panthakey covering his contentions in statement of claim.

In his cross-examination, he says the promotions are given

as per adre scheme. The promotion to the post of Loading

Suptd. And above are given on merit cum seniority basis

on recommendations of DPC. That he claimed promotion

to Loading Suptd. Grade D from 1985. Till 1985 he was

not recommended by DPC for promotion. His name was

recommended in 1986. He had not received order in

writing about recommendation of his name by DPC. In

his further cross-examination, workman says his claim

for promotion to the post of Loading Suptd. Grade A from

1990. There was no recommendation by DPC. He was

promoted to the post of Asstt. Loading Suptd. T&S Grade

C on 29.10.91 after recommendation by DPC. The

evidence of workman is clear that recommendation of

DPC is necessary for promotion to both the post. The

evidence of management's witness Lalji doesnot support

claim of workman for promotion to above post. In his

cross-examination, management's witness says Shri S.T. Panthakey

was working as Sr. Loading Supdt. Beforoe 1984. He retired in

1984. Shri Keky Panthakey was promoted on the post in

place of his father as Sr. Loading Supdt. His further evidence

in cross-examination shows that the promotions are given

as per settlements. The cadre Scheme provides for

recommendation by DPC. Name of Shri Keky Panthakey

was not recommended in 1990 or 1985 by DPC therefore his

claim about fulfilling eligibility of 5 years experience cannot

give him right of promotion to those post. For above

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

9. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Hirdagarh

Siding of WCL, Kanhan Area, General

Manager, WCL, Kanhan Area PO Dungaria,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in not promoting Shri

Keky Panthakey as Loading Supdt. Grade B

from 1985 and Sr. Loading Supdt. A from

1990 is legal and proper.

(2)

Worman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 706-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj E;wfufliy

dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ MsYgh ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1 MsYgh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 121@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&42012@227@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 706.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 121/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1 Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of of Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 30.03.2015.

[No. L-42012/227/2010-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

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. 121/2013

Smt. Saroj,

C/o Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh,

Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624, Sultanpuri,

Delhi

....Workman

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1587

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006

...Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/227/2010/

IR(DU) dated 20.08.2013, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi in denying the demand of Nagar

Nigam Karamchari Sangh for giving permanent

appointment on compassionate grounds to Smt.

Saroj, Daily Wage Safai karamchari with effect from

10.06.2002 is just, fair and legal? If not, 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 Trinunal

ordered issuance of fresh notice to the workman. Despite

sending various notices, neither the workman nor any

authorized representative on her behalf appeared before

the Tribunal so as to pursue her 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 her

appearnance nor has she led any evidence so as to prove

her 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

Dated : March 25, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 707-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj E;wfufliy

dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ MsYgh ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1 MsYgh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 119@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 30@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&42011@69@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2015

S.O. 707.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (ID. No. 119/2013 of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Delhi, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation

of Delhi and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 30.03.2015.

[No. L-42011/69/2010-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

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. 119/2013

Smt. Raj Bala,

Through General Secretary,

Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh,

Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624, Sultanpuri,

Delhi

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi

...Management

AWARD

Central Government vide letter No. L-42011/69/2010/

IR(DU) dated 31.07.2013, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi in denying the demand of Nagar

Nigam Karamchari Sangh, Delhi Pradesh for giving

permanent appointment on compassionate grounds

to Smt. Raj Bala W/o Late Shri Karambir, Daily Wage

Safai Karamchari with effect from 17.06.2004 is legal

and justified? To what relief the workman concerned

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

various notices, neither the workman nor any authorized

representative on her behalf appeared before the Tribunal

so as to pursue her 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 her appearance

has she led any evidence so as to prove her 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.

March 25, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

1588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 708-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

55@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@21@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 708.—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. 55/2013) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/21/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Madhu Sudhan Choudhury,

Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 55 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 25.02.2015

ORDER

25.02.2015

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No. L-

30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry of

Labour and Employment along with a copy of the judgement

and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2) W.P.(C)

No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4) W.P. (C)

No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to dispose of the instant reference case

and 47 other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial

Dispute between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata

(O.P/management) and the workman Shri Madhu Sudhan

Choudhury, (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry vide their No.

F. No. L-30012/21/2012-IR(M), dated 23.08.2013. The

schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri

Madhu Sudhan Choudhury, Ex-Contigent workman

enaged in seismic survey work through their

Geophycsical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in present of

settlement dated 27/28.2.2001, is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman as it appears from

the claim statement, in brief, is that he had been working as

casual contigent workman under ONGC, Tripura since

01.02.1982 to work under Geophysical Party No. 27 along

with other workmen and continuously worked for a period

of 237 days on an average in every year with few

international breaks and he was terminated from July 2001.

But the management did not consider their genuine case

for appointment on regular basis despite his long 20 years

of unblemished, dedicated service rendered to the

Management. The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court passed

an order and judgement and decided the said issue in terms

of Memorandum of Settlement dt. 27/28.01.2001 executed

by & between the Management & their workmen signed

before the R.L.C. (C), Guwahati. Despite the above order of

the Hon'ble High Court the management did not regulrize

the workmen rather the present workman has been

retrenched from service from July 2001 without assigning

any reason thereof, and the management in order to avoid

the statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D.

Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work less than 240 days

in each calendar year and thereby the management

deliberately exercised unfair labour practice. Hence, the

workman prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 02.01.2014 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1589

Court in W.P.(C) No. 7385/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of the reference was stayed w.e.f 02.01.2014 until further

order.

On persual of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7385/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 709-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

53@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@20@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 709.—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. 53/2013 of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal Labour Court, Guwahati as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C.

Limited and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/20/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs—

Their Workman Sri Bidhan Ghosh, Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 53 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 24.02.2015

ORDER

24.02.2015.

The Case Records up today with the order No. F. No. L-

30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry of

Labour and Employment along with a copy of the judgement

and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2) W.P.(C)

No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P. (C) No. 7381 of 2013(4) W.P. (C)

No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to dispose of the instant reference case

(No. 53/2013) along with 47 Nos. of other reference case in

the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and

the workman Sri Bidhan Ghosh, Tripura (West) (Claimant/

workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for adjudication

vide their No. F. No. L-30012/20/2012-IR(M), dated

23.08.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri

Bidhan Ghosh, Ex-Contingent workman engaged in

seismic survey work through their Geophysical Party

w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of settlement dated 27/

28.01.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The Learned Advocate for the workman appeared and

prayed for adjournment for filing Claim Statement but no

claim statement filed by the workman. During pendency of

this proceeding the management after obtaining time on

few dates submitted a petition on 24.12.2013 stating that

they have moved before the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

assailing, inter alia, the order or reference and the

1590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

subsequent notice issued there upon and the Hon'ble High

Court passed an interim order dated 18.12.13 staying the

further proceeding of the reference. The management also

submitted a copy of the order dated 18.12.13 passed by the

Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7385/13.

Accordingly the proceeding of the reference was stayed

w.e.f 24.12.2013 until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7385/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 710-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

51@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@14@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 710.—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. 51/2013 of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

O.N.G.C. Limited and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/14/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs—

Their Workman Sri Swapan Choudhury, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 51 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 24.02.2015

ORDER

24.02. 2015

The Case Record put up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C No. 7372 of 2013 (3) P.W.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4)

W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case (No. 51/2013) along with 47 Nos. of other

reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Sri Swapan Choudhury,

Tripura (west) (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministryfor adjudication

vide their No. F. No. L-30012/14/2012-IR(M), dated

22.08.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman

Shri Swapan Choudhury, S/o Late R.C. Choudhury,

Ex-Contingent workman engaged in seismic survey

work through their Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001

in present of settlement dated 27/28.01.2001, is legal

and justified? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1591

The Learned Advocate for the workman appeared and

prayed for adjournment for filing Claim Statement but no

claim statement filed by the workman. During pendency of

this proceeding the management after obtaining time on

few dated submitted a petition on 22.1.2014 stating that

they have moved before the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

assailing, inter-alia, the order or reference and the

subsequent notice issued there upon and the Hon'ble High

Court passed an interim order dated 18.12.13 staying the

further proceeding of the reference. The management alos

submitted a copy of the order dated 18.12.13 passed by the

Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7381/13.

Accordingly the proceeding of the reference was stayed

w.e.f 24.1.2014 until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W .P.(C) No. 7381/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation arrived at

u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 711-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

50@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@13@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 711.—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. 50/2013) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

the employers in relation to which was as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of O.N.G.C. Limited and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/13/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

—Vs—

Their Workman Sri Parimal Kumar Shil, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 50 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 24.02.2015

ORDER

24.02.2015.

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No. L-

30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry of

Labour and Employment along with a copy of the judgement

and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2) W.P.(C)

No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4) W.P. (C)

No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to dispose of the instant reference case

No. (51/2013) alongwith 47 nos. of other reference cases in

the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and

the workman Sri Primal Kumar Shil, Tripura (West)

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for adjcatopn

vide their No. F. No. L-30012/13/2012-IR(M), dated

22.08.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri

Parimal Kumar Shil, S/o Late Mohan Shil, , Ex-

Contingent workman engaged in seismic survey work

through their Geophysical party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in

1592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

present of settlement dated 27/28.01.2001, is legal

and justified? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The learned Advocate for the workman appeared and

prayed for adjourment for filing Claim Statement but no

claim statement filed by the workman. During pendency of

this proceeding the management after obtaining time on

few dated submitted a petition on 22.01.2014 stating that

they have moved before the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

assailing, inter-alia, the order or reference and the

subsequent notice issued there upon and the Hon'ble High

Court passed an interim order dated 18.12.13 staying the

further proceeding of the reference. The management also

submitted a copy of the order dated 18.12.13 passed by the

Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7385/13.

Accordingly the proceeding of the reference was stayed

w.e.f 22.01.2014 until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7385/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation arrived at

u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 712-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

52@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@9@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 712.—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. 52/2013, of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

O.N.G.C. Limited and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/9/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

—Vs.—

Their Workman Sri Gopal Acharjee, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 50 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 25.02.2015

ORDER

24.02.2015.

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No. L-

30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry of

Labour and Employment along with a copy of the judgement

and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2) W.P.(C)

No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P. (C) No. 7381 of 2013(4) W.P. (C)

No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to dispose of the instant reference case

and 47 other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial

Dispute between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata

(O.P/management) and the workman Sri Gopal Acharjee,

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry vide their No.

F. No. L-30012/9/2012-IR(M), dated 22.08.2013. The schedule

of this reference is as under:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1593

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Sri Gopal

Acharjee, S/o Late Bhubaneswar Acharjee, Ex-

Contingent workman engaged in seismic survey work

through their Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in

present of settlement dated 27/28.01.2001, is legal

and justified? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman as it appears from

the claim statement, in brief, is that he had been working as

casual contingent workman under ONGC, Tripura since

08.12.1978 to work under Geophysical Party No. 27/31 along

with other workmen and continuously worked for a period

of 237 days on an average in every year with few

international breaks and he was terminated from July 2001.

But the management did not consider their genuine case

for appointment on regular basis despite his long 20 years

of unblemished, dedicated service rendered to the

Management. The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court passed

an order and judgement and decided the said issue in terms

of Memorandum of Settlement dt. 27/28.01.2001 executed

by & between the Management & their workmen signed

before the R.L.C. (C), Guwahati. Despite the above order of

the Hon'ble High Court the management did not regularize

the workmen rather the present workman has been

retrenched from service from July 2001 without assigning

any reason thereof, and the management in order to avoid

the statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D.

Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work less than 240 days

in each calendar year and thereby the management

deliberately exercised unfair labour practice. Hence, the

workman prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the claimant/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 24.12.2013 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 7381/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of the reference was stayed w.e.f 24.12.2013 until further

order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7381/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Petitions preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 713-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

54@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@19@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 713.—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. 54/2013) of the

Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/19/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

1594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Apurba Kanti Mazumdar,

Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 54 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 23.02.2015

ORDER

23.02.2015.

The Case Record put up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4)

W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case (No. 54/2013) and 47 nos. of other reference

case in the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and

the workman Shri Apurba Kanti Mazumdar, Tripura (West)

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for adjudication

vide their No. F. No. L-30012/19/2012-IR(M), dated

23.08.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman

Shri Apurba Kanti Mazumdar, Ex-Contingent

workman engaged in seismic survey work through

their Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence

of settlement dated 27/28.2.2001, is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

During pendency of this proceeding the management after

obtaining time on few dates submitted a petition on

03.01.2014 stating that they have moved before the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the order or

reference and the subsequent notice issued there upon

and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order dated

18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the reference.

The management alos submitted a copy of the order dated

18.12.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in

W.P.(C) No. 7385/13. Accordingly the proceeding of the

reference was stayed w.e.f. 03.01.2014 until further order.

On perusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7385/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititions preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 714-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

56@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@8@2012&vkbZñvkjñ ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 714.—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. 56/2013) of the

Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1595

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/8/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Ashok Kr. Deb, Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 56 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 23.02.2015

ORDER

23.02.2015.

The Case Record up today with the order No. L-30012/

45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry of Labour

and Employment along with a copy of the judgement and

order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court on

18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2) W.P.(C)

No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P. (C) No. 7381 of 2013(4) W.P. (C)

No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to dispose of the instant reference case

(No. 56/2013) along with and 47 nos. of other reference

case in the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and

the workman Shri Ashok Kr. Deb. Tripura (West) (Claimant/

workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry vide their

No. F. No. L-30012/8/2012-IR(M), dated 22.08.2013. The

schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman

Shri Ashok Kr. Deb, S/o Late D. C. Deb, Ex-Contingent

workman engaged in seismic survey work through

their Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence

of settlement dated 27/28.01.2001, is legal and

justified? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

During pendency of this proceeding the management after

obtaining time on few dated submitted a petition on

03.01.2014 stating that they have moved before the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the order or

reference and the subsequent notice issued thereupon and

the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order dated

18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the reference.

The management also submitted a copy of the order dated

18.12.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in

W.P.(C) No. 7381/13. Accordingly the proceeding of the

reference was stayed w.e.f 03.01.2014 until further order.

On perusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7381/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Petitions preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 715-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

57@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@7@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

1596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 715.—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. 57/2013) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/7/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Sanjit Saha, Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 57 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 25.02.2015

ORDER

25.02.2015.

The Case Record put up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P. (C) No. 7381 of 2013(4)

W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case and 47 other reference cases in the matter of

an Industrial Dispute between the Management of ONGC

Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and the workman Shri Sanjit

Saha (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry vide their No.

F. No. L-30012/07/2012-IR(M), dated 22.08.2013. The

schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman

Shri Sanjit Saha, S/o Late Sh. Lalit Saha, Ex-Contingent

workman engaged in seismic survey work through

their Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence

of settlement dated 27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman as it appears from

the claim statement, in brief, is that he had been working as

casual contingent workman under ONGC, Tripura since

29.12.1980 to work under Geophysical Party No. 27 along

with other workmen and continuously worked for a period

of 230 days on an average in every year with few intentional

breaks and he was terminated from July 2001. But the

management did not consider their genuine case for

appointment on regular basis despite his along 20 years of

unblemished, dedicated service rendered to the

Management. The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court passed

an order and judgment and decided the said issue in terms

of Memorandum of Settlement dt. 27/28.01.2001 executed

by & between the Management & their workmen signed

before the R. L.C. (C), Guwahati. Despite the above order

of the Hon'ble High Court the management did not regularize

the workmen rather the present workman has been

retrenched from service on 2001 without assigning any

reason thereof, and the management in order to avoid the

statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act

1947 allowed the workmen to work less than 240 days in

each calendar year and thereby the management deliberately

exercised unfair labour practice. Hence, the workman

prayed to adjudicate the present reference by pronouncing

an award in favour of the claimant/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 02.01.2014 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management alos submitted a copy of the

order dated 18.12.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7385/13. Accordingly the

proceeding of the reference was stayed w.e.f. 02.01.2014

until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7381/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1597

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 716-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

05@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@65@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 716.—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. 05/2013 of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/65/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs.

Their Workman Aghoree Deb Barma, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 02.02.2015

ORDER

02.02.2015.

The Case Record put up today along with the order No.

F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of

2013 (2) W.P. (C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P. (C) No. 7381 of

2013(4) W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 05/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Shri Aghoree Deb Barma,

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry vide their

No. F. No. L-30012/65/2012-IR(M), dated 22.01.2013. The

schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the service of Shri Aghore Deb

Barma, Ex-Contingent workman engaged in seismic

survey work through their Geographycial Party w.e.f.

01.07.2001 in presence of settlement dated

27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman, in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contingent workman under

ONGC. Tripura since 1982-83 to work under Geophysical

Party No. 27/31 along with other workmen and continuously

worked for a period of 234/235 days on an average in every

year with few international breaks and he was terminated

from service in the year 2001. But the management did not

consider their genuine case for appointment on regular

basis despite repeated request. On 31.7.01 the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court passed an order and judgment

directing the authority to take proper step for appointment

of the workmen on regular basis and also to absorb the

retrenched workers in service till their services are

regularized and their contingent employment should be

allowed for the maximum days in a yar. Despite the above

order of the Hon'ble High Court the management did not

regularize the workmen rather the present workman has

been retrenched from service on 2001 without assigning

any reason thereof, and the management in order to avoid

the statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I. D.

Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work less than 240 days

in each calendar year and thereby the management

deliberately exercises unfair labour practice. Thereafter in

a meeting held on 20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR resolution

No. 6 it was decided that services of the casual workers

would be regularized according to the qualification and

1598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

experience. The management have not complied with the

decision contained in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of 58th

meeting of ONGC held that the recognized Union,

communicated vide No. 11(2)/91-IR dated 20.1.92. Hence,

the workman prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the claimant/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 30.10.2013 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 7.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of the reference was stayed w.e.f. 30.10.2014 until further

order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 717-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

07@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@63@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 717.—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. 07/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/63/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. DEY, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Swapan Karmakar, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 07 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 02.02.2015

ORDER

02.02.2015.

The Case Record put up today along with the order No.

F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958

of 2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013(4) W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 07/2013) along with 47 other

reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Shri Swapan Karmakar,

(Claimant/workman).

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1599

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry vide their No.

F. No. L-30012/63/2012-IR(M), dated 22.01.2013. The

schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri

Swapan Karmakar, Ex-Contingent workman engaged

in seismic survey work through their Geographical

Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in present of settlement dated

27/28.2.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman, in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contingent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 1982-83 to work under Geophysical

Party No. 27/31 along with other workmen and continuously

worked for a period of 234/235 days on an average in every

year with few international breaks and he was terminated

from service in the year 2001. But the management did not

consider their genuine case for appointment on regular

basis despite repeated requests. On 31.7.01 the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court passed an order and judgement

directing the authority to take proper step for

appointmentof the workmen on regular basis and also to

absorb the retrenched workers in service till their services

are regularized and their contingent employment should

be allowed for the maximum days in a year. Despite the

above order of the Hon'ble High Court the management

did not regularize the workmen rather the present workman

has been retrenched from service in the year 2001 without

assigning any reason thereof, and the management in order

to avoid the statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of

the I.D. Act, 1947 allowed the workmen to work less than

240 days in each calendar year and thereby the management

deliberately exercised unfair labour practice. Thereafter in

a meeting held on 20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR resolution

No. 6 it was decided that services of the casual workers

would be regularized according to the qualification and

experience. The management have not complied with the

decision contained in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of 58th

meeting of ONGC held with the recognized Union,

communicated vide No. 11(2)/91-IR dated 20.1.92. Hence,

the workman prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 07.11.13 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 07.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 07.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of this reference was stayed w.e.f. 07.11.2013 until further

order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 718-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

09@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@61@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 718.—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. 09/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

1600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/61/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs.

Their Workman Sri Aghoree Deb Barma, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 09 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 03.02.2015

ORDER

09.03.2015.

The Case Record put up today along with the order No.

F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958

of 2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013(4) W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 09/2013) along with 47 Nos. of

other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Shri Chamal Chakrabarty,

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry vide their No.

F. No. L-30012/61/2012-IR(M), dated 22.01.2013. The

schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the service of Shri Chamal

Chakraborty, Ex-Contingent workman engaged in

seismic survey work through their Geographycial

Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of settlement dated

27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman, in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contigent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 1977-78 to work under Geophysical

Party No. 27/31 along with other workmen and continuously

worked for a period of 234/235 days on an average in every

year with few intentional breaks and he was terminated

from service in the year 2001. The workman stated that

during his period of service, he had in fact, worked for

more than 240 days on an average in every year and the

work performed against payment of wages in cash on day

to day basis. But the management did not consider their

genuine case for appointment on regular basis despite

repeated request. On 31.7.01 the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court passed an order and judgement directing the

authority to take proper step for appointment of the

workmen on regular basis and also to absorb the retrenched

workers in service till their services are regularized and

their contingent employment should be allowed for the

maxium days in a year. Despite the above order of the

Hon'ble High Court the management did not regularise the

workmen rather the present workman has been retrenched

from service in 2001 without assigning any reason thereof,

and the management in order to avoid the statutory

obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act 1947 allowed

the workmen to work less than 240 days in each calendar

year and thereby the management deliberately exercised

unfair labour practice. Thereafter in a meeting held on

20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR resolution No. 6 it was decided

that services of the casual workers would be regularized

according to the qualification and experience. The

management have not complied with the decision contained

in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of 58th meeting of ONGC

held with the recognized Union, communicated vide No.

11(2)/91-IR dated 20.1.92. Hence, the workman prayed to

adjudicate the present reference by pronouncing an award

in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few date submitted

a petition on 04.11.13 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 07.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 07.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of the reference was stayed w.e.f. 04.11.2013 until further

order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1601

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on

27th/28th January, 2001 and the same having been acted

upon by all the concerned parties, there could not have

been any occasion for the workmen involved in the writ

petitions to raise a further dispute already stood settled as

per the said settlement, and consequently no reference

could have been made for adjudication for the issue raised;

and set aside and quashed the reference under challenge

with observation that consequently, the proceding

culminating from the said reference and pending before

the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside

and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 719-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

06@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@64@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 719.—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. 06/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/64/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs.

Their Workman Sri Narayan Chandra Lodh,

Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 06 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 03.02.2015

ORDER

03.02.2015.

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W. P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013 (4)

W.P.(C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case (No. 06/2013) along with 47 nos. of other

reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Shri Narayan Chandra Lodh,

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for adjudication

vide their No. F. No. L-30012/64/2012-IR(M), dated

22.01.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Limited, in terminating the services of workman Shri

Narayan Chandra Lodh, Ex-Contingent workman

enaged in seismic survey work through their

Geographycial Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of

settlement dated 27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman, in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contingent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 1982-83 to work under Geophysical

Party No. 27/31 along with other workmen and continuously

worked for a period of 234/235 days on an average in every

year with few intentional breaks and he was terminated

from service in the year 2001. The workman stated that

during his period of service, he had in fact, worked for

more than 240 days on an average in every year and the

work performed against payment of wages in cash on day

to day basis. But the management did not consider their

genuine case for appointment on regular basis despite

repeated request. On 31.7.01 the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court passed an order and judgement directing the

authority to take proper step for appointment of the

1602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

workmen on regular basis and also to absorb the retrenched

workers in service till their services are regularized and

their contingent employment should be allowed for the

maximum days in a year. Despite the above order of the

Hon'ble High Court the management did not regularize the

workmen rather the present workman has been retrenched

from service from on 2001 without assigning any reason

thereof, and the management in order to avoid the statutory

obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act 1947 allowed

the workmen to work less than 240 days in each calendar

year and thereby the management deliberately exercised

unfair labour practice. Thereafter in a meeting held on

20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR resolution No. 6 it was decided

that services of the casual workers would be regularized

according to the qualification and experience. The

management have not complied with the decision contained

in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of 58th meeting of ONGC

held with the recognized Union, communicated vide No.

11(2)/91-IR dated 20.1.92. Hence, the workman prayed to

adjudicate the present reference by pronouncing an award

in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 04.11.13 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 07.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management alos submitted a copy of the

order dated 07.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of this reference was stayed w.e.f. 04.11.2013 until further

order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliatin proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on

27th/28th January, 2001 and the same having been acted

upon by all the concerned parties, there could not have

been any occasion for the workmen involved in the writ

petitions to raise a further dispute already stood settled as

per the said settlement, and consequently no reference

could have been made for adjudication for the issue raised;

and set aside and quashed the reference under challenge

with observation that consequently, the proceding

culminating from the said reference and pending before

the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside

and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 720-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

08@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@62@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 720.—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. 08/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/62/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs.

Their Workman Md. Abdul Shobhan, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 08 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 03.02.2015

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1603

ORDER

03.02.2015

The Case Record put up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013 (4)

W.P.(C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case (No. 08/2013) along with 47 other reference

cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and

the workman Md. Abdul Shobhan, (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for adjudication

vide their No. F. No. L-30012/62/2012-IR(M), dated

22.01.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Limited, in terminating the services of Shri Md. Abdul

Shobhan, Ex-Contigent workman enaged in seismic

survey work through their Geophysical Party w.e.f.

01.07.2001 in presence of settlement dated 27/

28.1.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman, in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contigent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 1982 to work under Geophysical Party

No. 27/31 along with other workmen and continuously

worked for a period of 232/233 days on an average in every

year with few international breaks and he was terminated

from service in the year 2001. But the management did not

consider their genuine case for appointment on regular

basis despite repeated requests. On 31.7.01 the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court passed an order and judgement

directing the authority to take proper step for appointment

of the workmen on regular basis and also to absorb the

retrenched workers in service till their service are regularized

and their contingent employment should be allowed for

the maximum days in a year. Despite the above order of the

Hon'ble High Court the management did not regularize the

workmen rather the present workman has been retrenched

from service in the year 2001 without assigning any reason

thereof, and the management in order to avoid the statutory

obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act, 1947 allowed

the workmen to work less than 240 days in each calendar

year and thereby the management deliberately exercised

unfair labour practice. Thereafter in a meeting held on

20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR resolution No. 6 it was decided

that services of the casual workers would be regularized

according to the qualification and experience. The

management have not complied with the decision contained

in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of 58th meting of ONGC held

with the recognized Union, communicated vide No. 11(2)/

91-IR dated 20.1.92. Hence, the workman prayed to

adjudicate the present reference by pronouncing an award

in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 04.11.13 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 07.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 7.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of the reference was stayed w.e.f 4.11.2013 until further

order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliatin proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 721-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

1604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

12@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@3@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@58@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 721.—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. 12/2013) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati now

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C.

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/3/2015.

[No. L-30012/58/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI.

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Suken Deb Barma, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 12 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 18.02.2015

ORDER

18.02.2015.

The Case Record put up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013 (4)

W.P.(C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble Gauhati High

Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant reference

case (No. 12/2013 alongwith) 47 nos. of other reference

case in the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and

the workman Shri Suken Deb Barma, Tripura (west)

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for adjudication

vide their No. F. No. L-30012/58/2011-IR(M), dated 22.01.13.

The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of Shri Suken Deb

Barma, Ex- Contigent workman enaged in seismic

survey work through their Geophysical Party w.e.f.

01.07.2001 in present of settlement dated

27/28.01.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contigent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 1982-83 to work in the seismic survey

section along with other workmen. But the management

did not consider their genuine case for appointment on

regular basis despite repeated request. On 31.7.01 the

Hon'ble Gauhati High Court passed an order and judgement

directing the authority to take proper step for appointment

of the workmen on regular basis and also to absorb the

retrenched workers in service till their services are

regularized and their contingent employment should be

allowed for the maximum days in a year. Despite the above

order of the Hon'ble High Court the management did not

regularize the workmen rather the present workman has

been retrenched from service in the year 2001 without

assigning any reason thereof, and the management in order

to avoid the statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of

the I.D. Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work less than

234/235 days in each calendar year and thereby the

management deliberately exercised unfair labour practice.

Thereafter in a meeting held on 20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR

resolution No. 6 it was decided that services of the casual

workers would be regularized according to the qualification

and experience. The management have not complied with

the decision contained in the minutes dated 30.10.92 of

58th meeting of ONGC held with the recognized Union,

Communicated vide No. 11(2)/91-IR dated 20.1.292. Hence,

the workmen prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 18.11.2013 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 7.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 7.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of this reference was stayed w.e.f. 08.11.2013 until further

order.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1605

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 722-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

10@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@60@2012&vkbZñvkjñ ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 722.—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. 10/2013) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati now

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C.

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/60/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI.

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Shri Ratan Chakrabarty, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 10 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 20.02.2015

ORDER

20.02.2015.

The Case Record up today along with the order No. F.

No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958

of 2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013 (4) W.P.(C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 10/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Shri Ratan Chakraborty,

Tripura (west) (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for adjudication

vide their No. F. No. L-30012/60/2012-IR(M), dated 22.01.13.

The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the service of Shri Ratan

Chakraborty Ex- Contigent workman enaged in

seismic survey work through their Geographical Party

w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in present of settlement dated

27/28.01.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon bot the parties who appeared before time on few

dates submitted a petition on 29-10-2013 stating that they

have moved before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court

assailing, inter-alia, the order or reference and the

subsequent notice issued there upon and the Hon’ble High

1606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Court passed an interim order dated 07-10-13 staying the

further processing of the reference. The management also

submitted a copy of of the order dated 07-10-2013 passed

by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P(c) No. 5958/13.

Accordingly the processing of this reference was stayed

with effect from 23-01-2014 until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Petitions preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 723-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

03@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@67@2012&vkbZñvkjñ ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 723.—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. 03/2013) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati now

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C.

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/67/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Shri Phani Bhushan Deb Barma,

Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 03 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 18.02.2015

ORDER

The Case Record put up today along with the order No.

F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958

of 2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013 (4) W.P.(C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 03/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Sri Phani Bhushan Deb

Barma, Tripua (west) (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for adjudication

vide their No. F. No. L-30012/67/2012-IR(M), dated 22.01.13.

The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the service of Shri Phani Bhusan

Deb Barma, Ex- Contigent workman engaged in

seismic survey work through their Geographical Party

w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of settlement dated 27/

28.01.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contingent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 1981-82 to work in the seismic survey

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1607

section along with other workmen. But the management

did not consider their genuine case for appointment on

regular basis despite repeated request. On 31.7.01 the

Hon'ble Guwahati High Court passed an order and

judgement directing the authority to take proper step for

appointment of the workmen on regular basis and also to

absorb the retrenched workers in service till their services

are regularized and their contigent employment should be

allowed for the maximum days in a year. Despite the above

order of the Hon'ble High Court the management did not

regularize the workmen rather the present workman has

been retrenched from service in the year 2001 without

assigning any reason thereof, and the management in order

to avoid the statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of

the I.D. Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work 232/233

days in each calendar year and thereby the management

deliberately exercised unfair labour practice. Thereafter in

a meeting held on 20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR resolution

No. 6 it was decided that services of the casual workers

would be regularized according to the qualification and

experience. The management have not complied with the

decision contained in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of 58th

meeting of ONGC held with the recognized Union,

communicated vide No. 11(2)/91-IR dated 20.1.92. Hence,

the workmen prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 30.10.2013 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 7.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 7.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of this reference was stayed w.e.f 30.10.2013 until further

order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 724-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksñ,uñthñlhñ

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

04@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@66@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 724.—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. 04/2013) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati now

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C.

Limited and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/66/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI.

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs.

Their Workman Sri Kanu Mian, Tripura (West).

1608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ref. Case No. 04 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 02.02.2015

ORDER

20.02.2015.

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013 (4)

W.P.(C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant reference

case and (No. 04/2013) along with 47 nos. of other reference

cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and

the workman Md. Kanu Mian (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation to

the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the

said dispute was referred to by the Ministry vide their

No. F. No. L-30012/66/2011-IR(M), dated 22.01.13. The

schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Sri Md.

Kanu Mian Ex- Contingent workman engaged in

seismic survey work through their Geographical Party

w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of settlement dated

27/28.01.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contingent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 1981-82 to work under Geophysical

Party No. 27/31 along with other workmen and continuously

worked for a period of 233/234 days on an average in every

year with few intentional breaks and he was terminated in

the year 2001. But the management did not consider their

genuine case for appointment on regular basis despite

repeated request. On 31.7.01 the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court

passed an order and judgement directing the authority to

take proper step for appointment of the workman on regular

basis and also to absorb the retrenched workers in service

till their services are regularized and their contingent

employment should be allowed for the maximum days in a

year. Despite the above order of the Hon'ble High Court

the management did not regularize the workmen rather the

present workman has been retrenched from service on 2001

without assigning any reason thereof, and the management

in order to avoid the statutory obligation as provided u/s

25(F) of the I.D. Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work 240

days in each calendar year and thereby the management

deliberately exercised unfair labour practice. Thereafter in

a meeting held on 20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR resolution

No. 6 it was decided that services of the casual workers

would be regularized according to the qualification and

experience. The management have not complied with the

decision contained in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of 58th

meeting of ONGC held with the recognized Union,

communicated vide No. 11(2)/91-IR dated 20.1.92. Hence,

the workmen prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents.During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dates submitted

a petition on 30.10.2013 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 7.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 7.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of this reference was stayed w.e.f 30.10.2014 until further

order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1609

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 725-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

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

15@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@55@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 725.—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. 15/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/55/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Bhobotosh Acharjee, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 15 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 02.02.2015

ORDER

The Case Record put up today along with the order

No. F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of

2013 (2) W.P.(C No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013(4) W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 15/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Shri Bhobotosh Acharjee,

Tripura (West) (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry vide their

No. F. No. L-30012/55/2012-IR(M), dated 22.01.2013. The

schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of Shri Bhobotosh

Acharjee, Ex-Contigent workman enaged in seismic

survey work through their Geographical Party w.e.f.

01.07.2001 in present of settlement dated

27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contigent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 1982 to work in the seismic survey

section along with other workmen. But the management

did not consider their genuine case for appointment on

regular basis despite despite repeated request. On 31.7.01

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court passed an order and

judgement directing the authority to take proper step for

appointment of the workmen on regular basis and also to

absorb the retrenched workers in service till their services

are regularized and their contingent employment should

be allowed for the maximum days in a year. Despite the

above order of the Hon'ble High Court the management

did not regulrize the workmen rather the present workman

has been retrenched from service from July 2001 without

assigning any reason thereof, and the management in order

to avoid the statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of

the I.D. Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work less than

240 days in each calendar year and thereby the management

deliberately exercised unfair labour practice. Thereafter in

a meeting held on 20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR resolution

No. 6 it was decided that services of the casual workers

would be regularized according to the qualification and

experience. The Management have not complied with the

decision contained in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of 58th

meeting of ONGC held with the recognized Union,

communicated vide No. 11(2)/91-IR dated 20.1.92. Hence,

the workman prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the the claimant/

workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dates submitted

a petition on 06.11.2013 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

1610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 7.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 7.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of the reference was stayed w.e.f 02.01.2014 until further

order.

On perusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in conciliatin proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 726-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

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

11@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@59@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 726.—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.

11/2013, of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/59/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata.

Their Workman Sri Aghoree Deb Barma, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 11 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 03.02.2015

ORDER

The Case Record put up today along with the order

No. F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of

2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013(4) W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 11/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Shri Subodh Deb Barma,

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudiate vide their No. F. No. L-30012/59/2012-IR(M), dated

22.01.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of Shri Subodh Deb

Barma, Ex-Contigent workman enaged in seismic

survey work through their Geographical Party w.e.f.

1.07.2001 in present of settlement dated 27/28.1.2001,

is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman, in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contigent workman under

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1611

ONGC, Tripura since 1978-79 to work under Geophysical

Party No. 31 along with other workmen and continuously

worked for a period of 236/237 days on an average in every

year with few intentional breaks and he was terminated

from service in the year 2001. The workman stated that

during his period of service, he had in fact, worked for

more than 240 days on an average in every year and the

work performed against payment of wages in cash on day

to day basis. But the management did not consider their

genuine case for appointment on regular basis despite

repeated request. On 31.7.01 the Hon'ble Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court passed an order and judgement and directing

the authority to take proper step for appointment of the

workmen on regular basis and also to absorb the retrenched

workers in service till their services are regularized and

their contingent employment should be allowed for the

maximum days in a year. Despite the above order of the

Hon'ble High Court the management did not regulrize the

workmen rather the present workman has been retrenched

from service on 2001 without assigning any reason thereof,

and the management in order to avoid the statutory

obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act 1947 allowed

the workmen to work less than 240 days in each calendar

year and thereby the management deliberately exercised

unfair labour practice. Thereafter in a meeting held on

20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR resolution No. 6 it was decided

that services of the casual workers would be regularized

according to the qualification and experience. The

Management have not complied with the decision contained

in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of 58th meeting of ONGC

held with the recognized Union, Communicated vide No.

11(2)/91-IR dated 20.1.92. Hence the workmen prayed to

adjudicate the present reference by pronouncing an award

in favour of the claimant/workmen.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 08.11.2013 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 7.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 7.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of this reference was stayed with effect from 08.11.13 until

further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliatin proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 727-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

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

25@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@47@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 727.—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.

25/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/47/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

1612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata.

Their Workman Sri Dikesh Deb Barma, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 25 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 20.02.2015

ORDER

20.2.2015

The Case Record put up today along with the order

No. F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of

2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013 (4) W.P. (C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 25/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference case in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Shri Dikesh Deb Barma,

Tripura (west) (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/47/2011-IR(M),

dated 26.06.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workmen Shri

Dikesh Deb Barma, S/o Sh. Subai Deb Barma, Ex-

Contigent workman enaged in seismic survey work

through their Geophyscial Party w.e.f.1.07.2001 in

present of settlement dated 27/28.1.2001, is legal and

justified? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman, in brief, is that he

was engaged from December, 1982 by the Management on

ONGC Ltd. to perform unskilled jobs as casual contingent

workers doing the work done by the regular worker of the

ONGC Ltd. After rendering his service for more that 20

years the Management of ONGC Ltd. all on a sudden,

without any cause, notice paid and compensation

retrenched the service of the workman from July 2001.

During his period of service the workman in fact, worked

for more than 240 days on an average in every year which

includes the days of working performed against payment

of wages in cash on day to day basis. Thereby the workman

was deprived from claiming the legitimate rights and

privileges made available to the regular workers appointed

by the management. The workman came up for adjudication

before the Hon'ble High Court in series of litigation and the

Hon'ble High Court decided the same issue in terms of

memorandum of settlement dated 27/28.01.2001 executed

between the management of ONGC Ltd and their workmen

represented by ONGC Din Mazdur Union and Tripura

ONGC Sramik Union (INTUC) signed before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati. The management of

ONGC Ltd. chosen to through out the workmen from

service by taking shielf behind the aforesaid Memorandum

of Settlement dated 27/28.01.2001.

The workman submitted that he has not either

covered by the terms and conditions of the Memorandum

of Settlement dated 27/28.01.2001 and he was, or he could

never had been, a party to the said settlement. The

management deliberately and maliciously engaged engaged

the workman to work for marginal less than 240 days in in a

year as per their record with a view to avoid its obligation

provided u/s 25 (F) of the Act, 1947. Even the management

used to pay cash to the claimant for all such days beyond

of overall period of working over 235/236 days in a year for

avoiding their liability provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act.

The workman mentioned that by virtue of his long standing

employment under the management of ONGC Ltd. and on

account of his vast practical experience gained out of such

employment, the workman is no longer an unskilled/

contingent workman and as such, the management is under

all legal liability to absorb the workman by regularizing his

service. It is further mentioned by the workman that the

settlement dated 27/28.01.2001 having not been arrived in

accordance with the relevant provision of Section 18 of the

I.D. Act, 1947 read with Section 58 of the I.D. (Central)

Rules, 1957, the same is against the principle of justice and

therefore the claimant is not bund by the same. Accordingly

the workman is entitled to be reinstated under the

management of ONGC and backwages from the date of his

retrenchment from 1.7.2001 till his reinstatement besides all

other service benefit available to the claimant in accordance

with the law. Hence, the workman prayed for passing of

award in his favour, in the interest of justice.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 15.1.2014 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 7372/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of the reference was stayed with effect from 15.1.14 until

further order.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1613

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by

the Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the

copy of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the

Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No.

7372/13 dated 18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court has been pleased to allow the Writ

Peititons preferred by the management of ONGC

challenging the claims of the workmen as well as the

order of reference and the subsequent notices issued

thereupon by this Tribunal, on the ground that since

the memorandum of settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of

the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliatin proceeding before the

Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by

all the concerned parties, there could not have been

any occasion for the workmen involved in the writ

petitions to raise a further dispute already stood settled

as per the said settlement, and consequently no

reference could have been made for adjudication for

the issue raised; and set aside and quashed the

reference under challenge with observation that

consequently, the proceding culminating from the said

reference and pending before the Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 728-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

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

26@2013½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@48@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 728.—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.

26/2013 of the Central Govternment Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of O.N.G.C. Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/48/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata.

Their Workman Sri Prabir Pal, Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 26 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 20.02.2015

ORDER

20.02.2015

The Case Record put up today along with the order

No. F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of

2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013 (4) W.P. (C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 26/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Sri Prabir Pal, Tripura (west)

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/48/2011-IR(M),

dated 26.06.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri

Prabir Pal, S/o Sh. Amrit Lal Pal, Ex-Contingent

workman enaged in seismic survey work through

their Geophycial Party w.e.f. 1.07.2001 in presence of

settlement dated 27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of references from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this tribunal.

During pendency of this proceeding the management after

obtaining time on few dates Submitted a petition on

23.01.2014 stating that they have moved before the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court assailing, inter alia, the order or

reference and the subsequent notice issued there upon

and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order dated

1614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the reference.

The management also submitted a copy of the order dated

18.12.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in

W.P(C) No. 7372/13. Accordingly the proceeding of this

reference was stayed with effect from 23.01.2014 until further

order.

On perusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P(C) No. 7372/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Petitions preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 729-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

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

23@2013½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-03-2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@45@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 729.—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.

23/2013 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of O.N.G.C. Limited and their workmen,which

was received by the Central Government on 23.03.2015.

[No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata

Their Workman Sri Pulin Das, Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 23 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 19.02.2015

ORDER

19.02.2015.

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C No. 7372 of 2013 (3) P.W.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4)

W.P. (C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case (No. 23/2013) along with 47 Nos. of other

reference case in the matter of an Industrial Dispute between

the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management)

and the workman Shri Pulin Das, Tripura (west) (Claimant/

workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/45/2011 IR (M),

dated 26.06.2013. The Schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri Pulin

Das, S/o Late Sh. Sashi Mohan Das, Ex-Contigent

workman enaged in seismic survey work through

their Geophycial Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence

of settlement dated 27/28.2.2001, is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contigent workman under ongc,

Tripura since 1982-83 to work in the seismic survey section

under geophysical Party No. 27 along with other workmen.

But the management did not consider their genuine case

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1615

for appointment on regular basis despite repealed request.

On 31.7.01 the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court passed an order

and judgment directing the authority to take proper step

for appointment of the workmen on regular basis and also

to absorb the retrenched workers in service till their services

are regularized and their contingent employment should

be allowed for that maximum days in a year. Despite the

above order of the Hon'ble High Court the management

did not regularize the workmen rather the present workman

has been retrenched from service in July, 2001 without

assigning any reason thereof, and the management in order

to avoid the statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of

the I.D. Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work 236/237

days in each calendar year and thereby the management

deliberately exercised unfair labour practice. A

Memorandum of settlement was arrived at on 27/28.01.2001

between the Management of ONGC & the workers' Union

& the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue of regularisation

in terms of the said settlement. But the management have

not complied with the terms of the said settlement. Hence,

the workman prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 15.01.2014 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 7372/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of this reference was stayed w.e.f 15.01.2014 until further

order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7372/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commission (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proccding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 730-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

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

30@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@53@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 730.—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. 30/

2013 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/53/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Dhankar Deb Barma, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 30 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 19.02.2015

1616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ORDER

19.2.2015

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgemtn and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C No. 7372 of 2013 (3)W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4) W.P.

Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant reference

case (No. 30/2013) along with and 47 nos. of other reference

cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and

the workman Shri Shankar Deb Barma, Tripura (west) (Claimant/

workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/53/2011-IR(M),

dated 26.06.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri Shankar

Deb Barma, S/o Late Sh. Prasanna Deb Barma Ex-Contigent

workman enaged in seismic survey work through their

Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presents of settlement

dated 27/28.2.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contigent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 01.02.1982 to work in the seismic

survey section under geophysical Party No. 27 along with

other workmen. But the management did not consider their

genuine case for appointment on rgular basis despite

repeated request. On 31.7.01 the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

passed an order and judgment directing the authority to

take proper step for appointment of the workmen on regular

basis and also to absorb the retrenched workers in service

till their services are regularized and their contingent

employment should be allowed for the maximum days in a

year. Despite the above order of the Hon'ble High Court

the management did not reularize the workmen rather the

present workman has been retrenched from service in July,

2001 without assigning any reason thereof, and the

management in order to avoid the statutory obligation as

provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act 1947 allowed the workmen

to work 236 days in each calendar year and there by the

management deliberately exercised unfair labour practice.

A Memorandum of settlement was arrived at on 27/

28.01.2001 between the Management of ONGC & the

workers' Union & the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue

of retularisation in terms of the said settlement. But the

management have not complied with the terms of the said

settlement. Hence, the workman prayed to adjudicate the

present reference by pronouncing an award in favour of

the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 20.01.2014 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No.7372/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of this reference was stayed with effect from 20.01.2014

until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7372/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commission (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proccding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 731-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

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

31@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@54@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1617

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 731.—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/

2013 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of O.N.G.C. Limited and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/54/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs.

Their Workman Sri Shankar Ch. Das, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 30 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 19.02.2015

ORDER

02.02.2015

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4)

W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case and 44 nos. of other reference cases in the

matter of an Industrial Dispute between the Management

of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and the workman

Shri Shankar Chandra Das, Tripura (West) (Claimant/

workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/54/2011-IR(M),

dated 26.06.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri

Shankar Chandra Das, S/o Late Sh. Suresh Chandra

Das, Ex-Contigent workman enaged in seismic survey

work through their Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001

in presence of settlement dated 27/28.2.2001, is legal

and justified? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contigent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 1983-84 to work in the seismic survey

section under geophysical Party No. 27 along with other

workmen. But the management did not consider their

genuine case for appointment on rgular basis despite his

long 20 years of unblemished, dedicated service rendered

to the Management. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court passed

an order and judgment and decided the said issue in terms

of Memorandum of Settlement dt. 27/28.01.2001 executed

by & between the Management & their workmen signed

before the R.L.C.(C), Guwahati, Despite the above order

of the Hon'ble High Court the management did not

regularize the workmen rather the present workman has

been retrenched from service in July, 2001 without

assigning any reason thereof, and the management in order

to avoid the statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of

the I.D. Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work 234/236

days in each calendar year and thereby the management

deliberately exercised unfair labour practice. In fact, the

workman worked for more than 240 days on an average

every year. Thus the management have not complied with

the terms of the said settlement. Hence, the workman

prayed to adjudicate the present reference by passing an

award in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal. The

workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 24.01.2014 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management alos submitted a copy of the

order dated 18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 7372/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of this reference was stayed with effect from 24.01.2014

until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by

the Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the

copy of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the

Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No.

7372/13 dated 18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to allow the Writ

Peititons preferred by the management of ONGC

challenging the claims of the workmen as well as the order

of reference and the subsequent notices issued thereupon

by this Tribunal, on the ground that since the memorandum

1618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

of settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in

conciliation proceeding before the Regional Labour

Commission (C) on 27th/28th January, 2001 and the same

having been acted upon by all the concerned parties, there

could not have been any occasion for the workmen

involved in the writ petitions to raise a further dispute

already stood settled as per the said settlement, and

consequently no reference could have been made for

adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside and quashed

the reference under challenge with observation that

consequently, the proceding culminating from the said

reference and pending before the Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 732-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@55@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 732.—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. 32/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of O.N.G.C. Limited and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/55/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs.

Their Workman Sri Swadesh Ch. Choudhury,

Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 32 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 02.03.2015

ORDER

02.03.2015

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4)

W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case and 44 nos. of other reference cases in the

matter of an Industrial Dispute between the Management

of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and the workman

ShriSwadesh Ch. Choudhury, Tripura (west) (Claimant/

workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry adjudicaion

vide their No. F. No. L-30012/55/2011-IR(M), dated

26.06.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri

Swadesh Chandra Choudhury S/o Late Sh. Surendra

Chandra Choudhury, Ex-Contingent workman

engaged in seismic survey work through their

Geophyscial Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in present of

settlement dated 27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman in brief, is that he

had been working as casual contigent workman under

ONGC, Tripura since 1981-82 to work under geophysical

Party No. 27 along with other workmen. But the

management did not consider their genuine case for

appointment on regular basis despite his long 20 years of

unblemished, dedicated service rendered to the

Management. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court passed an

order and judgment and decided the said issue in terms of

Memorandum of Settlement dt. 27/28.01.2001 executed by

& between the Management & their workmen signed before

the R.L.C.(C), Guwahati, Despite the above order of the

Hon'ble High Court the management did not regularize the

workmen rather the present workman has been retrenched

from service in July, 2001 without assigning any reason

thereof, and the management in order to avoid the statutory

obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act 1947 allowed

the workmen to work 234/235 days in each calendar year

and thereby the management deliberately exercised unfair

labour practice. In fact, the workman worked for more than

240 days on an average in every, year. Thus, the

management have not complied with the terms of the said

settlement. Hence, the workman prayed to adjudicate the

present reference by pronouncing an award in favour of

the claiment/workman.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1619

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 24.01.2014 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the

reference. The management also submitted a copy of the

order dated 18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Court in W.P.(C) No. 7372/13. Accordingly the proceeding

of this reference was stayed with effect from 24.01.2014

until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7372/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititions preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 733-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

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

36@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@66@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 733.—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, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of O.N.G.C. Limited and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/66/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI.

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs.

Their Workman Sri Biplab Bhattacharjee, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 36 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 02.03.2015

ORDER

02.03.2015.

The Case Record put up today alongwith the order

No. F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958

of 2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013 (4) W.P.(C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case and 44 nos. of other reference case in the

matter of an Industrial Dispute between the Management of

ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and the workman Shri

Biplab Bhattacharjee, Tripura (west) (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/66/2011-IR(M),

dated 26.06.13. The schedule of this reference is as under:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri

Biplab Bhattacharjee, S/o Late Sh. Chittaranjan

Bhacharjee, Ex- Contingent workman engaged in

seismic survey work through their Geophysical Party

w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in present of settlement dated

1620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

27/28.01.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman as it appears from

the claim statement, in brief, is that he had been working as

casual contigent workman under ONGC, Tripura since 1982-

83 to work in the seismic survey section under Geophysical

Party No. 27/31 along with other workmen. But the

management did not consider their genuine case for

appointment on regular basis despite his long 20 years of

unblemished, dedicated service rendered to the Management.

The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court passed an order and

judgement and decided the said issue in terms of

Memorandum of Settlement dt. 27/28.01.2001 executed

by & between the Management & their workmen signed

before the R.L.C. (C), Guwahati. Despite the above order

of the Hon'ble High Court the management did not regulrize

the workmen rather the present workman has been

retrenched from service from July 2001 without assigning

any reason thereof, and the management in order to avoid

the statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D.

Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work 236 days in each

calendar year with few interval breaks, and thereby the

management deliberately exercised unfair labour practice.

In fact, the workman worked for more than 240 days on an

average in every year. Thus the management have not

complied with the terms of the said settlement. Hence, the

workman prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the

Ministry this reference case was registered and notices

were issued upon both the parties who appeared before this

Tribunal. The workman submitted his claim statement along

with the supporting documents. During pendency of this

proceeding the management after obtaining time on few

dated submitted a petition on 13.01.2014 stating that they

have moved before the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

assailing, inter-alia, the order or reference and the

subsequent notice issued there upon and the Hon'ble High

Court passed an interim order dated 18.12.13 staying the

further proceeding of the reference. The management also

submitted a copy of the order dated 18.12.13 passed by the

Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7372/13.

Accordingly the proceeding of this reference was stayed

w.e.f 13.01.2014 until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by

the Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the

copy of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the

Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No.

7372/13 dated 18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to allow the Writ

Petitions preferred by the management of ONGC

challenging the claims of the workmen as well as the order

of reference and the subsequent notices issued thereupon

by this Tribunal, on the ground that since the memorandum

of settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in

conciliation proceeding before the Regional Labour

Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th January, 2001 and the same

having been acted upon by all the concerned parties, there

could not have been any occasion for the workmen

involved in the writ petitions to raise a further dispute

already stood settled as per the said settlement, and

consequently no reference could have been made for

adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside and quashed

the reference under challenge with observation that

consequently, the proceeding culminating from the said

reference and pending before the Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 734-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@67@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 734.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. I.D. No. 37/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of O.N.G.C. Limited and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/67/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI.

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Ajit Kumar Saha, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 37 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 02.03.2015

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1621

ORDER

02.03.2015.

The Case Record put up today along with the order

No. F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958

of 2013 (2) W.P.(C No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013 (4) W.P.(C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case and 44 nos. of other reference cases

in the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and

the workman Shri Ajit Kumar Saha, Tripura (west) (Claimant/

workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication column vide their No. F. No. L-30012/67/2011-

IR(M), dated 26.06.13. The schedule of this reference is as

under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri Ajit

Kumar Saha, S/o Late Sh. Lalit Mohan Saha, Ex-

Contingent workman engaged in seismic survey work

through their Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in

presence of settlement dated 27/28.01.2001, is legal

and justified? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman, as it appears from

the claim statement, in brief, is that he had been working as

casual contingent workman under ONGC, Tripura since

1981-82 to work in the seismic survey section under

Geophysical Party No. 27/31 along with other workmen.

But the management did not consider their genuine case

for appointment on regular basis despite his long 20 years

of unblemished, dedicated service rendered to the

Management. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court passed an

order and judgment and decided the said issue in terms of

Memorandum of Settlement dt. 27/28.01.2001 executed by

& between the Management & their workmen signed before

the R.L.C. (C), Guwahati. Despite the above order of the

Hon'ble High Court the management did not regularize the

workmen rather the present workman has been retrenched

from service in 2001 without assigning any reason thereof,

and the management in order to avoid the statutory

obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act 1947 allowed

the workmen to work 233/234 days in each calendar year

and thereby the management deliberately exercised unfair

labour practice. In fact, the workman worked for more than

240 days on an average in every year. Thus the management

have not complied with the terms of the said settlement.

Hence, the workman prayed to adjudicate the present

reference by passing an award in favour of the claiment/

workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dates submitted

a petition on 20.01.2014 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the reference.

The management also submitted a copy of the order dated

18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C)

No. 7372/13. Accordingly the proceeding of this reference

was stayed w.e.f 20.01.2014 until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7372/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititions preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no. relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 735-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

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

38@2013½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@68@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

1622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 735.—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. 38/

2013 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/68/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Nipendra Choudhury, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 38 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 25.02.2015

ORDER

25.02.2015.

The Case Record put up today with the order No. F.

No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958

of 2013 (2) W.P.(C No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013 (4) W.P.(C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case and 47 other reference cases in the

matter of an Industrial Dispute between the Management

of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and the

workman Shri Nipendra Choudhury, Tripura (west)

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry vide their

No. F. No. L-30012/68/2011-IR(M), dated 26.06.13. The

schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri

Nipendra Choudhury, S/o Late Sh. Suresh Ch.

Choudhury, Ex- Contingent workman engaged in

seismic survey work through their Geophysical

Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of settlement

dated 27/28.01.2001, is legal and justified? What

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

The case of the claimant/workman as it appears from

the claim statement, in brief, is that he had been working as

casual contingent workman under ONGC, Tripura since

1982-83 to work under Geophysical Party No. 27 along with

other workmen and continuously worked for a period of

200 days on an average in every year with few intentional

breaks and he was terminated from July 2001. But the

management did not consider their genuine case for

appointment on regular basis despite his long 20 years of

unblemished, dedicated service rendered to the

Management. The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court passed

an order and judgement and decided the said issue in terms

of Memorandum of Settlement dt. 27/28.01.2001 executed

by and between the Management and their workmen signed

before the R.L.C. (C), Guwahati. Despite the above order of

the Hon'ble High Court the management did not regulrize

the workmen rather the present workman has been

retrenched from service on 2001 without assigning any

reason thereof, and the management in order to avoid the

statutory obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act

1947 allowed the workmen to work less than 240 days in

each calendar year and thereby the management

deliberately exercised unfair labour practice. Hence, the

workman prayed to adjudicate the present reference by

pronouncing an award in favour of the claiment/workman.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The workman submitted his claim statement along with the

supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding

the management after obtaining time on few dated submitted

a petition on 20.01.2014 stating that they have moved before

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the

order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there

upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order

dated 18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the reference.

The management also submitted a copy of the order dated

18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in

W.P.(C) No. 7372/13. Accordingly the proceeding of the

reference was stayed w.e.f 20.01.2014 until further order.

On perusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7372/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititions preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1623

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting. No relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 736-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@27@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 736.—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. 43/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23.03.2015.

[No. L-30012/27/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI.

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Braja Kr. Deb Barma, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 43 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 23.03.2015

ORDER

23.02.2015. The Case Record put up today with the

order No. F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015

from the Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a

copy of the judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of

2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013 (4) W.P.(C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 43/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Shri Braja Kr. Deb Barma,

Tripura (west) (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/27/2012-IR(M),

dated 23.08.13. The Schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Shri Braja

Kr. Deb Barma, Ex-Contingent workman enaged in

seismic survey work through their Geophysical Party

w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of settlement dated

27/28.01.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

During pendency of this proceeding the management after

obtaining time on few dated submitted a petition on

13.01.2014 stating that they have moved before the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the order or

reference and the subsequent notice issued there upon

and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order dated

18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the reference.

The management also submitted a copy of the order dated

18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in

W.P.(C) No. 7385/13. Accordingly the proceeding of the

reference was stayed w.e.f 23.01.2014 until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7385/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

1624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting. No relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 737-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 42@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&03&2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@16@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 737.—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. 42/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23.03.2015.

[No. L-30012/16/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata

Their Workman Sri Ram Narayan Chakraborty,

Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 42 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 23.02.2015

ORDER

23.02.2015

The Case Record put up today with the order No. F.

No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of

2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013(4) W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 42/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Sri Ram Narayan

Chakraborty, Tripura (West) (Claimant/Workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/16/2012-IR(M),

dated 23.08.2013. The Schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Sri Ram

Narayan Chakraborty, Ex-Contingent workman

enaged in seismic survey work through their

Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of

settlement dated 27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

During pendency of this proceeding the management after

obtaining time on few dated submitted a petition on 23.01.2014

stating that they have moved before the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court assailing, inter-alia, the order or reference and

the subsequent notice issued there upon and the Hon'ble

High Court passed an interim order dated 18.12.13 staying

the further proceeding of the reference. The management

also submitted a copy of the order dated 18.12.13 passed by

the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7385/13.

Accordingly the proceeding of the reference was stayed

with effect from 23.01.2014 until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7385/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititions preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1625

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting No relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 738-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 44@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&03&2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@15@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 738.—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. 44/

2013 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23.03.2015.

[No. L-30012/15/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata

Their Workman Sri Sujit Kr. Bhadra, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 44 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 23.02.2015

ORDER

23.02.2015.

The Case Record put up today with the order No. F.

No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4) W.P.

has been pleased to dispose of the instant reference case

(No. 44/2013) along with 47 Nos. of other reference case in

the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the Management

of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and the workman

Sri Sujit Kumar Bhadra, Tripura (West) (Claimant/Workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F.No. L-30012/15/2012-IR(M),

dated 23.08.2013. The Schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Sri Sujit

Kr. Bhadra, Ex-Contingent workman enaged in

seismic survey work through their Geophysical Party

w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in present of settlement dated

27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

During pendency of this proceeding the management after

obtaining time on few dates submitted a petition on 24.12.2013

stating that they have moved before the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court assailing, inter alia, the order or reference and the

subsequent notice issued thereupon and the Hon'ble High

Court passed an interim order dated 18.12.13 staying the

further proceeding of the reference. The management also

submitted a copy of the order dated 18.12.13 passed by the

Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7385/13.

Accordingly the proceeding of the reference was stayed

with effect from 24.12.2013 until further order.

On perusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7385/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititions preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

1626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 739-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&03&2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@17@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 739.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. I.D. No. 45/

2013 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23.03.2015.

[No. L-30012/17/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata

Their Workman Sri Shankar Kumar Shil, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 45 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 23.02.2015

ORDER

23.02.2015

The Case Record put up today with the order No. F.

No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958

of 2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013(4) W.P. (C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 45/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference case in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd., Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Sri Shankar Kumar Shil,

Tripura (West) (Claimant/Workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/17/2012-IR(M),

dated 23.08.2013. The Schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman

Sri Shankar Kumar Shil, Ex-Contingent workman

engaged in seismic survey work through their

Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of

settlement dated 27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

During pendency of this proceeding the management after

obtaining time on few dated submitted a petition on 24.12.2013

stating that they have moved before the Hon'ble Guwahati

High Court assailing, inter-alia, the order or reference and

the subsequent notice issued there upon and the Hon'ble

High Court passed an interim order dated 18.12.13 staying

the further proceeding of the reference. The management

also submitted a copy of the order dated 18.12.13 passed by

the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7385/13.

Accordingly, the proceeding of the reference was stayed

with effect from 24.12.2013 until further order.

On perusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7385/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal,

on the ground that since the memorandum of settlement

arrived at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in conciliation

proceeding before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C)

on 27th/28th January, 2001 and the same having been

acted upon by all the concerned parties, there could not

have been any occasion for the workmen involved in the

writ petitions to raise a further dispute already stood

settled as per the said settlement, and consequently no

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1627

reference could have been made for adjudication for the

issue raised; and set aside and quashed the reference

under challenge with observation that consequently, the

proceeding culminating from the said reference and

pending before the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court shall also

stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 740-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

47@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@10@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 740.—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. 47/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/10/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Ratan Chandra Das, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 47 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 23.02.2015

ORDER

23.02.2015.

The Case Record put up today with the order No. F.

No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of

the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of

2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of

2013(4) W.P. (C) No. 7385/2013 by which the Hon'ble

Guwahati High Court has been pleased to dispose of the

instant reference case (No. 47/2013) along with 47 nos. of

other reference case in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Sri Ratan Chandra Das,

Tripura (West) (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/10/2012-IR(M),

dated 22.08.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Sri Ratan

Chandra Das, S/o Late Manmohan Das, Ex-Contingent

workman enaged in seismic survey work through their

Geophysical Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in present of

settlement dated 27/28.1.2001, is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

During pendency of this proceeding the management after

obtaining time on few dates submitted a petition on 06.01.2014

stating that they have moved before the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court assailing, inter-alia, the order or reference and

the subsequent notice issued thereupon and the Hon'ble

High Court passed an interim order dated 18.12.13 staying

the further proceeding of the reference. The management

also submitted a copy of the order dated 18.12.13 passed by

the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7381/13.

Accordingly the proceeding of the reference was stayed

with effect from 06.01.2014 until further order.

On perusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy of

the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble High

Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7381/13 dated 18.11.14,

it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has been

pleased to allow the Writ Petitions preferred by the

management of ONGC challenging the claims of the workmen

as well as the order of reference and the subsequent notices

issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on the ground that since

the memorandum of settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the I.D.

Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th January, 2001 and

1628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the same having been acted upon by all the concerned

parties, there could not have been any occasion for the

workmen involved in the writ petitions to raise a further

dispute already stood settled as per the said settlement,

and consequently no reference could have been made for

adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside and quashed

the reference under challenge with observation that

consequently, the proceeding culminating from the said

reference and pending before the Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 741-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

46@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@18@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 741.—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. 46/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of O.N.G.C. Limited and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/18/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs.

Their Workman Sri Narayana Chandra Das, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 46 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 23.02.2015

ORDER

23.02.2015

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgment and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4)

W.P. (C) No. 7385/ 2013 by which the Hon'ble Gauhati High

Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant reference

case (No. 46/2013) along with 47 Nos. other reference case

in the matter of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management) and

the workman Sri Narayan Chandra Das, Tripura (West)

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/18/2012-IR(M),

dated 23.08.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman

Shri Narayan Ch. Das, Ex-Contigent workman enaged

in seismic survey work through their Geophycial Party

w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of settlement dated 27/

28.01.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

During pendency of this proceeding the management after

obtaining time on few dates submitted a petition on

06.01.2014 stating that they have moved before the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the order or

reference and the subsequent notice issued there upon

and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order dated

18.12.13 staying the further proceeding of the reference.

The management also submitted a copy of the order dated

18.12.13 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in

W.P.(C) No. 7385/13. Accordingly the proceeding of the

reference was stayed with effect from 06.01.2014 until

further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7385/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1629

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliatin proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 742-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

48@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@11@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 742.—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. 48/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

was received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/11/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present:Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Vs.

Their Workman Sri Tarun Kr. Ghosh, Tripura

(West).

Ref. Case No. 48 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 24.02.2015

ORDER

24.02. 2015

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P. (C) No. 7381 of 2013(4)

W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case(no. 48/2013 along with 47 Nos. of other

reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/

management) and the workman Sri Tarun Kr. Ghosh, Tripura

(west) (Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/11/2012-IR(M),

dated 23.08.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman Sri Tarun

Kr. Ghosh, S/o Shri A.C. Ghosh, Ex-Contingent

workman enaged in seismic survey work through

their Geophycial Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence

of settlement dated 27/28.01.2001, is legal and

justified? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The learned Advocate for the workman appeared and

prayed for adjournment for filling Claim Statement but no

claim statement filed by the workman . During pendency of

this proceeding the management after obtaining time on

few dates submitted a petition on 07.01.2014 stating that

they have moved before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

assailing, inter-alia, the order or reference and the

subsequent notice issued there upon and the Hon'ble High

Court passed an interim order dated 18.12.13 staying the

further proceeding of the reference. The management also

submitted a copy of the order dated 18.12.13 passed by the

Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7381/13.

Accordingly the proceeding of the reference was stayed

with effect from 07.01.2014 until further order.

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7381/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

1630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding culminating

from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Ministry

for information and necessary order.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 743-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

49@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@12@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 743.—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. 49/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 23/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/12/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Present: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Gauhati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata,

Their Workman Sri Rabindra Saha, Tripura (West).

Ref. Case No. 49 of 2013.

Copy of order dated 24.02.2015

ORDER

24.02.2015

The Case Record up today with the order No. F. No.

L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the Ministry

of Labour and Employment along with a copy of the

judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P.(C) No. 5958 of 2013 (2)

W.P.(C No. 7372 of 2013 (3) P.W.(C) No. 7381 of 2013(4)

W.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2013 by which the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant

reference case (No. 49/2013) along with 47 nos. of other

reference case in the matter of an Industrial Dispute between

the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/management)

and the workman Sri Rabindra Saha, Tripura (West)

(Claimant/workman).

This dispute arose between the employer in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and

the said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for

adjudication vide their No. F. No. L-30012/12/2012-IR(M),

dated 22.08.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., in terminating the services of workman

Shri Rabindra Saha, S/o Late Lalit Mohan Saha, Ex-

Contigent workman enaged in seismic survey work

through their Geophycial Party w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in

present of settlement dated 27/28.01.2001, is legal

and justified? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry

this reference case was registered and notices were issued

upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.

The learned Advocate for the workman appeared and

prayed for adjournment for filing Claim Statement but no

claim statement filed by the workman. During pendency of

this proceeding the management after obtaining time on

few dates submitted a petition on 07.01.2014 stating that

they have moved before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

assailing, inter-alia, the order or reference and the

subsequent notice issued thereupon and the Hon'ble High

Court passed an interim order dated 18.12.13 staying the

further proceeding of the reference. The management also

submitted a copy of the order dated 18.12.13 passed by the

Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7381/13.

Accordingly the proceeding of the reference was stayed

with effect from 07.01.2014 until further order.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1631

On persusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy

of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble

High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 7381/13 dated

18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court

has been pleased to allow the Writ Peititons preferred by

the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the

workmen as well as the order of reference and the

subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on

the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived

at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act 1947 in conciliation proceeding

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th

January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all

the concerned parties, there could not have been any

occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to

raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said

settlement, and consequently no reference could have been

made for adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside

and quashed the reference under challenge with

observation that consequently, the proceding from the said

reference and pending before the Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.

In view of the above circumstances this reference is

disposed of granting no relief to the workman.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 744-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 68@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@23@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, 1st April, 2015

S.O. 744.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 68/2012) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

01/04/2015.

[No. L-20012/23/2012-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 68 OF 2012

PARTIES : The Jt. General Secretary,

Bahujan Mazdoor Union,

Mines Rescue Station,

PO; Dhansar, Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL,

PO: Sijua, Distt: Dhanbad

Order No. L-20012/23/2012-IR (CM-I) dt.

13.08.2012

Appearances:

On behalf of the workman/Union:

None

On bahalf of the Management:

Mr. D.K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th Feb., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/23/2012-IR (CM-I) dt. 13.08.2012.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Sendra

Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL in terminating the

services of Sri Basnati Ram Napit w.e.f. 25.12.2002 is

legal and justified? To what relief is the workman

concerned entitled?"

2. None appeared for the Union Representative

Bahujan Mazdoor Union nor workman Basanti Ram Napit

nor any written statement along with any documents filed

in the Reference which is related to termination of his

service, but Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the OP/

Management is present.

From the perusal of the case record, it is apparent

that the Union Representative as well as the workman by

his conducts seems to be quite uninterested in contesting

the case. Though three Regd. Notices dt. 02.11.12, 20.06.13

and 03.09.13 were issued to the Joint General Secretary, of

1632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the Union concerned on his address noted in the Reference

itself, even then no response whatsoever ever came to the

Tribunal. This case has all along been pending for filing a

written statement along with the documents on behalf of

the workman. In this situation, it seems no longer an

Industrial Dispute. Hence the case is closed and accordingly

an order of No. Dispute Award is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 745-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 202@1998½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y- 20012@356@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vuqHkkx

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 202/1998)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/04/2015.

[No. L-20012/356/1997-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 202 OF 1998

PARTIES : The Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad,

Vs.

The General Manager,

Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL,

Vikas Bhawan, PO: Jharia,

Dhanbad

Order No. L-20012/356/97-IR (C-I)

dt. 30.11.1998

Appearances:

On behalf of the workman/Union:

Mr. S.N. Sinha,

Ld. Advocate

(now dead)

On bahalf of the Management:

Mr. U.N. Lal

Ld. Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 9th Feb., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

356/97-IR (C-I) dt. 30.11.1998.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management in

dismissing the services of Smt. Kuili Beldrin, OBR

Mazdoor, Kuila Colliery is justified? If not, so, to

what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/356/97-IR(C-I)

dt. 30.11.1998 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 202 of 1998 was registered on 31.12.1998 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

respective Ld. Counsels appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case of Smt. Kuili Beldarin as sponsored by

the BCKU is that she had been workwoman as a permanent

Mazdoor at Kuiya Colliery since long. But all of a sudden,

she had got a letter of her termination on the ground of

alleged unauthorized absence. The action of the

Management is illegal, aribitrary, unjustifed and against

the principles of natural justice.

The Union Representative in the rejoinder on her

behalf has specifically denied all the allegations of the OP/

Management as absolutely false, frivolous and motivated,

further stated that she had not received the chargesheet,

no question arose for reply. Though she had requested the

Management to grant her leave, it was never rejected; it

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1633

would be accordingly presumed as her leave accepted by

the Management.

3. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the

reference, the contra case of the OP/Management is that

workwoman Smt. Kuila Beldarin was working as an

overburden remover, but she unauthorizedly absented from

05.09.1993 from her duty, amounting to the misconduct

under the Certified Standing Orders of the Company

applicable to its establishment. She was chargesheeted by

the Management for it. She lastly submitted her reply to it

on 09.12.1995. After the appointment of Personnel Manager

B.K. Jha as the Enquiry Officer and Sri O.P. Singh as the

Management Representative respectively by the

management for the department enquiry, the Enquiry Officer

fairly held the enquiry in presence of the delinquent lady

employee in accordance with the principles of natural

justice, and submitted his enquiry report with all the enquiry

proceeding to the Disciplinary Authority holding her guilty

of the charges against her. On consideration of all the

relevant factors, the Management decided to dismiss her.

Accordingly, she was dismissed from her service for her

proved misconduct. The action of the Management in

dismissing her from service was legal, and justified. She is

not entitled to any relief.

Further alleged by the OP/Management is that the

Lady worker had represented before the Conciliation Officer

that she was mentally deranged, so she had absented from

her duties unauthorisedly that she had the representation

to the Management for grant of leave in view of that, but

her such plea was rejected as a concoction for defence.

Her admitted mental disease had incapacitated her to

perform her duties, she was not considered for her

employment as the overburden Remover in the Open Cast

Workings where there is a risk of life against heavy blasts.

Even an intermittent unsound minded workwoman can not

be deployed in it.In the situation, the workwoman is not

entitled to any relief.

The OP/Management in its simultaneous rejoinder

has categorically denied the allegations of the workwoman

as wrong, false and baseless.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the reference, at the hearing of the preliminary

point as to fairness of the domestic enquiry, when the OP/

Management produced only certain photocopy of enquiry

proceeding in stead of the original one, the Tribunal being

dissatisfied with those copies of the original documents

held the domestic enquiry unfair and not in accordance

with principle of natural justice as per the Order No. 34 dt.

17.5.2006 directng for evidence of the Management on

merits. So the OP/Management produced and examined

MWI one Prakash Singh, the Leave Clerk of Dewari Colliery,

on merits, who was cross-examined by the Court, not by

the Union Representative for the workwoman despite

waiting for a long time.

5. Mr. U.N. Lal, Learned Counsel for the OP/

Management by examining MWI Om Prakash Singh on

merits has proved the domestic enquiry held fairy wherein

the charge of unauthorized absentism conduct was proved

against the delinquent lady employee, who failed to justify

her absence from duty by producing any document of her

treatment for her mental depression, her dismissal by the

Management for the proved misconduct of unauthorized

absentism as per the Order dt. 7.05.1996 (Ext M. 6) in view

of the grave nature of her misconduct was quite justified.

None could appear for the workwoman to argue on her

behalf at any time.

6. On perusal and consideration of the materials

available on the case record, it appears to be no dispute

that the Lady delinquent employee was a permanent

employee of the Colliery concerned of M/s BCCL. There is

also the indisputable fact that she could not be present on

duty from 11.09.1993 due to the loss of her mental balance,

for which she had been under treatment by Dr. Mukesh

Kumar Sinha, RMA Kanke, at Ranchi from 16.09.1993 to

13.11.1995 as per her application dt. 16.11.1995 with

photocopy of her Doctor's Certificate (Ext. M. 7), but she

had no proof of any application to the OP/Management

except the seven dates of sending the information to the

Office of the OP/Management (Ext. M. 8).

Besides there seems no second Show Cause issued

by the Management to the Lady employee prior to her

dismissal from her service.

Under these circumstances, I find that the penalty of

dismissal to the Lady workwoman for her authorized

absence is harsh and disproportionate to her misconduct.

It is liable to set aside under Se. 11A of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947.

In result, it is hereby awarded that the action of the

Management in dismissing the services of Smt. Kuili

Beldarin, OBR Mazdoor, Kuila Colliery is unjustified. She

is entitled to her reinstatement in the service of the Company

without back wages, but subject to fitness at her Medical

Examination by the Apex Medical Board of the Company,

otherwise to her legal and final dues.

The OP/Management is directed to implement the

Award within one month following its publication in Gazette

of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 746-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

1634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

U;k;ky;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 51@1997½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y- 20012@66@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 51/1997) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. CCL and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

01/04/2015.

[No. L-20012/66/1996-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 51 OF 1997

PARTIES : Babulal Manjhi,

By Shri C.S. PATHAK, PO: Topa Colliery,

Harzaribagh

Vs.

The General Manager

Topa Colliery of M/s CCL,

PO: Topa, Distt., Hazaribagh,

Order No. L-20012/66/96-IR (C-I) dt. 03.04.1997

Appearances:

On behalf of the workman/Union:

Mr. C.S. Pathak,

Rep. of the

workman

On bahalf of the Management:

Mr. M.F. Haque,

Manager

(personnel) as

Management's

Rep.

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 13th Feb., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/66/96-IR (C-I) dt. 03.04.1997.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Topa

Colliery of M/s CCL, Hazaribagh, in dismissing Shri

Babulal Manjhi w.e.f. 31.12.1994 if justitied? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/66/96-IR(C-I) dt.

03.04.1997 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 51 of 1997 was registered on 15.04.1997 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

respective Representatives appeared and contested the

case, under Sec. 36(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947.

2. The case of workman Babulal Manjhi as stated in

his written statement is that he was a permanent employee

of Topa Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. He is quite

illiterate. He had absented from his duty for urgent

unavoidable reasons due to sudden serious illness of his

son. But the Management without any service of the charge

sheet upon him or without any Notice of enquiry, conducted

an alleged enquiry and illegally dismissed him from his

service against the principle of natural justice. So his

dismissal being harsh and disproportionate is liable to set

aside or unjustified. Moreover, the workman is a member of

Schedule Tribe, so he deserves statutory rights for

protection of human right against the unreasonable act of

the Management.

The workman in his rejoinder has specifically denied

all the allegations of the Management as misleading,

malafide, vague and irrelevant. Further stating that all the

alleged chargesheet, notice of enquiry and allged enquiry

report were never issued or served upon his nor he nor his

any co-worker appeared in the enquiry. The enquiry was a

fabrication to deprive him of him of his defence. When the

workman reported for his duty on 18.11.1994, his thumb

Impression was given by him in his belief of joining his

duty. It could not be construed as his reply to the

chargesheet. He had no opportunity to know or participate

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1635

in the enquiry. Further alleged that the order of dismissal is

dt. 6.1.1995, whereas the dismissal was w.e.f. 31.12.1994, so

punishment could not be retrospective under the law. So

his dismissal was quite illegal and unreasonable, as the

Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority conducted

themselves in their most casual and arbitrary manner. As

such there was no legal and competent order of his dismissal.

3. Whereas the contra case of the OP/Management

is that the reference is not legally maintainable and the

workman had developed the habit of absenting from his

duty unauthorisedly. He was also warned for has

unauthorized absentism from 11.02.1993 to 27.05.1993. Even

thereafter he was also punished with the stoppage of two

increments (stoppage of two Special Piece Rated

Allowances) for his again unauthorized absentism from

20.08.1993 to 22.09.1993. When he again began to

unauthorisedly absent from his duty w.e.f. 3.09.1994, he

was issued the chargesheet dt. 13.10.1994 without any

justification, he submitted his reply to the chargesheet by

admitting his guilty, taking the plea for his absence due to

sickness of his son. Finding the explanation of the workman

unsatisfactory, the enquiry was set up by the Disciplinary

Authority by appointing Shri S. Tiwary, the Dy. Personnel

Manager of the Topa Colliery as the Enquiry Officer as per

the Memo dt. 19.11.1994 as well as Shri N.K. Vishawakarma,

the Under Manager as the Management Representative.

The Workman was advised to appoint his co-worker for

his defence. On notice of the enquiry, the workman with

his co-worker Jay Nath Mahato participated in the

departmental enquiry on 29.11.1994. He was given full

opportunity for his defence. After the enquiry, the Enquiry

Officer submitted his enquiry report, by holding the

workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thus,

the Enquiry was held fairly, properly and in accordance

with the principle of natural justice. The workman never

raised any objection against any of the Authorities of the

enquiry. After due consideration of the enquiry report and

entire proceedings, records and relevant factors, the

Competent Authority approved for his dismissal. In result,

the workman was dismissed from his service w.e.f.

31.12.1994 to the intimation of the workman as per the

letter dt. 6.1.1995 of the Agent of the Project. The action

of the Management was valid, legal and justified.

The OP/Management in its simultaneous rejoinder

has categorically denied all the allegations of the workman

as incorrect, baseless and imaginary.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant case at the preliminary point after

taking the evidence of both the parties namely MW1 Basant

Kumar and WW1 Babulal Manjhi respectively, the Tribunal

as per Order No. 61 held the domestic enquiry quite fair,

proper and in accordance with principle of natural justice.

It resulted in hearing the final arguments of both the parties

on merits.

Mr. C. S. Pathak, the Union Representative for the

workman, has argued that despite giving a reasonable

justification by the workman for his unauthorized sudden

absence from his duty due to sudden illness and treatment

of his own son as replied in his application (Ext. M.3) to the

chargesheet dt. 1/3/10.94 (Ext. M.2) as well as in his

statement before the Enquiry Officer, the workman's case

was unconsidered by the OP/Management and after the

enquiry, he was dismissed from his service for his absentism,

his dismissal was very harsh to the nature of his

misconduct, as he is entitled to reinstatement in the service

with back wages, None could appear for the OP/

Management for final argument.

On perusal and consideration of the materials

available on the case record, I find in the case that no

second Show Cause appears to have been issued to the

workman prior to the termination of his service. The idea of

punishment also, by its very nature of things, includes

within its spheres, attempts and efforts to improve the

conduct of the offender as the instant employer tried its

best towards the illiterate workman in the instant case. The

workman appears tohave all along reasonably justified his

absence from his duty for a month at the relevant time. So

the infliction of the dismissal penalty to the delinquent

workman for his absence misconduct appears to be harsh

and disproportionate to its nature. When the punishment

is shocking disproportionate, keeping in view the particular

misconduct and the past record no reasonable employer

would have imposed in such circumstances, it may be

treated as showing victimization or unfair Labour practice

as held in the case of Hindustan Construction & Engg. Co.

Ltd. Vs. Their workman, 1965(2) SCR 85. In the present

circumstances, the dismissal Order dt. 6/7/1/1995 of the

OP/Management towards the workman is liable to be set

aside under Sec. 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

In result, it is hereby awarded that the action of the

Management of Topa Colliery of M/s CCL, Hazaribagh,

in dismissing Sri Babulal Manjhi w.e.f. 31.12.1994 is not

justified. Hence; the workman is entitled to reinstatement

in his service but without back wages. The OP/Management

is directed to implement the Award within one month from

the date of its receipt, following its publication by the

Government of India in the Gazette.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 747-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2]

/kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2002½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@578@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

1636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 24/2002

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of the

M/s. BCCL and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 01/04/2015.

[No. L-20012/578/2001-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Seciton

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 24 OF 2002.

PARTIES : The Organizing Secretary

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Rajendra

Path, Dhanbad

Vs. Project Officer,

Bagdigi Colliery of M/s BCCL

PO: Khasjeenagora, Dhanbad.

Ministry's Order No. L-20012/578/2001.I.R.

(C-1) dt. 01-03-2002

Appearances:

On behalf of the workman/Union :

Mr. B.B. Pandey,

Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the Management :

Mr. D.K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 17th Feb., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

578/2001.I.R.(C-I) dt. 01.03.2002

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Bagdigi

Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Ram Saran

Paswan from the services of the Company is justified.

If not, to what relief is the concerned workman

entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/578/2001.I.R.

(C-I) dt. 01.03.2002 the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 24 of 2002 was registered on 01.04.2002 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents, in pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties, made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

respective Ld. Counsels appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case of sponsoring Union for workman Ram

Saran Paswan is that he had been working as Pump Khalasi

since his employment under the Scheme SC/ST at bagdigi

Colliery. He was issued chargesheet dt. 18.11.1999. Despite

his satisfactory explanation to the chargesheet the

Management held the departmental enquiry against the

principles of natural justice, as he was not given sufficient

opportunity for his defence. The findings of the Enquiry

Officer appreciation the representation of the workman dt

4.3.2001 were perverse, though the workman was earlier

also issued a chargesheet of the same and similar nature

which could be proved. He was illegally and unjustifiably

dismissed by the Management as per order dt. 9.4.2001. So

the action of the Management in dismissing him for the

service of the company is unjustified. Thus he is entitled

to his entitlement with full back wages and consequential

benefits.

The workman in his rejoinder has categorically denied

all the allegations the OP/Management.

3. Whereas the OP/Management in its written-cum-

rejoinder has alleged that the present Reference is

unmaintainable in law and facts both. It is also alleged that

the Management got a complain that workman is actually

Chandrika Paswan S/o Late Musafir Paswan of Village:

Adha, PS Chandradeep, Distt: Jamui but not Shri Ram Saran

Paswan was issued the chargesheet for the concealment

of his identity at the time of his employment and for working

in the name of other person amounting to misconduct. The

workmen's reply to was not satisfactory. So the

Management set up the domestic enquiry to be held by Sr.

Personnel Officer S.K. Thakur as the Enquiry Officer, the

Enquiry Officer conducted fairly and the domestic enquiry

in presence of the workmen. After the enquiry, the Enquiry

Officer submitted his report holding the charges leveled

against him proved. In view of the serious misconduct, he

was dismissed from the services of the Company as per

order dt. 9.4.2001 which was legal and justified. The OP/

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1637

Management sought for permission to be proved the

charges on merits in the case the enquiry at preliminary

issue found unfair and improper.

The OP/Management in its rejoinder has specifically

denied the allegation of the workman as incorrect and

irrelevant.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In course of the hearing at the prelminary issue,

the Tribunal as per Order No. 16 dt. 22.12.2005 had held the

domestic enquiry as fair, proper and in accordance with the

principle of natural justice, hence, it came up for hearing on

final arguments of both the parties on merits.

Mr. B.B. Pandey, the Ld. Advocate for the workman

submits that in view of the alleged misconduct against

workman Ram Saran Paswan for concealment of facts of

his identity at the time of employment and for working in

the name of other person Ram Saran Paswan despite his

original name Chandrika Paswan S/o Late Musafir Paswan

of Village: Adha, PS: Chandradeep, Distt: Jamui as stated in

the chargesheet dt. 18.1.1999 (Ext. M 3) though no charge

could be proved against him substantially as also found

by the Enquiry Officer concerned in his enquiry report

(Ext. M.8), he was illegally and unreasonably dismissed by

the Management from the services of the Company with

immediate effect as per the Order dt. 9/9.09.04.2001 (Ext.

M.10) as such it has been submitted for the reinstatement

of the workman with full back wages.

Just contrary to it, Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Counsel for

the OP/Management has contended that on the domestic

enquiry on complaint of Manti Devi D/o Late Ganga

Paswan, who was married to Chandrika Paswan in 1982, it

has clearly found, that the alleged workman having his

original name Chandrika Paswan S/o Late Musafir Paswan

had been working as Ram Saran Paswan by impersonating

him. It has also submitted by Mr. Verma that the Service

Record of the alleged workman reveals that he had two

wives: one aforesaid Manti Devi and Second Fekni Devi. It

is settled law that the domestic enquiry warrants theory of

preponderance or theory of probability but not the standard

of proof as required for a criminal of charge. Further, it has

been contended by Mr. Verma, Ld. Counsel for OP/

Management that the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased

to hold in the case of Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. West Bokaro

Colliery (2006), that while appraising the evidences under

Sec. 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (herein after

referred to as the I.D. Act.), the Tribunal has power to

appraise the evidences on the basis of preponderance of

probability, so the allegations levelled against the workman

was duly proved in the enquiry, though the Enquiry Officer

held in the enquiry no proof substantially, he held the

identity of the workman was doubtful. Therefore at 2nd

Show Cause Notice, the workman was illegally and

unjustifiably dismissed from service in view of the grave

nature of his misconduct; and the penalty of dismissal for

it was quite proportionate to the nature of the gross-

misconduct of the workman.

On the perusal and appreciation of the materials

available on the case record, I find it seems no dispute that

Manti Devi, the daughter of Late Ganga Paswan who was

married to Chandrika Paswan S/o Late Mushafir Paswan at

Village: Adha (Distt. Mungar) in the year 1982. She appears

to have clearly asserted the man working in the name of

Ram Saran Paswan at Bagdigi Colliery is aforesaid her

husband Chandrika Paswan who belongs to village: Adha

where his photo was recognized by the villagers of Adha

Gram as the son of Late Musafir Paswan. The materials

also reveal that it is her husband Chandrika Paswan who

had been serving as Ram Saran Paswan S/o Ganga Paswan

of Village Lodna No. 4, PO: Lodna, P.S. Tisra Distt:

Dhanband through impersonation at Bagdigi Colliery. The

argument of Mr. Verma appears to be more plausible.

Under these circumstances, I find that the penalty of

dismissal to Ram Saran Paswan S/o Ganga Paswan from

the service of the Company is quite proportionate to the

grave nature of his serious misconduct. It is hereby awarded

that the action of the Management of Bagdigi Colliery of

M/s BCCL in dismissing the alleged workman Ram Saran

Paswan from the services of the company is quite justified.

The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 748-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj fVLdks ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 91@2003½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&20012@40@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&1½]

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 91/2003) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. TISCO

and their workman, received by the Central Government on

01/04/2015.

[No. L-20012/40/2003-IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

1638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 91 OF 2003

PARTIES : The Organizing Secretary

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Rajendra

Path, Dhanbad

Vs. The General Manager, (Collieries)

Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.,

At/PO: Jamadoba, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/40/2003.I.R.(C-1)

dt. 22-08-2003

Appearances:

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. N.G. Arun,

Ld. Representative

for workman

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th Feb., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

40/2003.I.R.(C-I) dt. 22.08.2003.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s Tisco

in not providing employment to the dependent son

of Late Taralal Rajwar is fair and justified? If not, to

what relief is the said dependent entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/40/2003.I.R.(C-I)

dt. 22.08.2003 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 91 of 2003 was registered on 06.10.2003 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents, in pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties, made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

respective Ld. Counsels appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case of the Sponsoring Rashtriya Colliery

mazdoor Sangh for petitioner dependent son of Late Taralal

Rajwar is that Late workman had been working as the

Electrical Fitter Helper at Malkera Colliery of M/s Tisco Ltd

since his appointment on 21.10.1976. In course of his

regularly treatment for acute tuberculosis at Jamadoba

Hospital of M/s Tisco, the diseased workman turned out

to be to its seriously incurable stage. The diseased workman

had several times requested the Management for

employment of his dependant son, because he was

incapable to discharge his duty properly as provided under

the provisions of the Company and as practices in vogue

in it. The workman in course of his treatment expired on

01.09.1995 at Tata's Central Hospital, Jamadoba, Dhanbad.

Though the petitioner even after death of his father made

several correspondences the letters dt. 16.12.1995 to the

letter dt. 19.07.2000, but the Management motivatedly

neither discharged the workman nor periodically forwarded

him to the Medical Board for assessment of his disability

as provided under the Mines Rules/Act. Yet many outsiders

having no legitimate right were illegally given employment

in the Company just as to those dependents whose fathers

or Guardian had never suffered from any incurable diseases;

cancer, T.B., Leprosy, Lunatic or acute one. Despite

assurance of the Management to the petitioner and even

to the union, the action of the Management in not providing

an employment to the petitioner dependent son of Late

workman is illegal and unjustified. Finally, the Industrial

Dispute raised before the A.L.C. (C), Dhanbad due to its

failure in conciliation resulted in the reference for an

adjudication.

The Union Representative for the petitioner in his

rejoinder has specifically denied all the allegations of the

Management, further stating that the petitioner has

inherited his right to employment after the death of his

father workman, for which the Management is bound by

the provisions of the social Security under the NCWA and

employment procedure of M/s TISCO.

3. Whereas the contra case of the OP/Management

with categorical details is that the Industrial Dispute is

unmaintainable in fact and law, as no relationship between

petitioner and the Management exists and the demand of

employee for a non-employee is not an Industrial Dispute

under Sec. 2(k) of the I.D. Act. Such employees desirous

for employment of their dependents need to get enrolled

the names of their in the Employees' Dependent Register

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1639

on completion of their 15-year service in the Steel Company.

Then their much dependents are considered for employment

in case of vacancy in order of length of service of their

guardian employee along with others in preference. As per

the Company's employment procedure, one dependent of

an employee who resigns or stands discharged on medical

ground due to his suffering from T.B., Pneumoconiosis

and cancer gets an employment, provided the employee

has put in a minimum five years of service, and is below 55

years age at the time of his medical discharge, and name of

his dependent is in Employment, Register. The deceased

employee during his service neither resigned nor medically

discharged on any of the grounds T.B., Pneumoconiosis

and cancer. So his dependent petitioner neither is nor can

be entitled for employment, as it was not acceded to it by

the Management in the joint meeting of the recognized

Union and the Management held on 15.03.2002. The

Management had already introduced various schemes such

VRS/ESS for surplus man power. In the circumstances, the

employment opportunity in the establishment of the

Management is very limited. Besides, a large number of

workmen are already waiting for such employment even

after their 30 or more years of services. The demand of the

Union is liable to be rejected as meritless.

The OP/Management in their simultaneous rejoinder

has categorically denied all the allegations as incorrect,

further stating that the management had also considered

the case of the workman in the joint meeting of both the

parties held in 22.09.2001, and the request of the Union for

it was not acceded as per the discussion.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant reference, WWI Vinash Rajwar, the

petitioner son of Late workman for the Union, and MW 1

Sapan Kr. Patra, the Asstt. of Jamadoba GM Office for the

OP/Management have been respectively examined.

Petitioner Vinash Rajwar as the dependent son of

deceased workman Taralal Rajwar has submitted that his

father was working as electrical Fitter Helper at Malkera

Colliery of M/s Tisco, the name of petitioner Vinash

Rajwar was enrolled in the Employees Dependent

(Ext. W.1); his father had been suffering from incurable

disease, i.e., T.B. and in course of his treatment for long

time at Jamadoba Hospital of the Company, he had

represented before the Management for his discharge from

his service due to his inability to perform his duty properly

as well as for an employment in his place, but the workman

expired on 01.09.1995 as per his Death Certificate issued by

the aforesaid Tata's Central Hospital of Jamadoba (Ext. W.2);

thereafter, despite the assurance of the Management on

representations for his employment (Ext. W.3 & 3/1), the

Management lastly denied the employment of the petitioner

as the dependent son of the deceased workman which is

unjustified" as such the petitioner is entitled to his

employment in place of his father as per the provisions of

the M/s Tisco.

Whereas the contention of Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld.

Advocate for OP/Management is that the Management of

M/s Tisco has its own procedure of employment, according,

to which every employee of the Company on completion

of his 15 years service is entitled to get the name of his

dependent enrolled in the E.D.R. (Employee Dependent

after vacancy on seniority basis. Further it is submitted by

Mr. Verma, that as per another provision of the procedure

for the employment is that if employee disqualifies for his

employment on account of his incurable disease such as

TB, Cancer etc. at his periodical Medical examination, his

dependent gets such employment; but in the instant case,

undoubtedly the Father of the petitioner was not discharged

from his service on such medical ground and the

Management had also assured of his employment according

to his seniority; as such there was no cause of action for

the reference, as there is not straightway provisions for

employment in the Management according to their

provisions.

On perusal of the materials available on the case

record, it prima facie appears that in the face of the letters

dt. 4/8.7.1997 and 2/5.11.1998 (Extt. W.4 series) to Smt. Taruni

Devi, W/o deceased workman Taralal Rajwar whereby the

Management has instructed that her petitioner son Binash

Rajwar would have to wait for his term for his employment

along with others against requirement/vacancy in future

as per Employment procedure invoque at the relevant

time, the Management's decision as per the Minutes of

meeting of both the parties dt. 22.09.2001 and

15.03.2002 (Ext. W.3 series) not to accede to the request

of the Union in view of the aforesaid circumstances of

the case beyond the control of the deceased workman for

his acute illness of T.B. and his representation to that effect

is quite contrary and arbitrary.

In result, it is awarded that the action of the

Management of M/s Tisco in not providing employment

to the dependent son (Binash Rajwar which is wrongly

noted as Bikash Rajwar in the Minutes) is quite unfair and

unjustified. Hence, the dependent son of the deceased

workman Taralal Rajwar is entitled to employment in the

serivce of M/s Tisco in the event of requirement/vacancy

in the collieries/department of the Company, even by

relaxing his age, if any.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 749-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

1640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] uañ 2

/kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 35@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&04&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@72@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2015

S.O. 749.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 35/2007

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workman, received by the Central Government on

01.04.2015.

[No. L-20012/72/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Seciton

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE No. 35 OF 2007

PARTIES : The Joint Secretary,

Rastriya Mazdoor Union, Rangatand Railway

Colony,

Qr No. 55 B, O/H, Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager

E.J. Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal India Ltd.,

PO: Bhowra, Distt: Dhanbad.

Ministry's Order No. L-20012/72/2007-IR

(CM-I) dt. 23-07-2007

Appearances:

On behalf of the Workman/Union: Mr. M.N. Rewani

Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. U.N. Lal,

Ld. Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th Feb., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

72/2007.I.R.(CM-I) dt. 23.07.2007.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Bhowra

(N) U.G. Mines of M/s BCCL in dismissing the

services of Shri Aklu Bouri, Miner/Loader, w.e.f.

31.03.2005 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief

is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. Neither the Union Representative for the workman

nor workman Aklu Bouri appeared, but Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld.

Advocate for the Management as usual is present.

Perused the case record, I find Mr. M.N. Rewani, the

Joint Secretary of the Union concerned had earlier filed a

petition date 02.01.2009 as referred in the order sheet

25.1.2011 that since the OP/Management had proposed for

the reinstatement of the workman in the same capacity to

which the Union had no objection, so the case may be

allowed to withdraw as No Dispute. Till now, it has been

pending for hearing over the petition.

Under these circumstances, it is no longer an

Industrial dispute, the case is closed as 'No Industrial

Disput' and accordingly, it is passed an order of 'No Dispute

Award'.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 750-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

bathfu;j ¼bysfDVªdy½ fMohtu u- 1 ¼flfoy½ vkdk'kok.kh ds

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

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

Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 09@2010½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&04&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@144@99&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 750.—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. 09/

2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Executive Engineer (electric), Division

No. 1 (Civil), Akashvani and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 01-04-2015.

[No. L-42012/144/99-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1641

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Raresh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 09/2010

Ref. No. L-42012/144/99-IR(DU) dated: 11.5.2010

BETWEEN

Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Raj Kumar

H. No. 565/72, Jodha Khera

Pooran Nagar, Alambagh

Lucknow

AND

The Executive Engineer (electric)

Division No. 1 (Civil)

Civil Nirman Skandh, Akashvani

10th Floor, Suchna Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road

New Delhi-110003

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/144/99-IR(DU) dated:

11.05.2010 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

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

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

industrial dispute detween Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Raj

Kumar, H. No. 565/72, Jodha Khera, Pooran Nagar,

Alambagh, Lucknow and the Executive Engineer (electric)

Division No. 1 (Civil), Civil Nirman Skandh, Akashvani,

10th Floor, Suchna Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi for adjudication to this CGIT-Cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

(ELECTRICAL) ALL INDIA RADIO, NAZIBABAD,

IN TERMINTING THE SERVICES OF SHRI ASHOK

KUMAR W.E.F. 06-06-1988 IS LEGAL AND

JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?"

3. The case of the workman, Ashok Kumar, in brief is

that he was appointed as Causal Labour in the office of

Executive Engineer (Civil), All India Radio, Lucknow on

02.05.1986 and continued as such up to 30.9.1986 without

any break. It is submitted by the workman that thereafter,

he was re-engaged in the office of Exective Engineer

Nazibabad as Khallasi on Muster Roll w.e.f. 11.06.1987 and

worked up to 06.06.1988 on monthly salary of Rs. 875/-. It is

alleged by the workman that the services of the workman

were retrenched w.e.f. 06.06.1988 vide order dated 06.06.1988

without complying with the mandatory provisions of

Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 i.e. without

notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment

compensation since he has worked for more than 240 days

in a year. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his

retrenchment/termination be declared illegal and he be

reinstated with consequential benefits including full back

wages.

4. The management of the All India Radio has filed

its written statement; wherein it has denied the claim of the

workman and has submitted that the workman had ever

been appointed by the Department in ay capacity nor has

he completed 240 days of working in a year, as such, there

was no termination of his services at any point of time. The

management has submitted that since the workman never

completed 240 days in a year therefore, there arises no

question of violation of any of the provisions of the I.D.

Act or compliance of provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D.

Act, 1947. The management has submitted that the claim of

the workman suffers with the vice of delay and lashes as

he has preferred the present industrial dispute after a lapse

of 22 years. Accordingly, the management has prayed that

the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any

merit.

5. The workman has filed rejoinder wherein apart from

reiterating his averments already made in the statement of

claim, he has submitted that he has worked for 356 days

with the opposite party. On the point of delay the workman

has referred to the order dated 26.03.2010 of the Hon'ble

High Court, Allahabad, in Writ Petition No. 6575/1999;

wherin the petitioner/workman has been given liberty to

approach the Central Government with fresh representation

within three months and accordingly, he moved the

representation before the Central Government vide letter

dated 17.04.2010. It is submitted by the workman that on

this representation, the Central Government referred the

present industrial dispute vide order dated 11.05.2010 to

this Tribunal for ajudication, hence there is no delay on the

part of workman.

6. The parties have filed documentary evidence in

support of their respective pleadings. The workman has

examined himself whereas the management has examined

Shri L.K. Salgat, Exective Engineer in support of their

respective case. The parties availed opportunity to cross-

examine the witnesses of each other apart from forwarding

oral orguments.

7. Heard authorized representatives of the parties at

length and perused the records available on file.

8. The authorized representative of the workman has

contended that the workman has worked continuously for

356 days in year and accordingly it was mandatory for the

management to comply with the provisions of Section 25F

of the Act before retrenching the services of the workman.

He has relied on State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Pal Singh &

another 2012(2) ALJ 325.

1642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

9. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

opposite party has agrued that the workman was neither

appointed nor engaged by the management; nor had worked

for 240 days in a year; therefore, there arise no question for

his retrenchment or compliance of any of the provisions of

the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The management has

also contended that the workman has raised the present

industrial dispute after a long gap of 22 years, therefore,

the same is barred with the law of limitation. He has relied

on Secretary, State of Karnataka & others vs. Uma Devi (3)

& others (2006) 4 SCC.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival contentions of the parties and scanned entire evidence

on record in light thereto.

11. The workman has come up with the case that he

worked with the opposite party management for more than

240 days in a year even then the management retrenched

his services without giving him any notice or notice pay in

lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation, in violation

to the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. He has filed

photocopy of following documents:

(i) Work certificate for the period from 02.05.86 to

30.09.86, paper No. 4/9.

(ii) Work certificate for the period from 11.6.87 to 6.6.88,

paper No. 4/10.

(iii) The order of retrenchment order dated 06.06.88,

paper No. 4/11.

(iv) Due drawn bill in respect of workman for the period

from 11.6.87 to 7.6.88 for Rs. 1560.80 paper No. 4/19.

(v) Hand receipt for Rs. 1561/- paper No. 4/20.

(vi) Duplicate receipt for Rs. 1561/- paper No. 4/21.

The workman has also filed additional document vide

application dated 23.3.2012 and 05.11.2012, which included

photo copy of Muster Roll. The Muster Rolls were obtained

through RTI. The relevant documents filed, vide application

dated 23.3.2012, are as under:

(i) Work certificate from 02.05.86 to 30.09.86, paper No.

16/2 & 16/3.

(ii) Datails of working and payment to workman from

May, 86 to September, 86, paper No. 16/4.

(iii) Work certificate from 11.6.87 to 6.6.88, paper No.

16/5.

(iv) Muster roll for the period from 11.6.1987 to 10.7.87.

(v) Muster roll for the period from 26.10.1987 to 24.11.87.

(vi) Muster roll for the period from 22.7.1987 to 20.8.87.

(vii) Muster roll for the period from 21.8.1987 to 19.9.87.

12. In rebuttal, the management has come up with a

clear cut case that the workman is totally stranger to them

as they have neither appointed him nor engaged him nor

had he completed 240 days working with them, then there

is no question of retrenching his services. When the

workman moved an application before this Tribunal, for

summoning original records for the relevant period of his

working with the management, the management filed

photocopy of Muster Roll regarding working of workman

with them vide list of documents dated 5.11.2012.

(i) Muster roll for the period from 11.6.1987 to 10.7.87.

(ii) Muster roll for the period from 22.7.1987 to 20.8.87.

(iii) Muster roll for the period from 21.7.1987 to 19.8.87.

(iv) Muster roll for the period from 26.10.1987 to 24.11.87.

13. It is settled law that when a party invokes the

jurisdiction of the Court for favourable orders then burden

of proof heavily lies upon it to prove its pleadings. The

workman has filed photocopy of work certificates, purported

to be issued by the officers of the opposite party but the

management has disputed their genuineness. The

management has also denied the payment details filed by

the workman for the period May 86 to September, 86. The

management in its pleadings as well in its evidence has

repeatedly submitted that it has never appointed/engaged

the workman nor he completed 240 days of working nor his

services have been retrenched by it. But when on the

application of the workman, this Tribunal directed vide its

order dated 25.06.2012 to file muster rolls for the period

from 2.5.86 to 30.9.86 and 11.6.87 to 6.6.88, the management

filed muster rolls for the intermittent period from i.e. from

11.6.87 to 10.7.87, 22.7.87 to 20.8.87, 21.7.87 to

19.8.87 and 26.10.87 to 24.11.87. The management has not

mentioned any reason for non-filing of muster rolls for

other period it was ordered to file. From scrutiny of the

Muster Rolls it comes out that the management has

furnished copy of muster roll for the period from 21.8.87

to 19.9.87 to the workman in reply to the RTI but has not

filed the same before this Tribunal in compliance of order

dated 25.06.2012. This goes to show that the management

is not with the clean hand.

Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph of 15 of its

judgement in Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs.

Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda 2010 AIR SCW 542 has

observed as under.

"Applying the principles laid down in the above case

by this Court, the evidene produced by the appellants

has not been consistent. The appellants claim that

the respondent did not work for 240 days. The

respondent was a workman hired on a daily wage

basis. So it is obvious as this court pointed out in

the above case that he would have difficulty in

having access to all the official documents, muster

rolls etc. in connection with the service. He has come

forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden

of proof shifts to the employer/appellants to prove

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1643

that he did not complete 240 days of service in the

requisite period to consititute continuous service.

The witness produced by the appellant stated that

the respondent stopped coming to work from

February, 1988. The documentary evidence produced

by the appellant is contradictory to this fact as it

shows that the respondent was working during

February, 1989 also. It has also been observed by

the High Court that the muster roll for 1986-87 was

not completely produced. The appellants have

inexplicably failed to produce the complete records

and muster rolls from 1985 to 1991, in spite of the

direction issued by the Labour Court to produce the

same. In fact there has been practically no challenge

to the deposition of the respondent during cross-

examination. In this regard, it would pertinent to

mention the observation of three-Judge Bench of

this court in the case of Municiplal Corporation,

Faridabad vs. Siri Niwas (2004) 8 SCC 195: 2004 AIR

SCW 5184, where it is observed:

"A Court of Law even in a case were provisions of

the Indian Evidence Act apply, may presume or may

not presume that if a party despite possession of the

best evidence had not produced the same, it would

have against this contentions. The matter, however,

would be different where dispite direction by a court

the evidence is withheld."

Thus, in view of the law pronounced by Hon'ble

Apex Court, hereinabove, the burden of proof was on the

management to come forward with cogent documentary

evidence that the workman did not complete 240 days of

service in the requisite period of one year; but the

management in order to check the workman has taken the

best recourse of denying the appointment/engagement of

the workman in any form at any point of time. But very

surprisingly it filed the Muster Rools for approximately

three months; whereas it supplied muster rolls for the four

months to the workman in reply to an RTI application. The

production of selective documents/muster rolls by the

management before this Tribunal proves malice on the part

of the management, who had been time and again reiterating

that it neither appointed/engaged the workman nor

retrenched him but when it was compelled to file the muster

rolls, it filed muster rolls approximately for three months

only. Hence, the management utterly failed to discharge

the burden that lied upon it, leaving no option but to rely

on the photocopy of the documentary evidence in support

of the working filed by the wokman.

14. In Surenderanager Panchayat and another v.

Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon'ble

Apex Court came to the conclusion that the workman could

be entitled for the protection of section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 provided he is successful in establishing

the fact that he had been in employment with the employer

for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly in twelve calendar

months preceding the date of termination.

In order to prove, continuous 240 days working with

the management, the workman has filed number of working

certificate, which have been disputed by the management

being forged. The management witness, Sri L.K Salgat, in

his evidence has stated that the management never

appointed the workman nor he worked with it for 240 days

nor his services has retrenched at any piont of time; but

during cross-examination he admitted 120 days working of

the workman with the management, hence, the statement

made by the management witness is contrary to the

pleadings and his evidence, making the pleading non-

reliable. The workman has also filed photocopy of the due-

drawn bill in respect of the workman for the period 11.6.87

to 07.6.88, paper NO. 4/19. When the management witness

was cross-examined over this point, he stated that the paper

No. 4/19 is not 'bill' but is 'due drawn statement' and

payment is not made against it. He further stated that "Bill

pass gqvk Fkk ij Hkqxrku ugha gqvk gS**-

This goes to show that although the bill against due

drawn statement was passed but the payment could not be

made to the workman for the reasons best known to the

management. The above due drawn statement, paper No.

4/19 is due drawn bill of the workman for the period 11.6.1987

to 7.6.88 for 272 days and the management witness has

admitted that bill for the period was passed byt payment

was not made. This fact establishes the working of the

workman with the management of the All India Radio for

272 days during the period 11.6.1987 to 7.6.1988.

15. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. vs

Mahendra Pal Singh & another 2010 (2) ALJ 325 while

scrutinizing the validity of the award of the Labour Court

found that the findings of the Labour Court were not

perverse; wherein the Labour Court drawn out a finding

that the workman had continuously worked for more than

240 days in calendar months prior to termination of his

services; and the termination of services was without any

notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation;

and accordingly, Hon'ble High Court held that the relief of

reinstatement with 60% of back wages, awarded by the

Labour Court was justified Hon'ble High Court in para 47.50

of its judgement has referred decision of Hon'ble Apex

Court in Krishan Singh vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana

State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Hayana) (2010)

3 SCC 637 (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 787 as under:

"47 ............the appellant worked as a daily wager

under the respondent from 1.6.1988. His services were

terminated in December, 1993. He Served a notice of

demand dated 30.12.1997 on the respondent

contended that his services were terminated orally

without complying with the mandatory provisions

of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

1644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that he may

be reinstated in service with full back wages from the

date of illegal termination and he may be regularized

according of the Government policy. The respondent

did not respond to the demand made by the appellant

and by and order dated 23.7.1999, the State

Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of

the Act to the Labour Court. Thereupon the Labour

Court passed the award dated 18.7.2006 holding that

the appellant had admittedly completed 267 days from

1.6.1988 to 30th April, 1989 and his services were

terminated without any notice or notice pay and

without payment of retrenchment compensation and

the termination was, therefore in violation of Section

25-F of the Act and the appellant was entitled to be

reinstated in his previous post with continuity of

service and 50% back wages from the date of demand

notice i.e 30.12.1997.

48 The respondent challenged the award of the

Labour Court before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,

in writ petition any by order dated 9.12.2008, High Court

allowed the said writ petition and set aside the award dated

18.7.2006 of the Labour Court and directed the respondent

instead to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant.

Aggrieved by order dated 9.12.2008 of the High Court, the

appellant filed appeal before the Apex Court. By placing

reliance upon earlier decion rendered by the Apex Court in

the case of Harjinder Singh (supra), I allowed the appreal

and set aside the impugned order dated 9.12.2008 passed

by the High Court and directed that the appellant will be

reinstated as a daily wager with 50% back wages forthwith.

49. While dealing with the question of discretionary

powers of the Labour Court in para 17 of the decision,

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

"17. Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the

Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute

relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman

and if the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction

in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct

reinstatement of a workman with 50% back wages

taking into consideration the pleadings of the

pearties and the evidence on record, the High Court

in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India will not interfere with the

same, except on well settled principles laid down by

this Court for a writ of certiorari against an order

passed by a court or a tribunal."

50. In the said case while drawing distinction between

the cases of this nature and State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi

(2006) 4 SCC 1: (AIR 2006 SC 1806 SC 1806) in para 22 of

the said decision Hon'ble Apex Court held as under;

"22. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka

v Umadevi (3) cited by the counsel for the respondent

relates to regularization in public employment and

has no relevance to an award for reinstatement of a

discharged workman passed by the Labour Court

under Section 11-A of the Act without any direction

for regularization of his services."

16. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case, discussions made hereinabove and law relied on,

it is established that the workman, Ashok Kumar, who was

engaged on Muster Roll by the management of All India

Radio had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar

year preceding the date of his termination and his services

have been illegally termination on 06.06.1988 by the

management of the All India Radio without following the

mandatory provisions of the Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, I am of the considered

opinion that the workman, Ashok Kumar is entitled for

reinstatement with continuity in service along with 60% of

back wages within 08 weeks of publication of the award,

failing which; the back wages shall carry simple interest @

8% per annum.

17. The reference is answered accordingly .

Lucknow

25th March, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 751-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;y;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2008½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@04@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&12012@31@2008&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 751.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 5/2008

of the Central. Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab

National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 06/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/31/2008-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1645

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 5 of 2008. Reference No. L-12012/31/

2008-IR(B-II) dated 30.06.2008.

Shri Charan Singh S/o Sh. Mangal Singh, Village-

Dhua Kheri, P.O. Bhagrana, Teh. & Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib

Punjab.

...Workman

Versus

1. The Senior Regional Manager, Punjab National

Bank, R.O. SCO-No. 119-120, Sector-17B, Chandigarh.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Shri O.P. Batra, Advocate

For the Management :

Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate

AWARD

Dated: 16-03-2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-12012/31/2008-IR(B-II) dated 30.06.2008 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank, Ludhiana in dismissing the services

of Shri Charan Singh S/o Shri Mangal Singh, Ex-

Security Guard vide order dated 01.06.2004 is

appropriate to the misconduct and justified? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to

and from which date?"

2. Brief facts of the case according to the workman

are that he was appointed as Armed Guard by the bank of

Branch Office Gharuan. He was placed under suspension

in the year 2001 on the ground that there is a replacing of

security form with fake security forms at Branch Office

Gharuan. He was issued charge sheet dated 20.03.2003

containing the following charges:—

"While working at B.O. Gharuan, Sh. Charan Singh

A/G in connivance with Sh. Naresh Kumar, Peon/Daftri

(under suspension) managed to steal the following draft

drawing books, TPO books and replaced the same with the

fake ones in the stock of security forms of the branch.

Sl.No.

Form No.

Series

S-37

MIGR (2 Books)

RYS-368951-369000

S-38

NON MIGR (1 Book)

RYP-325476-325500

S-1

TPO (1 Book)

RZH-530951-531000

3. An FIR No. 143 dated 06.08.2001 was also lodged

against the workman and Naresh Kumar Daftri and other

namely Sh. Surjit Singh, Pehlwan, Bhajan Singh, Bittu, Sh.

Darshan Singh and Sh. Baldev Singh under Section 454/

380, 381/420, 465, 467, 458/471, 20B IPC. The workman was

arrested by the Police and presently is on bail facing trial in

the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar. No

charges have been framed against the workman. Branch

Manager PNB Gharuan vide letter dated 06.08.2001 informed

the SHO Police Station, Gharuan regarding the confession

of Sh. Naresh Kumar Daftri (Peon) who was shown as main

culprit in the above FIR. It is further pleaded by the workman

that he has been falsely implicated in the criminal case due

to the fact that the keys of the chest were in power and

possession of the Branch Manager Mrs. Daljit Kaur, Senior

Cashier and the chest of the bank can not be opened without

having two keys of the chest by used simultaneously and

workman has remote chances even to see the keys of the

chest and it is not possible for the workman to replace the

Security Form with fake one. It is further pleaded by the

workman that union people from Central Bank of India tried

to put pressure upon the police to exonerate Baljit Singh,

Peon of Central Bank of India and the workman made to

scapegoat as the fake security forms were placed in the

chest by the officer incharge of the bank with cashier or

with convenience of the higher officers. The workman was

charge sheeted in order to put him on road even without

waiting of the criminal case. Inquiry was ordered, original

inquiry officer R.M. Mittal was replaced and Gurinder Singh

was appointed as inquiry officer who without holding

proper inquiry, gave the finding against the workman. The

inquiry officer admitted the confessional statement of

Naresh Kumar and at the same time disbelieve the affidavit

of Naresh Kumar. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry

illegally and against the law and proved the charges against

the workman without apprising the documents/statement

of witnesses. It is further pleaded that inquiry held against

the workman is against the inquiry procedure and of rules

and justice were placed in waste paper basket by the inquiry

officer as no copy of statement of preliminary inquiry,

statement of witnesses and documents were ever supplied

to the workman. The inquiry officer also failed to appreciate

the evidence placed by the workman on record. The inquiry

officer conducted the inquiry in utter disregard to the rules

of principle of natural justice. The inquiry officer held the

inquiry with mala fide intention and with biased attitude in

order to shut the mouth of the workman against the Branch

Manager who was a corrupt officer. The management was

pre determined to dismiss the workman from service. A

show cause notice was given to the workman was illegal

and void ab initio. The appeal of the workman was also

dismissed by the appellate authority without applying its

mind independently and inquiry officer conducted sham

1646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

inquiry. It is prayed by the workman that as inquiry was

not conducted as per the procedure and adhering to the

principle of natural justice, and he was not supplied the

documents, inquiry officer disbelieve the affidavit of Naresh

Kumar who was co accused of the workman in the criminal

trial. Therefore, the inquiry is vitiated and the workman

may be ordered to be reinstated in service with full back

wages alongwith interest on wages. Workman also placed

on record photocopy of FIR.

4. Management filed written statement. Preliminary

objection has been taken that the workman was dismissed

from service after holding fair and proper domestic enquiry.

He was served with a charge sheet. The workman was

indulged in violation in bank rules and procedure he

connived with one Naresh Kumar, Daftri/Peon and managed

to steal the drafts and thereafter stolen drafts have been

mis-utilized causing huge loss to the respondent bank.

The workman replied to the charge sheet and on finding

the reply unsatisfactorily, inquiry officer was appointed.

Fair and proper inquiry was conducted. The workman was

given full opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry.

All the documents were supplied to the workman. The

disciplinary authority taking into consideration the report

of the inquiry officer, issued show cause notice to the

workman. He was also allowed personal hearing. Competent

authority found no merits in the submission made by the

workman and punishment of dismissal from service was

inflicted upon the workman which is proportionate to the

gross misconduct committed by the workman. Workman

filed appeal. The appellate authority after thoroughly

applying its mind and after affording personal hearing,

rejected the appeal on 18.12.2004. The workman was allowed

full opportunity during course of inquiry to prove his

innocence. It has also pleaded by the management that the

management reserved the right to prove the misconduct of

the workman before this Hon'ble Court by leading oral as

well as documentary evidence in case this court has find

any infirmity in the enquiry. It is also pleaded by the

management that inquiry officer considered all the relevant

material and facts before coming to the conclusion. The

workman was also allowed to lead his evidence. The inquiry

was conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules

and principle of natural justice. The charges were fully

proved and there is no infirmity in the inquiry proceeding.

It is also specifically pleaded that criminal proceedings on

investigation by the police had no nexus with the claim of

the workman. The workman was given show cause notice.

He was also given personal hearing by the disciplinary

authority. He filed appeal before the appellate authority

who also provided him personal hearing and his appeal

was rejected by the well speaking order. It is prayed that

action of the respondent management is legal, just and

proper in accordance with law and the workman is not

entitled to any relief and claim of the workman may be

dismissed with cost. Management also placed on record

complete inquiry proceedings.

5. While hearing on the fairness of inquiry this

Tribunal vide order dated 24.11.2009 held as under:—

"On perusal of the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry

report, I am of the view that at every stage proper

opportunity as per the rules of the department was afforded.

Accordingly, at the cost of repetition, I am of the view that

enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer in a fair,

proper and reasonable manner and there was no violation

of any rules of principle of natural justice."

6. The parties were provided opportunity of evidence

on the decision making of the inquiry officer and

disciplinary authority along with quantum of punishment.

The workman produced Naresh Kumar in evidence.

Workman also placed his affidavit on file and also produced

one witness Sh. Naresh Kumar who was cross-examined.

This witness stated in cross examination that he was charge

sheeted for alleged stolen of cheque. He also stated that

he never appeared in the departmental inquiry conducted

against Charan Singh. Charan Singh did not call him as

witness in the inquiry. He further deposed that criminal

case has ended in acquittal. He also submitted that he was

dismissed after departmental inquiry. The management also

placed on record affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar.

7. Arguments have been heard. On behalf of the

workman during arguments it is submitted that FIR was

lodged against the workan and his accomplish and he was

acquitted in criminal trial. The learned counsel for the

workman drawn my attention to the judgment dated

22.10.2011 which revealed that all the accused were

acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt. It is

also submitted by the learned counsel for the workman

that as the bank failed to establish its case during criminal

trial which ended in acquittal, therefore, the workman is

entitled to reinstatement in service with all benefits.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

management submitted that the workman along with co-

accused had committed gross misconduct and stolen the

security forms as mentioned in the charge sheet. This

security forms mis-utilized causing huge loss to the tune

of Rs. 11,49,000/- to the bank and there is further likelihood

on their being misused in future which amounted to gross

misconduct. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

for the management that though the criminal court

acquitted the accused giving them benefit of doubt yet the

management proceeded against the workman

departmentally and found guilty of the charges as

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1647

mentioned in the charge-sheet. The learned counsel for

the management also drawn my attention to the judgment

reported in 2013 LLR 843 of Madras High Court, the Director

General Manager, Indian Bank, Head Office Versus

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court and submitted that there is a complete

loss of confidence in the employee. And it is held by the

Hon'ble High Court that once the employer looses

confidence in the employee, he has no right to reinstated

in service. Moreover it is also held that charge of theft on

bank employee was a serious charge which was proved in

the inquiry. There was a crminal trial but it resulted into his

acquittal. There are different parameters for appreciation

of evidence in criminal trial and in departmental enquiry. In

criminal trial, prosecution is incumbent upon to prove the

charge by facts and law beyond all reasonable doubts

whereas in departmental enquiry the parameters are quite

different. Even doubt full activity and probability of

preponderance may be taken as concluding factor against

the delinquent employee.

9. Workman cited (1995) 1 Supreme Court cases page

404 Committee of Management Kisan Degree College Vs.

Shambhu Saran Pandey and others, 2004(5) SLR page 429

State Bank of India Vs. R.D. Sharma, 1998(5) SLR 735 Union

of India Vs. P. Thayagarajan, 1998(3) SCT 550 Ram Niwas

Bansal Vs. State Bank of Patiala, (1999) 2 SCC page 10

Kuldip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and others, 1994(2)

SCT page 144 State of Punjab Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh

Greasy and 1995(1) SCT page 109 Moh. Safi Sumbli Vs.

University of Kashmir. The facts and circumstances of the

case laws cited by the workman are quite different to the

facts and circumstance ot the case in hand.

10. From the record it is revealed that the workman

was charge sheeted for theft of security form which were

proved during departmental proceedings. The workman

was dismissed from service after due and proper inquiry.

The workman also failed to point out any perversity in the

inquiry and decision making of the disciplinary authority.

The workman was charged for theft which is a serious

misconduct and the punishment of dismissal from service

is also not disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct.

Therefore, it is held that action of the management in

dismissing the services of Sh. Charan Singh S/o Sh. Mangal

Singh, Ex-Security Guard vide order dated 01.06.2004 is

appropriate to the misconduct and justified.

11. The reference is answered accordingly. Soft as

well as hard copy be sent to the Central Government for

publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 752-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;y;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 84@2013½

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 752.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab

National Bank and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 06/04/2015.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 84 of 2013

Sh. Roda Singh S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh, V.P.O. Nangal

Chharbar, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

...Workman

Versus

Punjab National Bank, Through Deputy General

Manager, Patiala, Circle Office, Karam Complex Sirhind Road,

Patiala.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Sh. Sawinder Singh Advocate

For the Management :

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Advocate

1648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

AWARD

Passed on: 18.03.2015

1. The workman raised the dispute directly to this

Tribunal regarding his dismissal from service by the

respondent management of Punjab National Bank on the

certificate No. 7(01)2012/ACH/C.III dated 13-5-2013 issued

by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Chandigarh under Section 2(a)2 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 as the concilation proceedings not concluded

in prescribed time under the law. The workman filed claim

statement stating there in that the workman joined Punjab

National Bank as a Peon on 26.04.1986 at Branch Office.

The Mall, Patiala and thereafter transferred at Branch

Office Chandigarh Road Lalru on 7-8-89. He was promoted

as daftri on the basis of his experience. He was served

with a charge sheet dated 16.08.2008 containing the

following charges:—

Charge No. 1: "It is reported that while working as

Peon/Daftri at BO: Chandigarh Road, Lalru, you

were officiating as clerk-cum-cashier on Enquiry seat

on 27.02.2008 when a customer Ms. Sangeeta Rani

approached you for opening of R/D A/C of Rs. 5000/

- per month. You got executed AOF from the account

holder and accepted cash of Rs. 5000/- being the

initial instalment. You did not deposit the cash with

the cashier and retained AOF with you with mala

fide intention. Issuance of passbook was denied

on the plea that it will be issued lateron. On

persistence of the depositor you issued passbook

at your own with fictitious account number 81-

608079 and the depositor regularly deposited

monthly instalments in the aforesaid account. Due

to wrong account number, the instalments so

deposited by the depositor on 13.03.2008,

26.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 were credited in the

Sundries account of the branch. The depositor was

contacted in connection with adjustment of

Sundaries entries, who produced the passbook

issued by you with aforesaid account number

which was found fictitious. On being asked on

22.05.2008, you deposited Rs. 5000/- under your

signature on Pay-in-Slip, along with AOF for

opening of account. Thus you misappropriated/

pocketed the cash of Rs. 5000/- accepted

unauthorizedly with mala fide intention from Ms.

Sangeeta Rani on 27.02.2008.

Your aforesaid act is a major misconduct in terms of

Para 5(j) of the Bi-partite settlement as amended up

to date.

Charge No. 2: It has been reported by Bank customer

Sh. Amrik Singh Malakpur SF A/C Number

3534000100026480 that you borrowed a sum of Rs.

65000/- on 17.01.2004 after signing a pronote dated

17.01.2004 and that 2-3 months later you borrowed

Rs. 20,000/- again from him but the said amount has

not been paid to him in spite of verbal assurances by

you.

Your aforesaid act is a major misconduct in terms of

Para 5(j) of the Bi-partite settlement as amended up

to date.

Charge No. 3: On 27.12.2007 you received cash

payment of Rs. 10858/- to the debit of Exp. Telephone

for deposit of payment with BSNL at Lalru towards

lease line bill of the bank. You confirmed to BM during

the last week of Dec. 2007 that the payment has been

deposited with BSNL Lalru and that the receipt shall

be kept in Bank record. Again on receipt of reminder

from BSNL Patiala in January 2008 you again

confirmed to BM that the bill as above has already

been deposited in December 2007 and has been kept

in Bank's record. You produced bill receipt dated

12.02.2008 for Rs. 10858/- issued by Telegraph Office

Patiala on 18.02.2008. Thus, you kept/misutilised

Bank's funds from 27.12.2007 to 12.02.2008 and

concealed the facts from the superiors.

Your aforesaid act is a major misconduct in terms of

Para 5(j) of the Bi-partite settlement as amended up

to date.

You are advised to submit your statement of defence

as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against

you in terms of Bi-partite settlement as amended up

to date, within seven days from the receipt of this

charge sheet. In case you fail to submit your

statement of defence within the stipulated period of

seven days, it shall be presumed that you have

nothing to submit in your defence, admit the charges

and further action as deemed fit shall be initiated

exparte in terms of Bi-partite settlement as amended."

2. Workman was asked to submit his reply to the

charge sheet. He stated that charges were illegal and

baseless and the workman was forced to face the

departmental inquiry. The inquiry was conducted. The

workman submitted that one Smt. Sangeeta did not appear

before the Inquiry Officer and affidavit filed by her was not

taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry

Officer did not consider the reply of the workman and the

inquiry was conducted in gross violation of principles of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1649

natural justice. Workman received the impugned dismissal

order dated 15.12.2009. The inquiry officer did not adhere

to the set procedure of the inquiry. The appeal filed by the

workman was also considered by the appellate authority.

3. The management submitted in written statement

that the workman while officiating as Clerk-cum-Cashier at

Chandigarh Road, Lalru Branch, on inquiry seat on

27.02.2008, one Smt. Sangeeta Rani approached the

workman for opening of R.D. Account of Rs. 5000/- per

month. Workman got executed account opening form from

the account holder and accepted cash of Rs. 5000/- being

the initial instalment but did not deposit the cash with the

cashier and himself retained the account opening form with

mala fide intention. She was not issued pass book by the

workman on the plea that the same would be issued later

on. On her persistence, workman issued passbook with

fictitious account number and the depositor regularly

deposited the installments. It is also pleaded in the written

statement that the workman approached one bank customer

Sh. Amrik Singh who was a account holder in the bank and

borrowed a sum of Rs. 65000/- on 17.01.2004 after signing a

pro-note and after 2/3 months workman again borrowed

Rs. 20000/- but the said amount was not paid to the above

customer by the workman in spite of verbal assurance given

by the workman. So far as the third charge is concerned,

management submitted that on 27.12.2007 workman

received cash payment of Rs. 10,858/- to the debit of Exp.

telephone for depositing of payment with BSNL at Lalru

towards lease line bill of the bank. The workman confirmed

to the Branch Manager during last week of December that

he has deposited the amount with BSNL Lalru and the

receipt shall be kept in bank record. On receipt of reminder

from BSNL, Patiala in January 2008, workman again

confirmed to the Branch Manager that the bill has already

been deposited in December 2007. Later on workman

produced bill receipt dated 12.02.2008 for Rs. 10,858/- issued

by the telephone office Patiala on 18.02.2008 and the

workman kept/misutilised bank fund from 27.12.2007 to

12.02.2008 and concealed the facts from his superior. It is

also been pleaded in the written statement that inquiry

officer specifically asked the workman whether he was

served the charge sheet. In reply the workman confirmed

the inquiry officer that he received the charge sheet. The

inquiry officer read over the charges to the workman in

local language i.e. Punjabi List of the documents and

witnesses were provided to the workman. Workman was

represented by Sh. Ashok Avasthi during inquiry

proceeding. The witnesses of the management were cross

examined by the defence representative of the workman.

After conclusion of the evidence of the management the

workman was asked to produce his evidence, workman

and his defence representative stated before the inquiry

officer that they have nothing to produce as defence

evidence and close their evidence. As both the sides have

closed their evidence, the inquiry stood concluded.

4. After conclusion of the inquiry, enquiry officer

submitted his report to the disciplinary authority and

disciplinary authority vide his letter dated 10.07.2009 sent

copy of the inquiry report to the workman. The workman

submitted his comments to the disciplinary authority on

04.08.2009 and after going through the complete record of

the case i.e. charge sheet, reply of the charge sheet,

statement of the witnesses and relevant document, and

after applying his mind agreed with the findings of the

inquiry officer that all the charges stood proved against

the workman and passed the order of punishment i.e.

(dismissal without notice) on 15.12.2009.

5. The workman filed the appeal which was also

dismissed by the appellate authority after applying his

mind. Personal hearing was also provided by the appellate

authority to the workman but the workman did not appear

as required. Lastly workman appeared before the appellate

authority on 11.10.2010 after as many as five opportunities

and requested for taking a lenient view but after applying

its mind, the appeal was also rejected by the appellate

authority.

6. Earlier this Tribunal heard the parties on the fairness

of enquiry and vide order dated 30-9-2014 it is held that

enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and

proper opportunity was given to the workman to defend

himself and enquiry was conducted following the principles

of natural justice. The parties were afforded the opportunity

of evidence on the point of perversity and quantum of

punishment.

7. Both the parties submitted that they do not want

to lead any evidence on the point of perversity and

quantum of punishment.

8. I have heard the parties and gone through the

record.

9. On behalf of the workman it is submitted that as

regard the charge No. 1 is concerned, the enquiry officer

did not believe the affidavit of Ms. Sangeeta Rani which

the workman submitted during enquiry proceedings and

held the workman guilty on the complaint made by the

above Ms. Sangeeta Rani. As regard Charge No. 2 is

concerned, it is submitted that Amrik Singh made the

complaint which is purely a personal matter and it has

nothing to do with the bank. In so far as the charge No. 3 is

concerned, the telephone bill was deposited by the workman

though with some delay and bank has not suffered any

financial loss in all the three charges and punishment of

dismissal from service is harsh punishment which is

disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

1650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

10. On the other hand on behalf of the management,

it is submitted that workman indulged in personal banking.

The complainant made the complaint that when she went

to the bank for opening RD account of Rs. 5000/- workman

while working on enquiry seat filled the form and taken

Rs. 5000/- from her and did not open her account.

Subsequently when she again went to deposit the money,

workman handed over a fake pass book with fake account

number in which subsequently deposited the amount. Her

deposited amount went in sundry account of the bank and

she was contacted in connection with adjustment of

sundries entries. Ms. Sangeeta Rani produced pass book

issued by the workman with fake account number. When

the workman was confronted, he deposited Rs. 5000/- under

his signatures on pay-in-slip alongwith account opening

form which has duly been proved during the departmental

enquiry. Affidavit of the complainant is an afterthought

which has been procured one. As regard charge No. 2 is

concerned, Bank customer Amrik Singh made a complaint

and subject matter of the complaint is covered under major

misconduct in terms of para 5(i) of the Bipartite Settlement

which prohibit any employee of the bank in indulging in

such transaction with the bank customer. It does not matter

that later on the customer withdraw the complaint on the

assurance of the workman to pay the rest of the amount.

As regard charge No. 3 is concerned, it is not denied that

workman received cash payment of Rs. 10858/- for deposit

of payment with BSNL at Lalru and after one and half month

deposited the same with BSNL and till then misutilized/

kept the amount with him. It is submitted by the management

that the workman temporarily embezzled the amount.

11. The workman was dismissed from service after

due and proper inquiry. The workman also failed to point

out any perversity in the inquiry and decision making of

the disciplinary authority. The workman was charged for

gross misconduct as mentioned in the charge sheet. The

charges have been proved during enquiry. The charges

are serious and constitute gross misconduct and the

punishment of dismissal from service is not

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and does

not warrant any interference by this Tribunal. Therefore, it

is held that action of the management in dismissing the

services of Sh. Roda Singh order dated 15.12.2009 is

appropriate to the misconduct and justified.

12. The reference is answered accordingly. Soft as

well as hard copy be sent to the Central Government for

publication.

Chandigarh

18.03.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 753-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;y; ua- II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

70@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@04@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@42@2010&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 753.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2010)

of the Central. Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab &

Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 06/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/42/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

CASE No. I.D. No. 70/2010

Registered on 07.10.2010

Shri Satnam Singh, S/o Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, Village

and Post Office Wadala Kalan, Tehsil Baba

Bakala, District Amritsar.

...Petitioner

Versus

Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal

Office, Amritsar

Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Rayya,

Amritsar.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Sh. R.P. Rana, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. J.S. Sathi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 15th day of January, 2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

42/2010-IR(B-II) Dated 24.9.2010, by exercising its powers

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1651

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 Pubjab

and Sind Bank in terminating the workman Sh. Satnam

Singh w.e.f., 1.2.2002 without following the provisions

of Section 25F & 25G of the ID Act, 1947 and re-

employment of junior persons against Section 25H

of the ID Act, 1947 is just, fair and legal? What relief

the concerned workman is entitled to and from which

date?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

engaged as temporary peon on 11.11.1987 by the

respondent management and he worked at Village Wadala

Kalan. He was again engaged in the year 1991-92 and he

worked at branch Khalchian. he was again engaged in the

year 1998 and he worked as peon in the Branch at Rayya till

31.1.2002 when his services were terminated. he was being

paid basic pay plus DA etc. That his termination is illegal

being in violation of Section 25F of the Act. That the

respondent management terminated the services of other

peons who have been allowed to join duty after an award

was passed by the Tribunal. That he is also entitled to be

reinstated in service with back wages.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that workman was engaged from time to time on purely

temporary basis and that too without following any Rules

and Regulations and the discontinuance of service do not

amount to 'retrenchment'. It is further pleaded that services

were terminated on 31.1.2002 and he raised the demand

notice in July, 2009 and thus there is delay of more than 7

years and being so, the claim has become stale and he

cannot be granted any relief.

Parties were given opportunities to lead its evidence.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the statement of claim.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. Mohinder Singh, who filed his affidavit reiterating the

stand taken by the respondent bank in the written

statement.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Rana, counsel for workman and

Sh. J.S. Sathi, counsel for the management and perused the

file carefully.

The workman has specifically pleaded in para 1 of

the claim statement that he worked as a peon from the year

1998 to 31.1.2002 at the branch of the respondents at Rayya.

The respondent management did not controvert his

assertion and simply pleaded that the workman was

engaged on temporary basis from time to time. The witnes

of the management namely Mohinder Singh admitted during

cross-examination that the workman worked at Rayya

Branch from August, 1998 to 31.1.2002. Thus the workman

continuously worked for more than 1 year prior to

termination of his services and he was entitled to the

protection of Section 25F of the Act. But it is admitted case

that he was not paid any retrenchment compensation while

terminating his services and as such, the termination of his

services is not legal and valid.

A lengthy argument was advanced by the learned

counsel for the respondent management that services were

terminated in January, 2002 and workman raised the demand

notice in 2009 i.e. after a lapse of more than 7 years and

with the lapse of time, his claim is not maintainable and on

this sole ground, he cannot be granted the relief.

It may be added that workman has pleaded that the

other workmen whose services were terminated were

allowed to join duty after an award was passed by the

Tribunal. Mohinder Singh a witness of the management

has stated during cross-examination that there were 25

temporary peons whose services were terminated and some

of them were employed by the bank on the orders of the

Hon'ble High Court. A photocopy of the order passed in

Civil Writ Petition No. 18154 of 2007 decided on 26.5.2010

titled as Baljit Singh Vs. Presiding Officer also shows that

some of the workmen who were similarly placed as the

present workman was reinstated in service but without

back wages. It is not denied by learned counsel for the

management that the workman earlier reinstated on the

orders of the Hon'ble High Court were holding the same

posts as the present workman. In these peculiar

circumstances, when some of the co-workmen whose

services were terminated along with the services of the

workman; and have been reinstated in service with the

orders of the Court, it cannot be said that the delay is fatal

to the claim of the workman in the present case, as much as

his services were terminated in violation of the provisions

of Section 25F of the Act.

In result, it is held that the action of the management

in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 1.2.2002 is

not legal and he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity

of service but without back wages. Respondent

management is directed to take him in service within one

month from the publication of the award. The reference is

accordngly answered in favour of the workman. Let hard

and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

1652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 754-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSd vkWQ

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 442@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@04@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@137@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj ] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 754.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 442/2005 of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, No. II

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India,

and their workman, received by the Central Government on

06/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/137/2001-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presding officer

Case No. I.D. No. 442/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh Narsi Lal, S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal,

resident of House No. 7/272, Gyan Nagar,

Behind Sarang Cinema, Sonipat,

through Legal representative Parshtam (son),

Rajesh (son), Pushpa (daughter), Charan Raj,

R/o House No. 6/275, Gian Nagar, Sonipat.

...Petitioner

Versus

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India,

Jawahar Market Rohtak, Haryana.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh R.P. Rana, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. A.P. Jagga, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 19.1.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/137/

2001 (IR (B-II) Dated 31.10.2001, 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 folloing

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the Management of Central

Bank of India in ordering dismissal from service of

Sh. Narshi Lal vide order dated 11.11.1996 is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?"

The facts in brief are that the workman was working as

Clerk with the respondent bank at Branch office, Ghasauli.

He received Rs. 1000/- from Suraj Bhan on 19.7.1993,

Rs. 800/- from Nirmal Singh on 26.10.1993, Rs. 5000/- from

Dharamvir on 13.12.1994, Rs. 1000/- from Mir Singh on

16.3.1995 and Rs. 400/- from Darshan Lal on 16.4.1995 who

are the account holders, but did not depict the said amount

in the account books of the bank. Accordingly a charge-

wheet was issued to him. He denied the allegations and a

regular inquiry was conducted by appointing the Inquiry

Officer and the Presenting Officer. The management led

evidence before the Inquiry officer who after completing

the inquiry gave a finding that charges are proved against

the workman. Acting on the basis of the said inquiry, the

disciplinary authority dismissed the workman from service

w.e.f. 11.11.1996 after serving a show cause notice on him.

The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed.

Now according to the workman, the inquiry was held in

violation of the principles of natural justice and he was not

allowed to produce the documents in defence. He had

rendered 17 years of unblemished service which was not

taken into account while terminating his services. The

punishment awarded to him is harsh.

It is further pleaded that a case was registered regarding

the embezzlement vide FIR No. RC-19/96-CHG dated

20.3.1996. However on inquiry, the CBI did not find anything

against him and he was not challaned and in the

circumstances, the dismissal from service is illegal.

During the pendency of the proceedings, workman died

and his legal representatives were brough on record vide

order dated 9.7.2010.

The respondent management filed written reply that a

proper charge-sheet was served on the workman and the

inquiry was conducted as per procedure of law, after giving

due opportunity to the workman to be represented by

defence representative to cross-examine the witness, who

even filed documents in defence. That there is no illegality

in the conduct of the inquiry. thus, the inquiry is valid and

the punishment order passed on its basis is legal and valid.

That workman is not entitled to claim any relief.

Parties did not lead any evidence.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Rana for the workman and Sh. A.P.

Jagga for the management.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1653

A perusal of the photocopy of the inquiry proceedings

placed on the file of which authenticity is not disputed,

shows that a proper charge-sheet was served on the

workman. He was represented by defence representative

in whose presence the management examined four

witnesses including tendering into evidence all the

documents. The defence representative cross-examined the

witness and also inspected all the documents and even

admitted the authenticity of the documents in the

proceedings held on 17-1-1996. On the bais of the

documents i.e. original vouchers issued in the name of

Suraj Bhan, Nirmal Singh, Dharamvir Singh, Mir Singh and

Darshan Lal and the account books of the bank; and also

relying on the statements of the witnesses examined before

him i.e. Mir Singh, Dharamvir Singh, R.P. Pahwa and Nirmal

Singh, Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that workman

received Rs. 1000/- from Suraj Bhan on 19.7.1993, Rs. 800/-

from Nirmal Singh on 26.10.1993, Rs. 5000/- from Dharamvir

on 13.12.1994, Rs. 1000/- for Mir Singh on 16.3.1995 and

Rs. 400/- from Darshan Lal on 16.4.1995, but no entry was

made in account books. The findings of the Inquiry officer

are based on the evidence led before him. Nothing has

been shown that the inquiry was conduted in violation of

any principle of natural justice or the provisions of any

law. Therefore it is to be held that the inquiry conducted by

the Inquiry officer is fair and proper.

It was submitted by the learned counsel that a criminal

case was registered regarding the alleged embezzlement,

but the workman was not challaned by the CBI which is

sufficient to hold that he was innocent and as such no

action was to be taken on the basis of the inquiry. Suffice it

to say that standard of proof in a criminal case it different

from the disciplinary proceedings and the inquiry

proceedings are to be decided only on the preponderance

of probabilities. If the CBI did not find him guilty, the same

is no ground to exonerate him in the departmental

proceedings and the Inquiry Officer in a detailed inquiry

report dated 24.7.1996 which is based on the oral evidence

led before it as well as the documents produced there,

came to the definite conclusion that it was the workman

who embezzled the above said amount. Since the Inquiry

Officer came to the conclusion that charges are proved on

the basis of evidence, no benefit can be given to the

workman. In this respect reliance may be placed on Suresh

Pathrellla Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in 2007

(3) RSJ 1, wherein it was observed in para 8 of the judgement

as follows:—

"In our view, the findings recorded by the learned

Single Judge are fallacious. This court has taken the

view consistently that acquittal in a criminal case

would be no bar for drawing up a disciplinary

proceeding against the delinquent officer. It is well

settled principle of law that the yardstick and standard

of proof in a criminal case is different from the

disciplinary proceedings. While the standard of proof

in a criminal case is a proof beyond all reasonable

doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is

preponderance of probabilities."

It was contended by the learned counsel that workman

rendered 17 years of service which was not taken into

account by the disciplinary authority while terminating the

services of the workman which is a harsh punishment and

a lenient view be taken. It is a settled law that a bank officer

is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and

integrity. He deals with the money of depositors and the

customers, and is required to take all possible steps to

protect the interest of the bank. The workman embezzled

the amount of the account holders and there were five

entires which were detected. He received the amount from

the account holders but did not show the same in the back

account books. Thus he was guilty of gross misconduct

and the penalty imposed on him cannot be said to be

excessive and no ground is made out to interfere with the

same.

Thus the action of the management in dismissing the

workman from service is legal and valid and workman is

not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly

answered against the workman. Let hard and soft copy of

the award be sent to Central Government for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 755-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 301@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@04@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&12012@82@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj ] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 301/2013 of the Central

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

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India,

and their workman, received by the Central Government on

06/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/82/2013-IR(B-II]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

1654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 301/2013

Registered on 4.12.2013

Sh. Suraj Kumar, S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, House No. 161,

Gail No. 2, Basant Colony, Saili Road, Pathankot.

...Petitioner

Versus

The Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Bazar

Sujanpur Tehsil & District Pathankot.

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, 3rd Floor

Puda Complex, Jalandhar City.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Ex. Parte.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 19.1.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/82/

2013 IR (B-II) Dated 16.11.2013, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Subs-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 Central

Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh. Suraj

Kumar w.e.f. 19.3.2013 is just and legal? What relief

the concerned workman is entitled to and from which

date?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading he joined the

respondent bank at Pathankot as Safai Karamchari/Peon

on 1.3.2005 and worked in Arya College Branch, Pathankot

till 24.8.2010. He was transferred to Sujanpur on 25.8.2010

where he worked till 19.3.2013 when his services were

terminated without paying him any retrenchment

compensation or serving him any notice. That termination

of his services is illegal and he be reinstated in service.

The bank submitted written statement pleading that

workman started doing the safai work on contract basis in

November, 2010 and he never worked on regular basis.

That Mohan Lal joined as regular employee on 1.4.2013

and the services of the workman came to an end. That the

workman used to remain absent from duty and even he did

not work for a full week in the bank. Since he was engaged

on contract basis, he was not required to be paid

compensation.

The workman was proceeded against ex parte vide order

dated 10.7.2014.

The management led its evidence and examined Sh. Badri

Narayan, Regional Management who filed his affidavit.

I have heard Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the

management.

There is no denial of the fact that workman worked as

Safai Karamchari with the respondent management from

24.8.2010 to 30.3.2013. The respondent bank is a statutory

body governed by the Rules and Regulations and all

appointments are to be made by following the same. Nothing

has come on the file that he was ever appointed by following

the procedure laid down for recruitment of Safai

Karamcharis. It cannot be said that he was legally appointed

as Safai Karamchari. If he did the work of Safai Karamchari

on some contract, the same do not confer any right on him

to continue in service and the termination of the services

of such an employee do not amount of 'retrenchment'.

Since the workman himself did not lead any evidence

and nothing has come on the file that he was validly

appointed by the bank as Safai Karamchari, it cannot be

said that the termination of his services is illegal and unjust

and he is not entitled to claim any relief. The reference is

accordingly answered against the workman. Let hard and

soft copy of the award be sent to Central Government for

further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 756-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè cSad

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

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

Je U;k;ky; paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 433@2000½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@162@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 756.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 433/2000 of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-No. 1 Chandigarh has

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1655

the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 06/04/2015.

[No. L-12011/162/2000-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KIMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 433 of 2000

Reference No. L-12011/162/2000-IR(B-II)

Dated 31.10.2000.

Sh. Nand Singh C/O The General Secretary,

Punjab & Sind Bank, Staff Organization,

Punjab & Sind Bank, Central Office,

PSB Building, Chandigarh

...Workman

Versus

The Deputy General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank,

Zonal Office, Hall Bazar Amritsar (Punjab)-143001.

...Respondent

Appearances

For the Workman:

Sh. R.P. Rana, Advocate

For the management:

Sh. J.S. Sathi, Advocate.

AWARD

Dated:—23-2-2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification

L-12011/162/2000-IR(B-II) dated 31.10.2000 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab &

Sind Bank in awarding the punishment of reduction

to a lower stage by reducing two increments in basic

pay of Sh. Nand Singh, Special Assistant is legal and

just? If not, what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to and from what date?"

2. In the claim statement it is pleaded by the workman

that he was served with a charge sheet dated 14.06.1994

while working as a Special Assistant in Batala Road

Amritsar branch of the management bank containing the

following charges:—

"You were working in B.O. Khalsa College Amritsar

from 25.03.1988 to 2.8.1993. It has been reported

against you that on 26.11.1992 when you were

officiating as Special Assistant, you allowed opening

of SB. Account 11338/38 in the name of Mr. Anand

Kumar with the fake address by verifying signatures

of Kirpal Singh Sekho as the introducer who had

opened his account No. 11334/38 only two days prior

on 24.11.1992 which is in contradiction to bank's rule

that an introducer must have satisfactorily operated

his account for not less than six months. Due to your

negligence the account holder Mr. Anand Kumar has

been able to commit fraud of Rs. 36,050/- in the said

account.

This act of yours is a gross misconduct in terms of

para 19.5(j) of Bipartite settlement which may be read

Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank

or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely

to involve the bank in serious loss."

3. The allegation above mentioned levelled was that he

had violated the bank rule which laid down that an

introducer must have satisfactorily operated his account

for not less than 6 months. It is further submitted by the

workman that management alleged that due to negligence

of the workman one Anand Kumar succeeded in committed

fraud of Rs. 36,050/- in the SB account. The workman

submitted reply to the charge sheet wherein he admitted

having verified signatures of Kirpal Singh Sekho. Although

the SB account in the name of Anand Kumar was directed

to be opened only by the branch manager. It is pleaded by

the workman that it was not his negligence which resulted

into commission of fraud by Anand Kumar. It is further

pleaded by the workman that during the inquiry, workman

submitted representation to the inquiry officer demanding

correspondence with regard to the fraud committed if any

but inquiry officer declined to show any correspondence

with regard to the fraud committed by Anand Kumar. During

the inquiry, no evidence was led by the presenting officer

to show commission of fraud by Sh. Anand Kumar in his

newly opened SB account. During the inquiry the

presenting officer concealed certain documents which

supported the case of the workman. It is also pleaded by

the workman that it was the duty of the branch manager to

satisfy himself before opening a SB account. The workman

filed written arguments during inquiry. The inquiry officer

submitted the report wherein he concluded that concerned

branch manager was also responsible and it is further

submitted by the inquiry office that there was no mala fide

intention on the part of the workman or branch manager.

But the inquiry officer chose to held guilty to the workman

and the branch manager for the fraud committed by Sh.

Anand Kumar. No reason was given by the inquiry officer

to arrive on such a conclusion. Thus the inquiry was not

fair and disciplinary authority has not taken into

consideration this fact while passing the final order.

4. Personal hearing was also given by the disciplinary

authority. The disciplinary authority failed to take

1656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

cognizance of the documents i.e. extract of duties of Special

Assistant under the bipartite settlement and PSB circular

No. 1426 dated 25.7.1992. The disciplinary authority

imported his personal knowledge into the matter which he

is not authorized to do. Workman filed appeal before the

appellate authority against the order dated 31.3.1997. The

appellate authority dismissed the appeal without dealing

with any of the contention of the workman. The inquiry

was conducted against the principle of natural justice and

fair play and deserves to vitiated on the ground mentioned

above. It is prayed by the workman that punishment

imposed may be set aside and the management may be

directed to release the increments w.e.f. due date with

interest @ 18% per annum.

5. The management filed written statement pleading

therein that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority

are in accordance with principle of service jurisprudence.

After considering the material/evidence on record the

management issued charge sheet to the workman which he

replied and inquiry was ordered. Sh. Kulbir Singh was

appointed as inquiry officer but later on replaced with

Sh. H.S. Pal. The workman was represented by the defence

representative of his choice. The inquiry was conducted in

accordance with the principle of natural justice and report

was submitted by the inquiry officer with a copy to the

workman. The workman filed his comments and show cause

notice was served proposing the penalty of reduction to

the lower stage by reducing two increments. Personal

hearing was also given to the workman by the disciplinary

authority. Workman preferred appeal against the order by

the disciplinary authority which was rejected and

punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was

upheld. It is further pleaded that workman was rightly

penalized as he violated the bank rules which laid down

that a introducer must have satisfactorily operated his

account for not less than 6 months. It is prayed by the

management that reference may be rejected.

6. Workman also placed on record his affidavit along

with the documents of inquiry. The management further

filed supplementary written statement taking preliminary

objection than in case this Hon'ble Court comes to the

conclusion that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper

for any reason whatsoever the management may be given

opportunity to produced the evidence to prove the charges

before the Hon'ble Court. Management also placed on

record the register of inquiry proceedings.

7. Earlier arguments were heard on the fairness of enquiry.

This Tribunal vide its order dated 19.01.2015 held that the

enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and there is no

infirmity in the enquiry. The parties were given opportunity

to adduce any evidence on the point of perversity and

quantum of punishment.

8. Both the parties adduced no evidence and arguments

heard of the parties on the point of perversity and quantum

of punishment.

9. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that the

management failed to prove the allegations as contained in

the charge sheet in as much as that the authority to open

the account is rested with the branch Incharge who himself

put his signatures and accepted the introduction of the

account which is not run satisfactorily for six months and

it is the branch manager who is solely responsible for any

act of omission as per the P&D Circular 1426 and the

workman cannot be held responsible because the payment

in the account No. 11338 was not made by CSE. The payment

has been made by the branch manager and some other

officer without keeping in view the banking norms.

Therefore, the charges were not proved during the enquiry

and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. It is

further the case of the workman is that the punishment is

disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and the branch

manager was also responsible for opening of the account

and the branch manager was allowed to go scot free whereas

the workman was punished for no fault of the workman.

10. On the other hand the management submitted that it

was the workman who opened the account No. 11338 in

Branch Office Khalsa College with fake address and by not

obtaining the introduction of an account which has run

satisfactorily for more than six months. As the account

was opened by not adhering to the normal practice, the

account holder was also successful in furnishing the fake

address which resulted in committing the fraud as

mentioned in the charge sheet. This act of negligence is of

serious nature and the workman was given punishment

which is not of severe nature and two increments were

ordered to be stopped which is commensurate to the

misconduct of the workman. Therefore, the workman is not

entitled to any relief and the reference deserves rejection.

11. The departmental enquiry vide this Tribunal's order

dated 19.1.2015 has been held fair and proper. The workman

was charge-sheeted for act of negligence in opening of the

account in the name of Shri Anand Kumar with fake

introduction and this fake account has become instrumental

for fraud committed by one Anand Kumar who had been

able to commit fraud of Rs. 36050/- proved on record. I find

no perversity in the enquiry report. Therefore, no

interference is warranted in the punishment also.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case in

hand, it is held that action of the management of Punjab &

Sind Bank in awarding the punishment of reduction to lower

stage by reducing two increments in basic pay of Sh. Nand

Singh, Special Assistant is legal and just and the workman

not entitled to any relief.

13. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft as well as hard copy be sent to the Central

Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

23.02.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1657

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 757-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ ds

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

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

vfèdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼196@91½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@04@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@206@91&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 196/91) of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of State Bank of Indore and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 06/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/206/91-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/196/91

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Rekharam Bagdara,

C/o Archana Bhojanalaya,

Opp. Shriram Dharmashala,

Jail Road, Indore

...Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

State Bank of Indore,

Regional Office, 163,

Kanchanbag, Indore

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of March, 2015

1. As per letter dated 30.10.91 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

206/91-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of Indore, Indore, in dismissing Shri Rewaram

Bagdare, Peon-cum-chowkidar, w.e.f. 9-1-89 is

justified? If not, to 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 8/2 to 8/9. The case of Ist party is that he was

appointed as peon cum watchman on 11-5-84 in IInd party

Bank. He claims to be working honestly. Chargesheet was

issued to him pertaining to opening forged/false account

in name of Nana S/o Dagdu resident of Ajandiman depositing

Rs. 20/- forging signature of said Nana Dagdu himself

identified Account Holder R-565. it was also once of the

charge of forging initial of Head Clerk operating said

account during 1-8-88 to 8-9-88 depositing Rs. 4475/-. He

submitted reply to the chargesheet on 15-10-88. Workman

was suspended on 14-9-88. Shri G.L. Pawar was appointed

as Enquiry Officer on 7-11-88. Notices of enquiry were

issued to him on 12-11-88. Enquiry was fixed on 28-11-88.

Workman admitted charges. No further enquiry was held.

After report of Enquiry Officer, showcause notice was

issued to Divisional Manager on 12-12-88, Workman

submitted reply to it on 2-1-89. Workman was dismissed on

9-1-89. Workman submits that the other employees

Accountant Incharge Bindu Mahajan, Ashok Jain

Accountant taken advantage of his illiteracy and innocence.

They assured them to save. On their advice, he had admitted

the charges. Ist party workman further submits that no

enquiry was conducted against other officials who had

committed forgery. It was not inquiry under whose writing

deposit form, account opening form were written or tallied

by handwriting expert was not called. How it was possible

for workman to withdraw money without knowledge or

consent of account clerk or other staff. Workman submits

that dismissal is illegal. The chargesheet issued to him was

incomplete. The admission of charge was induced by

Shri Ashok Jain, S.K. Joshi and Enquiry Officer himself.

The six entries were shown forged whereas how other

entries were genuine was not explained on the chargesheet.

On such contentions, workman prays for his reinstatement

with back wages.

3. IInd party management submitted Written Statement

at Page 10/1 to 10/6 opposing claim of workman. IInd party

submits that workman had opened false account in name

of Shri Nana Dagdu, resident of Ajadiman forging the

signature of account holder. The entries in said account

shown by letter A were genuine and under Letter B were

forged. Workman has forged Bank by amount of Rs. 4475/-.

The excess amount was withdrawn forging the entires.

Chargesheet was issued to workman. Workman admitted

his guilt requesting to exonerate him and recover amount

from his salary. Enquiry was fixed on 28-11-88. Workman

again admitted charges against him therefore further enquiry

was not conducted. The allegation of workman are denied.

Workman has admitted charges against him of forging

signature, forging entries in Bank Account etc. It is denied

that Bindu Mahajan, Ashok Jain has induced workman to

accept charges promising to save him from action of alleged

misconduct. It is denied that workman was denied

1658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

opportunity for his defence. It is denied that order of

dismissal is illegal.

4. Preliminary issued was decided as per order dated

23-4-2013. Enquiry is found legal and proper. 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 Misconduct

In Affirmative

alleged against workman are

proved from evidence in

enquiry Proceedings

(ii) Whether punishment of

In Affirmative

dismisal 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

5. As discussed above, the enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal and proper, question remains for

consideration is whether charges alleged against workman

are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings and

whether punishment of dismissal imposed on workman is

legal. For Ist point, evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs

to be considered. Chargesheet was issued to workman

relating to opening bogus account in name of Nana Dagdu

and forging entries in said account. After receiving the

chargesheet, workman submitted reply explaining his

conduct that he was facing family problems. His son and

family members were ill. For their treatment, he had taken

loans from several persons in the market. It was difficnt for

him to pay the loan amount. therefore he had opened bogus

account using fake names depositing amount of Rs. 20/-.

Workman was suspended on 14-9-88. The copy of

chargesheet is produced at Page 11/28, 29. The reply of

workman is produced at Page 11/13. Enquiry was held on

28th November 88. Again workman admitted charges

against him before Enquiry Officer. In Page 14/31 of the

record, it is clearly written that the charges are readover

and explained to workman, workman clearly understands

the charges and admitted charges against him. In view of

the charges are admitted by workman, it is sufficient to

hold that charges against workman are proved. Section 58

of Evidence Act is clear that fact admitted need not be

proved. Enquiry Officer in his report has observed that the

fraud was committed due to negligence of some employee.

it does not relieve the workman of the misconduct

committed by him. The misconduct opening bogus account,

forging signature of account officer and forging initials of

accountant, withdrawal of amount admitted by workman in

his reply as well as before Enquiry Officer. The proved

misconduct is of serious nature. It cannot be accepted of

any Bank employee committing the act of opening fraud

account in bogus name, forging signatures etc. therefore

punishment of dismissal imposed against workman cannot

be said excesive or disproportionate. Considering proved

misconduct, no interference is called for in the order of

dismissal of workman. For above reasons, I record my

finding in point No. 1, 2 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of State bank of

Indore, Indore, in dismissing Shri Rewaram

Bagdare, peon-cum-chowkidar, w.e.f. 9-1-89 is

proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 758-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj fcgkj xzkehu

cSad 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 tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&22012@39@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 758.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. 55/2011) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the management of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 06/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/39/2011-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

(No. 1), DHANBAD

Ref. No. 55/2011

Empoyers in relation to the management of

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur

And

Their workman

Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1659

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri R.P. Prasad, Advocate

For the workman

Sri S.K. Jha, Advocate

State: Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated : 27.02.2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012/39/2011-IR (B-I), dated 22.11.2011,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes

for adjudications to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Uttar Bihar

Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur in imposing the penalty

of removal from service on Shri Arun Kumar Jha vide

their order dated 26.02.2008 is legal and justified?

To what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The case is received fromk the Ministry of Labour on

20.12.2011. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. The concerned workman files their written

statement on 30.12.2011. Thereafter the management files

their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 21.06.2012.

Rejoinder and document also filed by the workman. The

Management adduced two witness as MW-1 & MW-2 on

Preliminary point and the management also marked the

document as M-1 to M-5.

3. The point involved in the reference is that the workman

was dismissed on the allegations of financial irregularities,

who is an employee of the Bank, After order of dismissal,

the workman filed a departmental appeal, and that was

dismissed. Hence this reference.

4. Before this Tribunal, the enquiry conducted held by

the department held as fair and proper. Since enquiry held

fair and proper, the scope of this Tribunal is limited.

5. It is submitted by the counsel of the management

that, similar irregularities was committed by the workman

in the year 1997 and at that point of time, after enquiry

charges proved and 4 increments of the workman was

stopped. Again the workman committed similar type of

irregularities.

6. On the other hand the Ld counsel for the workman

prays to take liberal attitude against the workman. But

repeated financial irregularities in the Bank which are

handling public money, usually is not tolerated.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Uttar Bihar

Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur in imposing the penalty of

removal from service to Shri Arun Kumar Jha vide their

order dated 26.02.2008 is legal and justified. Therefore this

Tribunal, is not al all inclined to interfere with the findings

of the management. Hence he is not entitled to get any

relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 759-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ bankSj

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] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@07½dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&12011@8@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 759.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award No. (Ref. 38/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 06/04/2015.

[No. L-12011/8/2006-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/38/07

Asstt. General Secretary,

Akhil Bhartiya Adhinasth Bank Karamchari Sangh,

Post Box No. 62, Roxy Pul, Kampoo Road,

Lashkar, Gwalior (MP)

....Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of Indore,

Head Office, 5, Y.N. Road,

Indore (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of March, 2015

1. As per letter dated 12-3-2007 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

1660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12011/

8/2006-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the allegations made by Akhil Bhartiya

Adhinasth Bank Karamchari Sangh against the

Managing Director, State Bank of Indore, Indore

regarding practicing of unfair labour practice under

Fifth Schedule of ID Act, 1947 by him and favouring

a particular Union is justified?

If yes, what relief the Union is entitled to get?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at

Page 4/1 to 4/3. Case of Union is that it is registered under

Trade Union Act, 1926 holding Registration No. 4917.

Clause IV employees working in State Bank of Indore are

its members. Union is taking care of the grievances of its

member working with IInd party. It is alleged that IInd party

management is not providing facilities of telephone, check

facilities to its member, notice board. Union is discriminating

with motive to damage the Union. Union of officers are

given all facilities whereas this union is discrminated.

Several valuation are also made about the management

about the recovery of pay to 15% amount of overtime paid

to the employees. Heavy amount recovered for transfer of

employees. Management is also trying to break the Union,

illegal amounts are recovered.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/5

opposing claim of Union. IInd party has denied the

allegation of discrimination or showing favour to the

officers Union. IInd party submits that as per rules, there

can be only one recognized Union in Bank. That Akhil

Bhartiya Adhinasth Bank Karamchari Sangh is not

recognized Union. The Bank Officers Union is registered

under Trade Union Act, 1961. Said Union has authority to

represent the Bank employees, represent the grievances of

the Bank employees. It is denied that Rambabu Gupta was

transferred from Hajira to Patankar Market instead of Hajira

Market to Morar by way of victimization. That both

branches are in Gwalior itself. The Bank supports social

activities organized by Union. The expenses incurred for

such activity are paid by the bank. The allegation are made

by Union and favour shown to Officer Union have denied.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

Dispute could not

management of Whether the

be decided as

allegations made by Akhil

parties could not

Bhartiya Adhinasth Bank

participate in

Karamchari Sangh against

reference.

the Managing Director, State

Bank of Indore, Indore

regarding practicing of

unfair labour practice under

Fifth Schedule of ID Act,

1947 by him and favouring

a particular Union is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?

REASONS

5. Though dispute is raised by Union alleging unfair

labour practice by management and favouring Officers

Union is denied. Both parties failed to participate in

reference proceeding. No evidence is adduced by other

parties. Therefore Point No. 1 could not be adjudicated.

6. Point No. 2 - as parties failed to participate in reference

proceeding, allegations of Union could not be adjudicated

recording evidence. Therefore Union is not entitled to any

relief. Accordingly I record finding in Point No. 2.

In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) As parties failed to adduce evidence, dispute

between parties could not be adjudicated.

(2) Union is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 760-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

vkdk'kok.kh] Hkkxyiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 47@2008½ dk 'kqf)i= izdkf'kr djrh gSA vokMZ ds vafre

i`"B esa iSjk la- 6 dh pkSFkh iafDr esa vkSj vuqlwph dh rhljh iafDr esa

23,Q dks lq/kkjdj 25,Q i<+k tk, A

[lañ ,y&42012@57@2008&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2015

S.O. 760.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the corrigendum of the award No.

(Ref. 47/2008) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Prasar Bharti

Corporation of India, Akashwani, Bhagalpur and their

workman. In para No. 06 of line No. 4 as well as in the 3rd

line of Schedule, it may be corrected and read as 25F, instead

of 23F.

[No. L-42012/57/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1661

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, DHANBAD

Ref. No. 47/2008/294

Dated: 30.3.2015

Sri P.K. Venugopal, Desk Officer,

Section-IR (DU)

Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour & Employment (CLS-II),

New Delhi-110001

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Prasar Bharti Corporation of India.

Akashwani

And

Their Workman

Sub.: Issuance of Corrigendum in Ref. No. 47/2008

Order No. L-42012/57/2008 IR(DU) dt. 06.10.2008

Sir,

In continuation Letter No. Ref. No. 47/2008/960 dated

26.08.2014, award submitted for publication but a

typographical/clerical error pointed out in last page of

award in Para No. 06, of line No. 4 as well as in the 3rd line

of Schedule. It may also be corrected as 25F, the digits 23F

is wrongly typed in place of 25F which is Typographical

Mistake.

This may be corrected and corrigendum be published,

in urgent basis.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 761-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj E;qfufliy

dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ MsYgh izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

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

126@2013½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@04@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&42011@87@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2015

S.O. 761.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 126/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation

of Delhi and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 07/04/2015.

[No. L-42011/87/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

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. 126/2013

Delhi Municipal Workers Union (Regd.),

4/7, Asaf Ali Road,

New Delhi

.....Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006

......Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/87/2013-

IR(DU) dated 06.09.2013, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether Shri Satish Kumar, S/o Late Shri Balbir is

entitled to employment on compassionate grounds

and rejection of his claim by the management was

illegal and unjustified? To what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?"

2. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to

the workman as well as the management. None appeared

on behalf of the claiment. As such, this Tribunal ordered

issuance of fresh notice to the workman. Despite sending

various notices, neither the workman nor any authorized

representative on his behalf appeared before the Triunal

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.

Dated: April 6, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

1662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 762-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2008½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-04-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@57@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2015

S.O. 762.—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. 5/2008) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 08/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/57/2007-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Present : Sri Ram Parkash, HJS

Industrial Dispute No. 5 of 2008

Between:

Sri Ram Prasad,

Son of Sri Babulal,

Resident of 10/76,

New Galla Mandi ke Peeche,

Talpura Janpad

Jhansi.

And

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

372/18B, Gwalior Road,

Jhansi

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoI & Employment, New Delhi

vide notification No. L-12012/57/2007 IR B-II dated

28.11.2007, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Jhansi, in refusing to employ Sri Ram Prasad

with effect from 09.09.96 and engaging the new person in

his place is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman concerned is entitled?

3. Brief facts are—

4. It is alleged by the claimant that a select committee

was constituted by the Regional Office, Jhansi and based

on the recommendation the claimant was posted as Safai

Karamchari on 12.07.96 at Branch Office Bundelkhand of

the bank Engineering College Kanpur Road, Jhansi. It is

stated that at the end of the month he used to be paid his

wages through vouchers. It is stated that from the date of

appointment till 13.12.2000 he worked as permanent worker

as Safaikaramchari. It is further alleged that when he

presented himself at the branch on 01.01.2001 for his duty,

his services were terminated by the branch manager orally.

5. It is also alleged by the claimant that after termination

of his service by the bank he raised his voice for his service

and till date he is demandign the job. The job which was

performed by the claimant is still existing and would

continue to be in existence in future and he was appointed

as a regular employee at the branch. After termination of

his service the bank inducted new hands ignoring his claim.

He was neither offered any notice, notice pay or

retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of

his service by the bank, irrespective of the fact that in each

calendar year he had rendered 240 days of continuous

service. Original of payment vouchers are in possession of

the opposite party but he never provided copy of the same

by the bank.

6. It is stated that the whole action of the bank is unfair

labor practice.

7. Lastly it has been prayed by the applicant that the

whole action of the bank be declared as illegal and he should

be reinstated in the service of the bank with full back wages.

8. Opposite party bank has filed reply wherein they have

refuted the claim of the workman on a number of grounds,

viz. that the workman was given temporary appointment as

part time sweeper for a period of 59 days from 12.07.96 to

07.09.96 in terms of appointment letter No. RO;PRS;97-97/

1069 dated 11.7.96; that thereafter no work has been taken

by the bank; that it in correct to allege by the workman that

he had worked up to 31.12.2000 on the permanent post of

Safai karamchari in the bank; that the workman has not

filed any specific particulars in support of his contention,

therefore all the contention has become infructuous,

baseless, concocted and bad in law; that the workman has

neither submitted any letter or application in writing nor

approached to management of the bank, therefore, question

of terminating his service does not arise; that it is alleged

by the bank that it never terminated the services of the

workman; that it is stated by the bank that the appointment

can be given for the post of part time Safai karamchari only

after following the due procedure of the bank for that post

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1663

and no back door entry can be given to any person; that

no details have been given by the workman regarding

engagement of person in his place; that since the workman

was engaged temporarily only for 59 days his appointment

automaticaly came to end as per terms of the appointment

letter; that the workman never completed 240 days of

service; that as admittedly the workman was engaged only

for 59 days during the period 12.07.96 to 07.09.96, therefore,

he is not entitled for the protection of the provisions of the

Act; that the bank has not adopted any unfair labour

practice and lastly based on the above pleadings it is prayed

that the workman is not entitled for any relief and his claim

is liable to be dismissed.

9. Opposite party with its reply has also filed annexure 1

and 2.

10. Workman has also filed rejoinder in the case in which

he has reiterated that he had worked continuously from

01.06.96 to 31.12.2000 and nothing new has been pleaded

by the claimant.

11. Workman vide list dated 04.12.09 paper No. 7/4 has

filed two documents.

12. Whereas the workman in support of his claim has

examined himself as W.W. 1, opposite party has examined

Sri Brij Kishore Gautam its manager as M.W. 1.

13. I have heard the arguments at length and have also

perused the whole record.

14. In this case the admitted position of the case as per

bank's contention is that the workman was engaged as

part time safai karamchari for 59 days during the period

12.07.96 to 07.09.96, in terms of appointment letter dated

11.07.96. The claimant in his rejoinder has denied the above

facts mentioned by the bank and has reiterated that he had

continuously worked up to 31.12.2000 from 12.06.96. The

rejoinder filed by the workman is supported by his affidavit,

whereas the hard fact remains according to para 1 of his

claim statement wherein he has catgoically mentioned that

he was appointed by the opposite party bank on 12.07.96.

As such the tribunal finds variance in the date of

appointment of the workman, whereas he has in his claim

statement has clearly mentioned the fact that he was

appointed by the bank on 12.07.96. The date of appointment

of the workman as 12.07.96 has been admitted by the

opposite party in paragraph no. 5 of their reply. The

workman in his rejoinder which has been filed on affidavit

has clearly given his date of appointment as 12.06.96.

Therefore considering the variance in the date of

appointment it is held that his aversion that he was

appointed on 12.07.96 cannot be believed because he

himself has contradicted his statement in his rejoinder filed

on affidavit wherein he has clearly admitted the fact that he

was initially appointed at the post of part time safai

karamchari in the bank on 12.06.96.

15. I have also perused the evidence of the workman led

before the tribunal. In his examination in chief he has

admitted that he was engaged on 12.07.96 at the post of

safai karamchari. He has further stated that no reason were

assiged to him at the time of termination of his service. He

has also stated that no notice, notice pay of retrenchment

compensation was offered to him by the bank at the time of

terminating his services.

16. In his cross examination the workman has admitted

the fact that he was engaged for the period 12.07.96 to

08.09.96. He was provided paper No. 6/14 by the bank. He

further admitted that paper No. 6/15 which is a notice was

sent by him to the bank. He goes on to state that he never

applied before the bank for the post of safai karamchari. He

denied the suggestion that he did not complete continuous

working of 240 days.

17. Management witness in his examination in chief has

admitted the fact that the workman worked as a part time

sweeper during the period 12.07.96 to 07.09.96. The witness

has admitted the fact that the workman was given

appointment letter on 11.07.96 for the post of part time

sweeper. The workman had never worked after 07.09.96.

Witness has denied the suggestion that the workman had

ever worked with the bank after September, 96.

18. Annexure No. 1 filed by the bank along with their

claim statement is the appointment letter dated 11.07.96

which clearly envisages that the workman is engaged as a

part time sweeper with clear condition that his appointment

is limited to period 07.09.96 and he will be relieved on

08.09.96 from his job.

19. Annexure No. 2 annexed with the reply of the bank is

the representation of the workman, which is dated

20.05.2004 and was addressed to the Manager of the bank.

The workman in the said representation has clearly admitted

the fact that he worked satisfactorily with effect from

12.07.96 to 07.09.96 and that he had been removed from his

services on 16.09.96 without any notice.

20. Therefore, from the above discussion of evidence

and factual position of the case it is quite obvious that it

appears that the workman is suffering from the state of

confusion on the point as to whether he was appointed in

the bank on 12.06.96 as per his rejoinder affidavit or on

12.07.96 as per appointment letter. Therefore, since the date

of appointment of the workman has been admitted by the

bank as 12.07.96 it is held that he was appointed as part

time sweeper in the bank on 12.07.96.

21. Now it will be examined as to whether workman has

completed more than 240 days of continuous service

preceding 12 calendar months from the date of his

termination and also that as to whether the workman has

worked till 31.12.2000.

1664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

22. A bare perusal of the reference order goes to show

that no date of termination has been recorded therein. It is

the mere contention of the workman that he worked up to

31.12.2000 and he was removed from the service with effect

from 01.01.2001. It is a mere contention of the workman and

the same could not be believed for want of specific evidence

documentary as well as oral. Burden lies on the workman

to prove the above fact. If he is considering the fact that he

had worked with the bank beyond the appointment letter

heavy burden was on the workman to have summoned the

relevant record from the bank. No such effort was made by

the workman, therefore, it cannot be believed that he

continued with the bank up to 31.12.2000 and he had

completed 240 days of continuous service.

23. On the other hand the case of the bank appears to be

believable. M.W.1 in his statement has clearly stated that

the workman worked during the period 12.07.96 to 07.09.96

and that after September the workman had never worked in

the bank.

24. During the course of cross examination of the

management witness, the representative for the workman

could not be able to bring out any material from the mouth

the witness that could make his statement unbelievable.

Therefore, the tribunal is inclined to believe the case of the

management.

25. The tribunal is further of the firm opinion that the

workman has palbably failed to prove the fact that he had

completed more than 240 days of continuous service prior

to his termiantion.

26. In view of above discussion, it is held that the

workman is neither entitled for protection of the provisions

of I.D. Act and reference is bound to be decided against

the workman and in favor of the Bank.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 763-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; thou chek

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 177@2002½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-04-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@6@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2015

S.O. 763.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 177/2002) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of LIC of India and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 08/04/2015.

[No. L-17012/6/2002-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

ID No. 177 of 2002

Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Fateh Singh,

R/o Vill. Rajthal (Hansi), Hissar.

.....Workman

Versus

1. The Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India,

489-Model Town, Karnal.

.....Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. Raj Kaushik Advocate.

For the Management

Sh. Deepak Arora Advocate

ORDER

Dated: 25.02.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification

L-17012/6/2002-IR(B-II) dated 12.08.2002 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

"Whether the action of the Management of LIC of

India, Karnal in ordering removal of Sh. Ajay Kumar,

Peon from service w.e.f. 22.01.2001 is just and legal?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. Workan in claim statement submitted that he joined

the service of the management as Peon on 18.01.1997

and posted at Charkhi Dardi Branch of the

management. He was removed from service by way

of punishment vide order dated 22.01.2001. It is

pleaded by the workman that he was served with

charge sheet dated 30.12.1998. One FIR No. 23 dated

31.01.1998 has been lodged against the workman with

police Station Charkhi Dadri, under Section 406 of

IPC. Departmental proceedings were initiated in

charge sheet dated 30.12.1998. He was denied the

help of lawyer during inquiry All employee of the

branch joined hand with Branch Manager to save

the real culprit who was the custodian of the cash.

The inquiry was conducted against all principle of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1665

natural justice and fair play. The workman was held

guilty by the Enquiry Officer. He was served with

show cause notice dated 06.06.2000. The disciplinary

authority has not applied its mind while awarding

the punishment. The order of punishment is non-

speaking. It is further pleaded by the workman that

inquiry proceedings may be declared as vitiated and

workman may be reinstated in service with continuity

and back wages.

3. The management filed written statement. It is

submitted by the management that workman was

working as Peon. He was charge sheeted on

30.12.1998 for having stolen Rs. 3,00,294.20/- from

the safe of the Branch which was kept in safe on

29.01.1998. The workman was given 15 days time to

reply to the charge sheet but workman submitted his

reply on 20.04.1999 after about four months. The

workman was placed under suspension and FIR No.

23, dated 31.1998 was registered against the workman

under Section 406 IPC. In reply to the charge sheet,

the workman denied the charges. Inquiry officer was

appointed. Mr. P.K. Saxena was appointed as

Presenting Officer. The workman was not allowed to

have assistance from lawyer but he was allowed to

take assistance from any co-employee. He was given

full opportunity during inquiry to defend himself.

The Inquiry Officer held him guilty of the charges.

Workman was served with show cause notice.

Workman was also given personal hearing by the

Disciplinary Authority. Workman was inflicted with

the punishment of removal from serivce. The

workman did not file any appeal or review of the

order. As the inquiry was conducted fairly and

properly, establishing the charges as mentioned in

the charge sheet, therefore, the workman is not

entitled to any relief. As the workman was proved

guilty for huge theft, he was rightly removed from

service and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The workman filed his affidavit alongwith the

documents. The management also placed on record

the affidavit of Sh. K.P.S. Rawal, Manager (L and

HPF), Karnal in support of the case of the

management.

5. Earlier the arguments heard on the fairness of

inquiry and this Tribunal vide order dated 17.10.2014

came to the conclusion that departmental inquiry

were fairly conducted in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and fair play and workman

was given full opportunity to defend himself during

inquiry and no infirmity was found in the conduction

of the departmental inquiry. The parties were given

opportunity to lead any evidence on the point of

perversity and on quantum of punishment.

6. Workman filed his affdavit in evidence. The learned

counsel for the management submitted that he does

not want to cross examin further workman on his

fresh affidavit and earlier cross examination may be

treated as cross examination for this affidavit also

and managment also relied upon earlier evidence

produced by the management witness and close the

evidence.

7. I have heard both the parties on the point of

perversity and quantum of punishment. The learned

counsel for the workman submitted that workman

was chargesheeted for the theft of amount of Rs.

3,00,294.20/- placed in the Safe of the Branch office

on 29.01.1998. The workman in evidence produced

WW1 Anand Singh Dabas who was posted as HG

Accounts branch Charkhi Dadri, Dadri. During cross

examination Sh. Anand Singh Dabas WW1 submitted

that he has not seen any document nor he can produce

any documents showing that amount of

Rs. 3,00,294.20/- was deposited in the bank on

31.01.1998. The management witness K.P.S. Rawal

filed his affidavit who submitted in the affidavit that

workman did not file any appeal against the order of

punishment by the disciplinary authority and he has

barred by his act and conduct from filing the present

case. The charge against the workman was proved.

He has not filed any appeal. He by passed the in

built mechanism within the management and filed

this case which is against the procedure.

8. WW1 Sh. Anand Kumar Dabas, retired

Administrative Officer, LIC submitted before this

Tribunal that is is correct that on 29.01.1998 the case

closing balance of the branch was Rs. 3,00,294.20/-.

It is correct that on the next working day i.e. 31.01.1998

the closing balance of Rs. 3,00,294.20/- were

deposited in the bank. In cross-examination he stated

that the case was stolen has been shown in the daily

cash book of 31.01.1998 and as such is not shown in

daily cash balance of 29.01.1998. He further submitted

that he has not seen any document nor he can produce

any document showing that amount of

Rs. 3,00,294.20/- was deposted in the bank on

31.01.1998. WW2 Charanjit Sharma working as

Cashier branch LIC Rewari stated that daily cash

balance certificate dated 29.01. 1998 which he has

brought marked as W1 in the Court which was

handed over to him by manager P & IR Division of

Karnal. The record of daily balance book dated

29.01.1998 and 31.01.1998 is not available in the office.

The witness of the management Sh. KPS Rawal

retired Regional Manager filed his affidavit in

evidence and appeared as MW1. In cross-

examination he stated that he does not remember

whether in the enquiry the next date cash balance

1666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(daily cash balance book) was produced or not. He

has also stated that he does not know all the rules of

the Corporation including period for which the DCB

is to be weeded out. He further stated that there are

two keys of the Strong Room which is called safe.

The two different officers have the keys of the safe.

He further denied that there are three keys of the

safe.

9. During arguments it is submitted on behalf of the

workman that there was no theft of the case and the

workman has been falsely implicated.

10. Management opposed the contention of the

workman and drawn my attention to the evidence of

Sh. Narender Kumar, Branch Manager who appeared

as PW4 during the departmental enquiry and stated

as under:—

"On 31.01.1998 which was last day of the month and

it was also last day of revival campaign, incidentally

both my other Class-I Officers Sh. Sanjay Khanna,

AAO and Sh. D.B. Singh, AMB's were on sanctioned

leave. I was the only officer present in the office.

There was heavy rush of agents and policy holders

in the office since 10 A.M. being alone in the office

as officer. I was sitting on A.A.O. seat and looking

after the entire functioning of the office. Sh. Bhan

Singh, HGA had already given his key No. II of the

safe to me and he was busy with the parties for revival.

Sh Ajay Kumar Peon came to me at around 10.15 A.M.

and asked for key No. II he was having key No. I in

his hand. I Handed over key No. II to him. Since he

was Peon in the case section, so it was daily routine

for him along with holder of key No. I & II to take out

cash box from the safe and hand it over to cashier.

I was busy with the parties. I noticed that Mr. Ajay

Kumar came down stairs around ten minutes after

taking key No. I & II from me alongwith one bag and

them around ten minutes thereafter I again noticed

him going upstairs. Then he was not carrying

anything with him. At around 10.50 A.M. Ajay Kumar

called me upstairs. When I came upstairs in may

chamber where the safe is lying, I was told by Ajay

Kumar Peon that the cash in the cash bow was

missing. I saw Ajay Kumar holding key No. I & II of

the safe and keys of cash box and the safe and cash

box were laying open and only Ajay kumar Peon was

there.

I questioned Ajay Kumar as to where the cash was?

He told that he was not knowing anything and he

was very nervous. Since both the key holders of I &

II were not there, I called Sh. Ram Kishan holder of

key No. I & and Sh. Bham Singh holder of key No. II

and Sh. Sanjay Sharma cashier, and holder of cash

box keys.

Sh. Ram Kishan, HGA A/C and holder of key No. I

and Sh. Sanjay Sharma cashier holder of cash box

keys, charged Sh Ajay Kumar Peon for taking away

thier keys without their permission. Key No. II was

handed over to Ajay Kumar Peon by me but I told

Mr. Bhan Singh, HGA to accompany the peon to the

safe. It happened that Sh. Bhan Singh was busy with

the parties and could not accompany the peon to the

safe. Key No. I and cash box keys were taken away

by the peon without the permission, the question of

their accompanying the peon does not arise.

It was only only Ajay Kumar peon who operated key

No. I & II of the safe, took out cash box and opened

the case box with the cash box keys which he took

out unauthorisedly. They cash was taken away by

him between 10.25 A.M. to 10.40 A.M. approximately

out of branch premises.

Class III union people also rushed to the chamber

where this incident took place and persuaded Sh.

Ajay Kumar peon to tell the truth about the missing

cash. He was not telling anything about the missing

cash. Lot of persuasion and pressure was exercised

by his colleagues upon Sh. Ajay Kumar peon. At

one point of time, he agreed that the missing cash of

Rs. 3,00,294.20/- was with him, lying somewhere

outisde the branch. He promised to bring this money.

We in the branch decided, that since he has promised

to bring the entire missing cash, to deposit Rs.

3,00,294.20/- in the bank out of the collection at the

counter of they day 31.01.1998. The cash was

deposited in the bank out of collection of the day

31.01.1998 at around 12.45 P.M. Sh. Ajay Kumar

refused to divulge the where about of missing cash

of Rs. 3,00,294.20/-. Then I had to call the police in

the branch.

At around 1.00 P.M the police came to interrogated

Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sh. Bham Singh, Sh. Ram Kishan,

Sh. Sanjay Sharma and myself. Later on all the officials

were taken to the police custody. Sh. Ajay Kumar

was detained by the police for further interrogation.

Sh. Bhan Singh, Ram Kishan, Sanjay Sharma were

left free by the police.

The missing cash of Rs. 3,00,294.20/- was recovered

by the police from the residence of Sh. Ajay Kumar

Peon. So, It is established that Sh. Ajay Kumar peon

is the culprit in this case."

11. It is further stated by the witness that cash was kept

in the safe by holder of Key I and Key II. Up to 10 A.M. on

31.01.1998 they keys were in the possession of the key

holders and they were well within the office at 10. A.M.

From the record also it is revealed that these keys and as

per their statement in the enquiry both Sanjay Sharma

Cashier Ram Kishan Singh were busy in the morning rush

and the workman Sh. Ajay Kumar took out key No. I of the

safe and cash box keys from their respective tables drawers

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1667

without their permission and then went up stair in Branch

Manager chamber and it was Mr. Ajay Kumar workman

who called the Branch Manager up stair and informed the

Branch Manager that cash was missing from the cash box.

It is also revealed from the recored that workman agreed

that missing cash was with him and he will bring the money

back. It is also inferred from the record that Class-III union

people decided to deposit the amount or Rs. 3,00,294.20/-

only, from the collection of 31.01.1998 and Ajay Kumar

Peon then refused to bring cash back and ultimately the

police was called and FIR was lodged. From the record it is

also revealed that workman was unathorisedely in

possession of all the keys and later on the police recovered

the cash from the possession of the above mentioned Sh.

Ajay kumar workman. There is no evidence produced by

the workman in his defence which could rebut the charges.

12. Taking into consideration the fact and circumstances

of the case in hand, there is no perversity in the findings of

the inquiry officer which is well based on record and

evidence recorded during inquiry. Therefore, it is held that

there is no perversity in the findings of the inquiry officer.

13. As regard to the quantum of punishment is

concerned, the workman was appointed as Peon and joined

as such on 18.01.1997. The incident happens to be of dated

31.01.1998. The workman was working for less than two

years with the management. The act and conduct of the

workman itself shows that punishment was not

disproportionate to the misconduct of the workman. The

workman was charge-sheeted for theft of the case which is

breach of trust also. Therefore, interference of this Tribunal

in the punishment is unwarranted.

14. In view of the above, taking into consideration the

facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the

management of LIC of India, Karnal in ordering removal to

Sh. Ajay Kumar, Peon from service w.e.f. 22.01.2001 is just

and legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

15. The reference is answered accordingly. Soft as well

as hard copy be sent to the Central Government for

publication.

Chandigarh 25-2-2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 764-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

Je U;k;ky;&II] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 614@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@109@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2015

S.O. 764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the award (Ref. No. 614/2005) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour-Court

II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the industrial

dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

08/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/109/99-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. 614/2005

Registered on 24.8.2005

Sh. Gurdarshan Singh, S/o Sh. Surjit Singh,

Resident of Village and Post Office,

Ballowal, Ludhiana.

......Petitioner

Versus

Punjab National Bank, through the

Regional Manager, Ludhiana

........Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

She Tek. Chand Sharma,

Advocate.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on 23.12.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L.12012/109/

99 (IR(B-II) Dated 31.8.1999, by exervising its powers under

section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-Section (2-

A) of the Industrial Dsputes 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 Punjab

National Bank in awarding the punishment of

dismissal from services to Sh. Gurdarshan Singh is

legal and just? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from which date?

1668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The facts in brief are that workman was posted as Clerk-

cum-Cashier with the respondent management and was

posted as such at Branch Office Jawadi in Febraury, 1994.

On 26.12.1994 he oabtained a cheque of Rs. 35000/- in the

name of his wife from M/s G.C. Auto Industries knowing

that the cash credit limit was already over drawn. Later on

he go cashed the cheque and the amount was credited in

his Account No. 17127 maintained by the workman jointly

with his wife Pritpal Kaur. He received a cash payment of

Rs. 35000/- on 30.3.1994, when his wife issued a cheque.

The proceedings were shared with one Prabhjit Singh who

connived with him to withdraw the amount. On the said

allegations, he was charge-sheeted and regular inquiry was

conducted and charges were found proved against him.

Considering the inquiry report, a show cause notice was

issued to the workman who submitted reply and after giving

him personal hearing; he was dismissed from service

without notice vide order dated 8.6.1993.

Workman challenged the inquiry proceedings and the

dismissal order on various grounds as find mention in the

statement of claim.

Respondent bank submitted a written reply pleading

that workman committed a fraud with the respondent bank

by withdrawing a sum of Rs. 35000/- and the allagations

were found to be correct during the inquiry and considering

the misconduct committed by the workman, he was rightly

dismissed from service. That the inquiry proceedings as

well as the order of dismissal are legal and valid.

A lengthly arguments was advanced by learned counsel

for the workman to show that the inquiry conducted in this

case is not fair and proper which need not be mentioned as

the inquiry was held to be legal and valid vide order dated

27.1.2014. The said order has not been challenged by the

workman and therefor it cannot be said that the inquiry

conducted in the case in not fair and legal.

It was contended by the workman counsel that no loss

has been caused to the bank and therefore extreme

punishment of dismissal from service is not warranted

under the law and considering the circumstances, the

punishment be reduced. It is settled law that the bank officer

is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and

integrity as he deals with the money of the depositors and

customers. The workman is guilty of committing a fraud of

Rs. 35000/- with the bank which is a gross misconduct on

his part. Considering the action of the workman, the

management has rightly inflicted the punishment of

dismissal from service and the same do not call for any

interference.

Thus the action of the management in awarding the

punishment to the workman is legal and just and the

workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference is

answered accordingly. Let hard and soft copy of the award

be sent to the Central Government for further necessary

action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 765-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k eas

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

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49@00½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@278@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2015

S.O. 765.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/00 of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 08/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/278/99-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/49/00

Shri Mohd. Hanif,

R/o Jhogi Durgadham Shahanshah Garden,

Govindpura,

Bhopal (MP)

.......Workman

Versus

Regional Managaer,

Bank of India,

Regional Officer,

Russel Chowk,

Napier town, Jabalpur,

...... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of January 2015

1. As per letter dated 15-2-00 by the Government of

India, Ministrty of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

12012/278/99-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1669

"Whether the claim of the disputant, Shri Mohd Hanif

S/o Munabar Shah that he was engaged as a Sub-

Staff during the period from 5-7-89 to 30-09-92 by the

management of Bank of India is justified? If so,

whether the management of Bank of India, Regional

Office, Jabalpur is justified in terminating his service

w.e.f. 30-09-92? If not, what relief is the disputant

entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially appointed as daily wage employee from July 89 on

vacant post of Daftary in Rahatgarh Branch. He was

appointed after Daftary Shri S.L. Sharma was promoted in

clerical cadre. That he worked with honesty and sincerity.

His services were orally terminated in August 1992. That

he completed 240 days continuous service during each of

the year. His services were terminated in violatin of Section

25-F of ID Act. After termination of his service, IInd party

engaged one Ram Kumar for the same work. The principles

of last come first go was violated. On such ground, workman

prays for re-instatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 3/1 to 3/6.

Preliminary objection was raised by IInd party that reference

is not tenable. Govt. has decided that employer employee

relationship exists is referring ratio held in various caes.

The dispute is raised after 8 years is not tenable. It is

submitted that workman was engaged intermittently for

casual nature of jobs. Such engagement cannot be said

regular or temporary appointment. Zonal Manager is

empowered to appoint subordinate staff. Workman was

not sponsored through Employment Exchange. The public

employment providing reservation of different kinds

guarantees equality of employment. Workman was not

appointed such reservation policies. Workman was not on

roll of the Bank. His temporary engagement comes to end

at end of day. All other contentions of workman regarding

completion of 240 days continuous services, termination

of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act are

denied. Violation of principles of last come first go is also

denied. Violation of Section 25-G of ID Act is denied.

4. Ist party submitted rejoinder at Page 4/1/ to 4/5

reiteratiing his contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the claim of the

In Affirmative

disputant, Shri Mohd. Hanif

S/o Munabar Shah that he

was engaged as a Sub-Staff

during the period from 5-7-89 to

30-9-92 by the management of

Bank of India is justified?

(ii) Whether the management

In Negative

of Bank of India, Regional

Office, Jabalpur is justified

in terminating his services

w.e.f. 30-9-92?

(iii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for

violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act, In support of his

claim, he filed affidavit of is evidence. Workman says he

was engaged on daily wages in July 89 at branch. His

services were terminated without notice. He completed 240

days continuous service. He worked for 556 days during

July 89 to Sept 92. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation. In his cross-examination, workman says he

was appointed by Branch Manager, Shri S.P. Sahu. Post

was not advertised. He himself has gone to the Bank

enquiring the vacancies. He was told to attend work from

next day. Appointment letter was not given to him. He was

doing work of various nature. He was paid wages under

vouchers. At that time, Daftary Shri S.N. Sharma was

working. Evidence of workman about working in branch is

not shattered in cross-examination. Workman denied all

contrary suggestions to him. Payment vouchers are

produced at Exhibit 161. The vouchers at Page 13/39 to

13/48 shows that workman was paid monetary wages.

Workman had completed more than 240 days continuous

service during preceding 12 months of his termination of

his services. Management's witness Shri Awadesh Kumar

Tiwari filed affidavit of evidence supporting contentions

of management. In his cross-examination, he says that he

was working Rahatgarh Branch in April 1991. He was

acquainted with workman. He was posted in the branch on

daily wages. Workman was not piad wages evey day. He

was paid wages at end of the month or sometimes twice in

a month. Workman was working from 10 AM to 5 PM.

Witness of management claims ignorance who had engaged

workman in the Bank. Branch Manager was paying wages

of workman and used to get reimbursement. The vouchers

were signed by Branch Manager. It is surprised to say that

Evidence of management's witness also corroborated by

evidence of workman. evidence of workman is also

corroborated by documents. Payment vouchers

collectively marked W-1. The services of workman are

terminated without notice, no retrenchment compensation

is paid to him. Termination of services of workman is illegal

for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons,

I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative and Point

No. 2 in Negative.

7. Point No. 3— in view of my finding in Point No. 2,

termination of service of workman is illegal, question arises

whether he is entitled for re-instatement with back wages.

The evidence on record shows workman was working with

1670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2015/CHAITRA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

IInd party from July 89 to Sept 1992 for more than 3 years.

Workman was engaged by Branch Manager without

following recruitment rules therefore re-instatement with

back wages would not be justified. Considering working

days of Ist party workman, compensation Rs. 75,000 would

be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No. 3.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management is not legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 75,000/- to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

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

from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 766-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; thou chek

fuxe ds izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 333@99½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@04@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@36@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2015

S.O. 766.—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. 333/99 of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of LIC of India and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 08/04/2015.

[No. L-17012/36/99-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/333/99

Shri Padum Singh Raj, Ex-worker of LIC,

Vill Chorbhatti (Khurd),

P.O. Bharnt, via Ganiyari,

Bilaspur.

......... Workman

Versus

Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Office, Jeevan Bima Marg,

Raipur.

....... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of January 2015

1. As per letter dated 18-11-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section —10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-17012/36/99/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India Kosabadi Branch, Distt. Bilaspuer (under

divisonal office, Raipur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Padum Singh Raj, Ex-peon of LIC,

Kosabadi Branch w.e.f. 1-1-1998 is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. After receiving reference, notices were isued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

6/1/ to 6/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he joined

service as peon on 7-12-87 with IInd party. Service record

was satisfactory. He was continuously working from 7-12-

87 to 31-12-97 without any adverse remarks. The employers

had issued service certificate about his working. That he

was working for 10 years. His service were orally terminated

by management of LIC without issuing any notice. His

request for re-employment was rejected by the management.

That he was initially appointed at age of 33 years. He has

attended age of 45 years. He could not get employment in

any Govt. department. His termination from service is

contrary to law. On such ground, workman prays for his re-

instatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1/ to 7/5.

Relief prayed by workman are opposed. IInd party submits

that workman is not entitled to any relief. His claim deserves

to be dismissed. The LIC of India has framed rules under

Section 48(2)(cc) of LIC Act 1956. As per Section 49 of said

act, the rules are made covering all matters. The corporation

in exercise of powers under Section 49(2) of the Act service

regulations were introduced. The temporary staff is

engaged as per general or special directions issued by the

Chairman from time to time. That workman was engaged as

daily wager. Workman worked for 18 days in the month of

Dec. 87. The working days of workman are shown in

annexure M-1. Badli workers were working in branch office

No. 2 at Korba such as Brijbhan Ahirwar, Rakesh Kumar

Yadav and Shyam Das Manikpuri any person cannot claim

right to hold civil post by back door entry. That workman

was engaged intermittently as per exigencies. It is reiterated

that workman had not acquired right to claim re-instatement.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 11] 2015@pS= 21] 1937

1671

4. Workman has filed rejoinder at Page 8/2 to 8/6.

Workman has shown his working days since 87 to 97. The

establishment of IInd party is not carrying work of casual/

sensonal nature. It is denied that workman was engaged

intermittently.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of LIC of India

Kosabadi Branch, Distt.

Bilaspur (under divisional

office, Raipur (MP) in

terminating the services

of Shri Padum Singh Raj,

Ex-peon of LIC, Kosabadi

Branch w.e.f. 1-1-1998 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Though workman has raised dispute challenging

termination of his services, workman failed to participate in

reference proceeding. The evidence of workman was closed

on 16-8-12.

7. Management's witness filed affidavit of witness Shri

Anthres supporting contentions of management. His

evidence remained unchallenged. There is no evidence by

workman in support of his claim. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of LIC of India

Kosabadi Branch, Distt. Bilaspur (under divisional

office, Raipur (MP) in terminating the services of

Shri Padum Singh Raj, Ex-peon of LIC, Kosabadi

Branch w.e.f. 1-1-1998 is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

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.