This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

सं. 22] नई दिल्ली, मई 24—मई 30, 2015, शनिवार/ज्येष्ठ 3—ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937

No. 22] NEW DELHI, MAY 24—MAY 30, 2015, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 3—JYAISTHA 9, 1937

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

वित्त मंत्रालय

(Department of Expenditure)

(व्यय विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1072.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में भारतीय लेखा परीक्षा और लेखा विभाग के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके अस्सी प्रतिशत कर्मचारिवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अध्सिूचित करती हैः

1. प्रधन निदेशक लेखापरीक्षा (केन्द्रीय), लखनऊ।

2. महालेखाकार (आर्थिक एवं राजस्व क्षेत्र लेखापरीक्षा), केरल

तिरूवनंतपुरम।

3. महानिदेशक लेखापरीक्षा, डाक व दूरसंचार, दिल्ली

(शाखा कार्यालय कपूरथला)।

[सं॰ ए॰-12034/02/2014-ई॰ जी॰]

ऐनी जॉर्ज मैथ्यू,संयुक्त सचिव

2180 GI/2015

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1072.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Government of India in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty per cent of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi, namely:—

1. Principal Director of Audit (Central), Lucknow;

2. Accountant General, (Economic and Revenue

Sector Audit), Kerala, Thiruvanathapuram;

3. Director General of Audit, Post & Telecommunications, Delhi (Branch office Kapurthala)

[No. A-12034/02/2014-EG]

ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Jt. Secy.

(2379)2380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(हिन्दी अनुभाग-2)

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1073.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम 1976 के नियम, 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अध्ीन आयुक्त कार्यालय, सीमा शुल्क (निवारक), नवीन सीमा शुल्क भवन, नई दिल्ली को जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अध्कि कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अध्सिूचित करती है।

क्रम सं॰ कार्यालय का नाम

6. मुख्य कारखाना प्रबंध्क, वैगन रिपेयर शॉप, रायपुर

[सं॰ हिंदी-2015/रा॰भा॰-1/12/2]

के॰ पी॰ सत्यानंदन, निदेशक, (राजभाषा)

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

[फा॰सं॰ई॰-11017/01/2015-ए॰डी॰ (हिन्दी-2)]

चन्द्रभान नारनौली, निदेशक (राजभाषा) (RAILWAY BOARD)

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

(HINDI DIVISION-II)

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

S.O. 1073.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby Notifies the Office of the Commissioner Customs (Preventive), New Customs Buidling, New Delhi under the department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11017/01/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]

CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL) S.O. 1074.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages Rules, 1976 (use for official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the following Offices of Raipur Division and Bilaspur Division and Chief Workshop Manager, Wagon Repair Shop, Raipur of South East Central Railway, where 80% or more Officers/Employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:—

Sl. No. Name of the Office

1. Diesel Loco Shed, Raipur

2. Electric Loco Shed, Bhilai

3. P.P. Yard, Bhilai

4. Office of the Assistant Divisional Electric

Engineer (TRD), Pendra Road

रेल मंत्रालय

5. Office of the Assistant Divisional Signal &

(रेलवे बोर्ड)

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1074.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड), राजभाषा नियम 1976 (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम 10 के उप-नियम (2) और (4) के अनुसरण में दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य रेलवे, बिलासपुर के रायपुर मंडल तथा बिलासपुर मंडल के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों तथा मुख्य कारखाना प्रबंध्क, वैगन रिपेयर शॉप, रायपुर को जहां 80% से अध्कि अध्किारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करती हैः—

Telecom Engineer, Manendgarh.

6. Office of the Chief workshop Manager, Wagon

Repair Shop, Raipur

[No. Hindi-2015/O.L.1/12/2]

K. P. SATHYANANDAN, Director (O.L.)

वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय

क्रम सं॰ कार्यालय का नाम

(वाणिज्य विभाग)

1. डीजल लोको शेड, रायपुर

2. विद्युत लोको शेड, भिलाई

3. पी॰ पी॰ यार्ड, भिलाई

4. सहायक मंडल विद्युत इंजीनियर (कर्षण) कार्यालय, पेंड्रा रोड

5. सहायक मंडल सिगनल एवं दूरसंचार इंजीनियर कार्यालय,

मनेन्द्रगढ़

नई दिल्ली, 26 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1075.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम (2) के साथ पठित निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) अध्निियम, 1963 (1963 का 22) की धरा 7 की उपधरा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स क्वालिटी सर्विसिज एंड सोल्यूशन्स (गोआ), द्वितीय मंजिल, रूक्मणी टावर, तिलक मैदान के समीप, एफ॰ एल॰ गोम्स रोड,[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2381 वास्को डी गामा, गोआ-403802, को इस अध्सिूचना, के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवध् िके लिए भारत सरकार के वाण्ज्यि मंत्रालय, की अध्सिूचना सं॰ का॰आ॰ 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अध्सिूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूचियों में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क, समूह-1, अर्थात्‌, लौह अयस्क, बाक्साइट और मैंगनीज अयस्क को निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अध्ीन गोआ, में उक्त खनिज और अयस्क के निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है, अर्थात्‌ः—

(i) मैसर्स क्वालिटी सर्विसिज एंड सोल्यूशन्स (गोआ) खनिज और अयस्क समूह-1 का निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अध्ीन उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद्‌ द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अध्किारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधएं देगी; और

(ii) मैसर्स क्वालिटी सर्विसिज एंड सोल्यूशन्स (गोआ), इस अध्सिूचना के अध्ीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक (निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद्‌ समय-समय पर लिखित में दिए गए ऐसे निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे।

[फां॰ सं॰-4/9/2014-निर्यात निरीक्षण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयुक्त सचिव them in carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores-Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) M/s. Quality Service & Solutions (Goa) in the performance of their functions under this notification shall be bound by such directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[F. No. 4/9/2014-Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1076.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में वाणिज्य विभाग के अध्ीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को अध्सिूचित करती है, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अध्कि कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया हैः—

एमएमटीसी, 2 नगिनदास चेम्बर, उसमापुर आश्रम रोड़, अहमदाबाद-380 061

[सं॰ ई॰-11013/1/2014-हिंदी]

सुधंशु पाण्डेय, संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2015

S.O. 1076.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Govt. hereby notifies the following office under Department of Commerce, whereof more than 80% staff have acquired a working knowledge of Hindi:—

MMTC, 2 Nagindas Chamber Usmapur, Ashram Road Ahmedabad-380 061

[No. E-11013/1/2014-Hindi]

SUDHANSHU PANDEY, Jt. Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो)

S.O. 1075.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section (7) of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub- rules (2) and (3) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. Quality Services & Solutions (Goa), 2nd Floor, Rukmini Tower, Near Tilak Maidan, F.L. Gomes road, Vasco Da Gama, Goa-403802 as an agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette, for the inspection of minerals and ores Group-I, namely, Iron Ore, Bauxite and Manganese Ore specified in the Schedule annexed to the Ministry of Commerce notification number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December 1965, prior to export of aforesaid minerals and ores at Goa, subject to the following conditions, namely:—

(i) M/s. Quality Service & Solutions (Goa) shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1077.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसो के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैंः—

अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृति करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक भामा सं॰/ का शीर्षक भाग/खण्ड संख्या संख्या की तिथि वर्ष/माह

/वर्ष

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. 2910352 01/09/2014 स्वराज इण्डस्ट्रीयल एवं डोमस्टिक अप्लाइअॅन्सेस बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य भा॰मा॰ 4250 : 1980 प्रा॰ लि॰, पर्ल ग्लास कंपाउण्ड मिक्सर आ॰ बी॰ पटेल रोड, गोरेगॉव पूर्व (द्रवीपर और ग्राइडर) मुंबई 400 063

2. 2910251 02/09/2014 एशियन आर्ट इण्डस्ट्रीज घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों भा॰मा॰ 3854ः 1997 प्लॉट सं॰ 30 एबी, सरकारी इण्ड, के लिए स्विच इस्टेट, एम जी रोड कांदिवली पश्चिम मुंबई 400 067

3. 2915968 09/09/2014 जी॰एम॰ मोडयूलर प्रा॰ लि॰ इलेक्ट्रॉनिक टाइप पंखा भा॰मा॰ 11037ः 1984 गाला सं॰ 8 से 15 तक, बोकाडिया इण्ड. इस्टेट रेगुलेटर सातीवली रोड, वालिव गॉव, वसई पूर्व, जिला ठाणे 401 208

4. 29138363 10/09/2014 सरस्वती वायर एण्ड केबल इण्डस्ट्रीज 1100 वोल्ट तक कार्यकारी भा॰मा॰ प्लॉट सं॰ सी-1, एसएल॰ सं॰ 47/2 वोल्टता के लिए पीवीसी 1554(भाग 1)ः 1988 वेवूर गॉव, पोस्ट मनोर रोड रोध्ति (भारी डयुटी) पालध्र, पूर्व, जिलाः ठाणे-401 404 विद्युत केबल

5. 2914461 11/09/2014 सुध्ीर स्विचगेयर प्रा॰लि॰ एक्सप्लोसिव ऐटमॅस्फिअर्स- भा॰मा॰/आयईसी 60079ः गेट सं॰144, ए, ओम आकाश फाइबर से अगला भाग-1 फलेमप्रूफ इनक्लोजर भाग-1ः 2007 साई कृृपा धबा के पीछे (टम्बी धबा) 'डी' द्वारा उपस्कर संरक्षा घोनसाई गॉव (मेट), तालुका वाडा, ठाणे 421 312

6. 2915463 12/09/2014 वीनस सेफटी एण्ड हेल्थ प्रा॰लि॰ नेत्र संरक्षक भा॰मा॰ 5983ः1980 प्लॉट सं॰ एल-75/76, एमआयडीसी तलोजा पनवेल, जिला रायगढ-410 208

7. 2916768 17/09/2014 यूनीवर्सल केबल्स लि॰

1100 वे तक एवं सहित भा॰मा॰ 694ः 1990 प्लॉट सं॰ एल-58 से एल-60 तक कार्यकारी वोल्टता के वेरणा इण्ड, इस्टेट, वेरना, सालसेट लिए पीवीसी रोध्ति केबल जिलाः दक्षिण गोवा, गोवा-403 722

8. 2916869 17/09/2014 यश पाईप्स एण्ड फिटिंग्स सिंचाई उपस्कर फुहारा पाईप भा॰मा॰ 14151ः भाग-2ः

विशिष्टि भाग 2 शीघ्र युग्मक 2008 वी-74, एमआईडीसी जलगॉव 425003 महाराष्ट्र पॉलीथिलीन पाइप

9. 2918570 22/09/2014 कुकवेल डोमेस्टिक अप्लाइअॅन्सेस बिजली के घरेलू भा॰मा॰ 4250ः1980 प्लॉट सं॰ 213, शेलार कंपाउण्ड खादय मिक्सर सुभाष नगर, विलेज रोड नाहुर पश्चिम भाण्डुप (द्रवीपर और ग्राइडर) मुंबई 400 078

10. 2918671 22/09/2014 सुपर टेप्स

विदयुत प्रयोजनों के लिए भा॰मा॰ 7809(भाग 3)ः परमार टेक्नो सेंटर, फेस 1, गाला सं॰ 3 दाब सुग्राही आसंजनशील खंड 1ः 1986 एक्सप्रेस हाईव, पेल्हार गॉव, वसई फाटा के नजदीक विदयुतरोध्ी टेप-भाग 3ः वसई पूर्व, जिला ठाणे 401208 अलग अलग सामग्रियों की महाराष्ट्र अपेक्षाएॅ खंड 1ः अ तापमापी आसंजनशील वाले सुघथ्टयत पॉलीविनाइलक्लोराइड टेप[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2383 1 2 3 4

5 6

11. 2920557 26/09/2014 क्रिशित अप्लायंसेस बिजली के घरेलू भा मा 4250ः 1980 30,32 जय इण्ड॰ इस्टेट, सातीवली उद्‌योग नगर खाद्‌य मिक्सर सातीवली रोड, वालिव गॉव, वसई पूर्व, (द्रवीपर और ग्राइडर) जिला ठाणे-401208

12. 2920658 26/09/2014 ग्रिप्पो सॉल्यूशन इंडिया प्रा॰ लि॰

विदयुत प्रयोजनों के लिए भा मा 7809 (भाग 3)ः गोदाम सं॰ 1,2 एवं 3, प्लॉट सं॰ 121 दाब सुग्राही आसंजनशील खंड 1ः 1986 गुंदवली गॉव, भिवण्डी, जिला ठाणे-401208 विदयुतरोध्ी टेप-भाग 3ः महाराष्ट्र अलग-अलग सामग्रियों

की अपेक्षाएॅ खंड 1ः अ तापमापी आसंजनशील वाले सुघथ्टयत पॉलीविनाइलक्लोराइड टेप

13. 2922460 29/09/2014 जोसेफ लेस्ली डायनामाइक्स मैन्यूफैक्चरिंग प्रा॰ लि॰ श्वसन उपकरण भाग 3ः भा मा 10245ः भाग 3ः 1999 वोरा इण्डस्ट्रीयल कॉम्प्लेक्स, भोईडापाडा शुद्ध वायु होज और संपीडित गोखिवरे, वसई पूर्व, जिला ठाणे-401208 वायु अनुरूप श्वसन उपकरण महाराष्ट्र

14. 2921458 30/09/2014 टेक्नो फलेक्स केबल्स 1100 वो तक एवं सहित भा॰ मा॰ 694ः 1990 प्लॉट सं॰ 18 बी एवं 24, दिवान उद्‌योग नगर कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए सुंदरम स्कूल के पीछे, विलेज माहीम पी वी सी रोध्ति केबल तालुका पालघर, ठाणे-401404 महाराष्ट्र

[सं॰ केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग 13ः11]

टी. कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ-ईईई)

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART-II, SECTION-3, SUBSECTION (ii)]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

S.O. 1077.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licence Grant Name and address (factory) of the party Product IS No./Part/Sec.

No. No. Date

Year

1 2 3 4

5 6

1. 2910352 01/09/2014 Swaraj Industrial & Domestic Domestic Electric IS 4250: 1980 Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Food-Mixers

Pearl Glass Compound, I.B. Patel

(Liquidizes and

Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063 Grinders)

2. 2910251 02/09/2014 Asian Art Industries Switches for IS 3854: 1997 Plot No. 30AB, Govt. Indl. Estate domestic and

M.G. Road, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400067 similar purposes

1 2 3 4

5 6

3. 2915968 09/09/2014 G.M. Modular Private Limited Electronic Type IS 11037: 1984 Gala No.8 to 15, Bokadia Industrial Fan Estate, Sativali Road, Village Valiv Vasai (East)-401208, Dist Thane

4. 2913863 10/09/2014 FCG Power Craft

PVC insulated IS 1554: Part 1: 1988 Gala No. 5, Plot No. 5, SR No. 36523 (heavy duty) Premier Indl. Estate, Kachigam electric cables: Nani Daman, Daman & Diu-396210 Part 1 for working

voltages upto and including 1 100 v

5. 2914461 11/09/2014 Sudhir Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. Explosive atmos- IS/IEC 60079:

Gut No. 144A, Next to Om Akash Fibres pheres Part 1 Part 1: 2007 Behind Saikrippa Dhaba (Tambi Dhaba) equipment Village: Ghonsai (Met) Tal: Wada, Thane-421312 protection by

flameproof enclosures "d"

6. 2915463 12/09/2014 Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. Eye-protectors IS 5983: 1980 Plot No. L-75/76, MIDC Taloja Panvel, Dist: Raigad-410208

7. 2916768 17/09/2014 Universal Cables Ltd. PVC Insulated Cables IS 694: 1990 Plot No. L-58 to L-60, Verna Indl Estate for working Voltages Verna, Salcete South Goa upto and including Goa-403722

1100 V IS 694: 1990

8. 2916869 17/09/2014 Yash Pipes and Fittings

V-74, MIDC Jalgaon-425003 Maharashtra

Irrigation equipment- IS 14151: sprinkler pipes- Part 2: 2008 specification-Part 2: quick coupled polyethylene pipes

9. 2918570 22/09/2014 Cookwell Domestic Appliances Domestic Electric IS 4250: 1980 Plot No. 213, Shelar Compound Food-Mixers Subhash Nagar, Village Road, Nahur (W) (Liquidizes and Bhandup, Mumbai-400078 Grinders)

10. 2918671 22/09/2014 Super Tapes

Pressure sensitive IS 7809: Part 3: Sec 1:

Parmar Techno Center, Phase 1, Gala adhesive insulating 1986 No. 3, Western Express Highway, Pelhar tapes for electrical Village, Near Vasai Phata purposes-Part 3: Vasai(E), Dist: Thane- 401208 requirements for Maharashtra

individual materials- section 1: plasticised polyvinylchloride tapes with non- thermosetting adhesive

11. 2920557 26/09/2014 Krishit Appliances Domestic Electric IS 4250:1980 30, 32 Jay Indl. Estate, Sativali Udyog Food-Mixers Nagar, Sativali Road, Village (Liquidizes and Waliv Vasai(E), Dist: Thane-401208 Grinders)

12. 2920658 26/09/2014 Grippo Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Pressure sensitive IS 7809: Part 3: Sec 1:

Godown No. 1, 2 & 3, Plot No. 121 adhesive insulating 1986 Village Gundavli tapes for electric Bhiwandi, Distt. Thane-421321 purposes-Part 3: requirements for Maharashtra individual materials- section 1: plasticized polyvinylchloride tapes with non- thermosetting adhesive[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2385 1 2 3 4

5 6

13. 2922460 29/09/2014 Joseph Leslie Dynamiks MFG Pvt Ltd. Breathing apparatus- IS 10245: Part 3: 1999 Vora Indl. Complex, Bhohidapada Part 3: fresh air hose Gokhiware, Vasai(E) Thane-400028

and compressed air line breathing apparatus

14. 2921458 30/09/2014 Techno Flex Cables

PVC Insulated IS 694: 1990

including 1100 V

Plot No. 18/B & 24, Diwan Udyog Cables for working Nagar, Behind Sundaram School Voltages upto and Village Mahim, Tal: Palghar Distt. Thane-401404 Maharashtra IS 694: 1990

[No. CMD/13:11] T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1078.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे रद्‌द कर दिए गए हैंः-

अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध रद्‌द करने की तिथि संख्या संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

कुछ नहीं

[सं॰ केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः13] टी. कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एम यू बी ओ-ईईई)

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

S.O. 1078.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licence Name and address of the Article/process with relevant Date of No. No. licensee

Indian standard covered by the cancellation Licence

Nil

[No. CMD/13:13] T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1079.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैंः-2386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृति करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक भामा सं॰/

का शीर्षक भाग/खण्ड/ संख्या संख्या की तिथि वर्ष/माह

वर्ष 1 2 3 4

5 6 1 2931158 28/10/2014 अदवय ड्रिप ईरीगेशन एण्ड पीवीसी पाईप लि॰ सिंचाई उपस्कर-उत्सर्जक भा॰ मा 13487ः 1992 प्लॉट सं॰ ई 69, एमआयडीसी, अवधन ध्ुले-424006

2 2931259 28/10/2014 अदवय ड्रिप ईरीगेशन एण्ड पीवीसी पाईप लि॰ सिंचाई उपस्कर-सिंचाई भा॰ मा 12786ः 1989 प्लॉट सं॰ ई 69, एमआयडीसी, अवधन लैटरलों हेतु पॉलीथिलीन ध्ुले-424006

पाईप

3 2931360 28/10/2014 अदवय ड्रिप ईरीगेशन एण्ड पीवीसी पाईप लि॰ उत्सर्जन पाईप प्रणाली भा॰ मा 13488ः 2008 प्लॉट सं॰ ई 69, एमआयडीसी, अवधन ध्ुले-424006

[सं॰ केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः11]

टी. कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ-ईईई)

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1079.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licence Grant Name and address (factory) of the party Product IS No./Part/Sec./ No. No. Date

Year

1 2 3 4

5 6 1 2931158 28/10/2014 Advay Drip Irrigation & PVC Pipe Irrigation equipment- IS 13487: 1992 Plot No. E-69, MIDC, Awadhan emitters-

Dhule-424006

2 2931259 28/10/2014 Advay Drip Irrigation & PVC Pipe Irrigation equipment- IS 12786: 1989 Plot No. E-69, MIDC, Awadhan polyethylene pipes

Dhule-424006

for irrigation laterals-

3 2931360 28/10/2014 Advay Drip Irrigation & PVC Pipe Emitting pipes system IS 13488: 2008 Plot No. E-69, MIDC, Awadhan

Dhule-424006

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1080.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे रद्‌द कर दिए गए हैंः-[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2387 अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध रद्‌द करने की तिथि संख्या संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

कुछ नही

[सं॰ केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः13]

टी. कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एम यू बी ओ-ईईई)

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1080.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:—

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licence Name and address of the Article/process with relevant Date of No. No. licensee

Indian standard covered by the cancellation Licence

Nil

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

नई दिल्ली, 22 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1081.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैंः

अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृति करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक भामा सं॰/

का शीर्षक भाग/खण्ड/वर्ष संख्या संख्या की तिथि वर्ष/माह

1 2 3 4

5 6

1. 2944571 27/11/2014 कोहीनूर केबल्स 1100 वोल्ट तक कार्यकारी भा॰मा॰ 1554 (भाग 1) गााला सं॰ 5 एवं 6, उस्मान सेठ इस्टेट, वोल्टता के लिए पी वी सी ः 1988 सातीवली मंदिर के सामने, भारत वेलवेट रोधित (भारी ड्‌यूटी) के पीछे सफेद पूल, कुर्ला अंधेरी रोड, विद्युत केबल साकी नाका, अंधेरी पूर्व मुंबई 400072

2. 2937978 14/11/2014 ट्रीन टेक्नोलॉजी

घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों भा॰मा॰ 3854 :1997 गाला सं॰ 8,9 एवं 10 लुथारिया हाउस, के लिए स्विचे सातीवली मेन रोड, सातीवली वसई पूर्व, जिला थाणे 401208

3. 2944470 28/11/2014 सेलवन इण्डस्ट्रिज घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों भा॰मा॰ 3854 : 1997 गााला स॰ 202ए दूसरा माला, आशिर्वाद के लिए स्विचे इण्ड. इस्टेट नं 3, राम मंदिर रोड, गोरेगांव (प), मुंबई 400104

4. 2943569 24/11/2014 रियायंस प्रिजिसन सिस्टम इलेक्ट्रॉनिक वनज प्रणाली भा॰मा॰ 9281

(भाग 3)ः 1981 सी 48ए इलेक्ट्रॉनिक सदन 1, तीसरा माला टीटीसी एण्ड एरिया, महापे तालुका एवं जिला थाणे 4007102388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4

5 6

5. 2942769 11/11/2014 स्वागतम प्लास्टिक विद्युत संस्थापनों के लिए भा॰मा॰ 9537 (भाग 3) प्लॉट सं॰ 257/10ए गोवा आयडीसी, नलिकाएं भाग 3 विद्युतरोधी ः1983 फायर स्टेशन के नजदीक, रगनवाडा सामग्री के दृढ सादे इस्पात नानी दमन, दमन-396210 नलिकाए

6. 2933162 03/11/2014 प्रतिभा पैकेजग पॉलीमर प्रा॰लि॰ वस्त्रादी कनल अस्तर के भा॰मा॰ 15351ः2003

लिए लेमिनित उच्च

सुमंगल हाउस, प्लॉट सं॰ 19, मघ सेक्टर, वाटर प्यूरीफिकेशन घनत्व वाले पॉलीइथाईलीन के सामने सुन्दरबन कॉलनी, (एचडीपीई) वस्त्र नासिक-422009

7. 2933061 03/11/2014 आदिनाथ पॉलीफैब प्रा॰लि॰ एग्रो वस्त्रादी वर्मिकलचर के भा॰मा॰ 15907 : 2010

लिए उच्च घनत्व

प्लॉट सं॰ एच 25, अति एमआईडीसी कुंदवली विलेज, मुरबाड थाणे-421401 पॉलीथिलीन (एचडीपीई)

ओवन बेडस

[सं॰ केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः11] टी. कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ-ईईई)

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2015

S.O. 1081.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:—

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licence Grant Name and address (factory) of the party Product IS No./Part/Sec No. No. Date

Year

1 2 3 4

5 6

1 2944571 27/11/2014 Kohinoor Cables PVC insulated (heavy IS 1554 : Part 1 : 1988 Gala No. 5 & 6, Usman Seth Estate, Opp: duty) electric cables: Sativali Temple, Behind Bharat Velvet, part 1 for working Safed Pool, Kulra-Andheri Road, Saki voltages upto and Naka, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400072 including 1 100 v

2. 2937978 14/11/2014 Treen Technologies Switches for domestic IS 3854 : 1997 Gala No. 8,9,10 First Floor, Lutharia and similar purposes House, Sativali Main Road, Sativali Vasai (E) Dist: Thane-401208

3. 2944470 28/11/2014 Celvon Industries Switches for domestic IS 3854 : 1997 Gala No. 202, 2nd Floor, Ashirvad Indl. and similar purposes Estate No. 3, Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai-400104

4. 2943569 24/11/2014 Reliance Precision Systems Electronic weighing IS 9281 : Part 3 : 1981 C-48, Electronic Sadan-1, third floor, system-part 3 requirements TTC Indl. Area, Mahape Tal. & Distt: Thane-400701

5. 2942769 11/11/2014 Swagattam Plastics Conduits for electrical IS 9537 : Part 3 : 1983 Plot No. 257/10, GOA.I.D.C. Near Fire installations: part 3 Station, Ringanwada rigid plain conduits Nani Daman, Daman-396210 of insulating materials (superseding is: 2509[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2389 1 2 3 4

5 6

6. 2933162 03/11/2014 Pratibha Packaging & Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Textiles-laminated high IS 15351 : 2008 Sumangal House, Plot No. 19, Megh density polyethylene

Sector, Opp Water Purification Plant (hdpe) fabric for canal

Sundarban Colony, Nasik-422 009 lining.

7. 2933061 03/11/2014 Addinath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. Agro-textiles-high density IS 15907 : 2010 Plot No. H-25, Addl. MIDC, Village polyethylene (hdpe)

Kudavali Murbad Thane-421401 woven beds for vermiculture

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

नई दिल्ली 22 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1082.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे रद्‌द कर दिए गए हैंः—

अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध रद्‌द करने की तिथि संख्या संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

1 2 3

4

5

1. 2317847 ड्रिप इंडिया

भा॰ मा॰ 12786 : 1989 03/11/2014 गट सं॰ 285, टकली शिवार सचाई उपस्कर-सचाई लैटरलों हेतु लासलगांव, निफाड, पॉलीथिलीन पाईप जिला नासिक-422306 महाराष्ट्र

2. 2903658 मीराकॅल केबल्स इंडिया प्रा॰लि॰ भा॰ मा॰ 7098 : भाग 1 : 1988 07/11/2014 के 29/2, एडिशन अम्बरनाथ क्रासलक्ड पॉलीथिलीन विद्युतरोधी आनंद नगर, एमआयडीसी, पीवीसी आवरित केबल भाग 1, 1100 वो॰ अम्बरनाथ पूर्व, थाने-421501 महाराष्ट्र तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी वोल्टता हेतु

3. 7157573 ड्रिप इंडिया

भा॰ मा॰ 13487 : 1992 03/11/2014 गट सं॰ 285, टकली शिवार सचाई उपस्कर-उत्सर्जक लासलगांव, निफाड जिला नासिक-422306 महाराष्ट्र

4. 7597807 ड्रिप इंडिया

भा॰ मा॰ 14151 : भाग 2ः 2008 03/11/2014 गट सं॰ 285, टकली शिवार सचाई उपस्कर-फुहारा पाईप विशिष्टि भाग 2 शीघ्र युग्मक पॉलीथिलीन पाइप लासलगांव, निफाड, जिला नासिक-422306 महाराष्ट्र

5. 7605574 ड्रिप इंडिया

भा॰मा॰ 13488 : 2008 03/11/2014 गट सं॰ 285, टकली शिवार उत्सर्जन पाईप प्रणाली लासलगांव, निफाड, जिला नासिक-422306 महाराष्ट्र

[सं केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः13]

टी. कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ-ईईई)2390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2015

S.O. 1082.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licence Name and address of the Article/process with relevant Date of No. No. Licence

Indian Standard covered by the cancellation Licence

1 2 3

4 5

1. 2317847 Drip India

IS 12786 : 1989 03/11/2014

Gat No. 285, Takli Shiwar, irrigation equipment-polyethylene

Lasalgaon, Niphad pipes for irrigation laterals

Distt: Nashik-422306 Maharashtra

2. 2903658 Miracle Cables (India) Pvt. Ltd. IS 7098 Part 1 : 1988 07/11/2014

insulated pvc sheathed cables:

K-29/2, Additional Ambernath, crosslinked polyethylene Anand Nagar, MIDC, Ambernath East part 1 for working voltage Distt : Thane-421501 upto and including 1100 v Maharashtra

3. 7157573 Drip India

IS 13487 : 1992 03/11/2014 Gat No. 285, Takli Shiwar, irrigation equipment-emitters lasalgaon, Niphad Distt: Nashik-422306 Maharashtra

4. 7597807 Drip India

IS 14151 : Part 2 : 2008 03/11/2014 Gat No. 285, Takli Shiwar, irrigation equipment-sprinkler lasalgaon, Niphad Distt: pipes-part 2 : quick Nashik-422306 Maharashtra coupled polyethylene pipes

5. 7605574 Drip India

IS 13488 : 2008 03/11/2014 Gat No. 285, Takli Shiwar, emitting pipes system Lasalgaon, Niphad Distt: Nashik-422306 Maharashtra

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

नई दिल्ली, 22 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1083.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हः—

अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृत करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक भा॰मा॰ सं॰/ का शीर्षक भाग/खण्ड/ संख्या संख्या की तिथि वर्ष/माह

वर्ष

1 2 3 4

5 6

1 7100000063 10/12/2014 हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लि॰ नया विद्युतरोध्ी तेल भा॰मा॰ 335ः1993 माझगॉव हेबंदर कॉम्प्लेक्स, ल्यूब प्लान्ट, हेबंदर रोड, मुंबई 400033[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2391 1 2 3 4

5 6

2. 7800000007 16/12/2014 हिन्दुस्तान इंसेक्टीसाइड लि॰ एसफेट एसपी भामा 12916ः1990 भारत सरकार का उपक्रम, रसायनी

पनवेल जिला रायगढ-410207

3. 7100000164 26/12/2014 पॉलीकॅब वायर प्रा॰ लि॰ 110 वोल्ट तक कार्यकारी भा मा 1554 (भाग 1) 74/8-11ए दमन इण्ड्‌, इस्टेट, कदैया विलेज, वोल्टता के लिए पी वी सी ः 1988 दमन जिला दमन एवं दीव-396210 रोधित (भारी ड्‌युटी)

विद्युत केबल

4. 7800000108 26/12/2014 स्कोडा केबल्स 1100 वोल्ट तक एवं सहित भा मा 694ः 2010 गाला सं॰ 9 और 19, न्यू मुकाद कंपाउण्ड कार्यकारी वोल्टता के

पिम्पलकर कंपाउण्ड फिल्म सीटी रोड, लिए पी वी सी विद्युत

गोकुलधाम मालाड पूर्व मुंबई-400087 रोधित केबल

[सं॰ केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः11]

टी॰ कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ-ईईई)

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2015

S.O. 1083.—In pursunace of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Cerfication) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:—

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licence Grant Name and address (factory) of the party Product IS No/Part/Sec No. No. Date

Year

1 2 3 4

5 6 1. 7100000063 10/12/2014 Hindustan Petroluem Corporation Ltd. New insulating oils IS 335: 1993 Mazgaon Hay Bunder Complex,

Lube Plant, Hay Bunder Road,

Mumbai-400033

2. 7800000007 16/12/2014 Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Acephate sp- IS 12916:1990 (Govt. of India Enterprises) Rasayani

Panvel Dist: Raigad-410207

3. 7100000164 26/12/2014 Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd. Pvc insulated (heavy duty) IS 1554: Part 1: 1988 74/8-11. Daman Industrial Estate, electric cables: part 1 for

Kadaiya Village working voltages upto

Daman Dist Daman & Diu-396210 and including 1100 v

4. 7800000108 26/12/2014 Skoda Cables

Pvc insulated cables for IS 694:2010 Gala No. 9 & 19, New Mukadam working voltages upto

Compound, (Pimpalkar Compount), and including 1100v

Filmcity Road, Gokuldham,

Malad (E), Mumbai- 400097

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)2392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1084.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे रद्‌द कर दिए गए हैंः—

अनुसूची

क्रम लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बध्द रद्‌द करने की तिथि

संख्या संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

कुछ नही

[सं॰ केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13 : 13] टी॰ कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ-ईईई)

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2015

S.O. 1084.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licence Name and address of the Article/process with relevant Date of No. No. licensee

Indian standard covered by the cancellation Licence

Nil

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ANNEXURE

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/137/03

का.आ. 1085.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार गवर्नमेंट ओपियम एंड अल्कलॉइड फैक्ट्री, नीमच के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/137/03) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Shri Veeramchandra S/o Shri Pyareji, Village Jaisinghpura, Neemuch (MP)

....Workman

Versus

[सं॰ एल-42012/276/99-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल,डेस्क अधिकारी General Manager, Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch (MP)

.....Management MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

AWARD

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

S.O. 1085.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/137/03) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20/05/2015.

[No. L-42012/276/99-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer Passed on this 5th day of May, 2015

1. As per letter dated 6-8-03 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-42012/ 276/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid works in terminating the services of Shri Veeramchandra S/o Shri Pyareji w.e.f. 30-6-91 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?'[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2393 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 Negative

management of General Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid works in terminating the services of Shri Veeramchandra S/o Shri Pyareji w.e.f. 30.6.91 is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the As per final

workman is entitled to ?" order.

REASONS

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist Party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/2 to 2/6. The case of Ist Party is that he was employed as casual worker in establishment of IInd Party in 1983. His services were terminated without order in writing on 30-6-91. Workman was shown as casual worker. He was provided work regularly except articial breaks for 1 or 2 days. he was continuously working more than 240 days during each of the calendar years. There were permanent posts, semi permanent posts available on establishment of IInd Party. His other colleagues were classified. With obligue motive, workman was not classified on permanent, semi-permanent post. His request to the management and his cause supported by the Union was not considered. The employees junior to him were made temporary and skilled in Pay Scale Rs. 196.232. the names of such juniors are shown in order dated 15-2-84 issued by Shri P.D. Dhule, then Manager(P) Administration. IInd Party terminated his services from 30-6-91 without giving opportunity of hearing. Workman and 29 others were retrenched without complying provisions of section 25-F of ID Act. Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. He was not issued notice of termination. The establishment of IInd Party is covered by Chapter V-B of I. D. Act. IInd Party did not obtain permission of government for terminating his services thereby voilating provisions of Section 25-N of ID Act. IInd Party is covered as an Industry under ID Act. After terminating services of workman, IInd Party employed Shri Gulam Hussain, Habij, Ghansham. Workman was not offered employment after termination of his service. The action of IInd Party is unfair labour practice. Workman is victimized . On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with full back wages.

3. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2 opposing claim of workman. IInd Party submits that it is involved in production of Opium. Management is required to engage services of casual labour for short and specific period. That casual labours are never engaged for indefinite period. Their services are engaged as per availability of work. Services of workman were availd by IInd party. The period is not mentioned. Workman himself did not report for work. Workman being casual labour there was no question of terminating his service holding Department Enquiry. Workman did not complete 240 days continuous service during any of the year. That the services of casual labour commence in morning of the day and come to end at end of the day. Workman was not issued appointment letter. His services were purely casual. Appointment of Class-IV employees are to be done in accordance with statutory recruitment rules. Workman was taken on mate basis. Recruitment rules were not followed. On such grounds, IInd party submits that claim of workman is not justified.

5. Workman is challenging termination of his service for violation of Section 25-F,N of ID Act. Workman has pleaded that he completed 240 days continuous service since his initial appointment in 1983 till his termination in 1991.

6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim. That since 24-5-83, he was working as casual labour. He completed 240 days continuous service every year till termination of his service on 30-6-91. His services were terminated without notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. He further states that appointment letter was issued to him on 17-4-85. The casual labours junior to him were appointed as temporary employees. Workman was denied said benefit. Seniority list of casual labours were not prepared. From his evidence, documents Exhibit W-1 to W-9 are proved. The management remained absent. Workman was not cross- examined by management's counsel. His evidence remained unchallenged. It is unfortunate to observe that in several cases such as R/302/97 & R/303/97, management of 2nd party did not properly participate and counsel engaged by management remained absent, did not cross-examine witnesses, no arguments were advanced. Happening of such things cannot be appreciated. Management may take note for taking suitable steps in the matter prosecuted against it.

7. Management did not adduce any evidence. Documentary evidence produced by workman Exhibit W-1 is certificate of his working from 24-5-83 to 30-6-83 issued by Administrative Officer. Exhibit W-2 is appointment order dated 17-4-85 for period of 40 days. Exhibit W-3 shows 21 working days of Ist party workman from 9-1-84 to 8-2-84 at payment of wages Rs. 121/- per day. 33 working days in August 1984, 110 days during 28-8-85 to 15-12-85, 143 days working in 2-2-86 to 30-6-86, 70 working days during 15-3-85 to 14-8-88, 67 working days from 1-8-89 to 27-10-89, 95 working days during 15-4-90 to 29-6-90, 60 deays working during period 15-10-90 to 14-12-90, 64 working days during2394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 28-4-91 to 30-6-91. Those documents do not show continuous working of workman 240 days during any of the year. Exhibit W-4 shows categories of employees permanent, temporary, casual. Exhibit W-6 shows that 21 employees were allowed to join duty as unskilled workman, the order was issued on 15-2-84, name of workman is not included in said order. Exhibit W-7 is proforma of application to be submitted. Wxhibit W-8 is interview call issued to one Rajendra Pahalwan. Exhibit W-9 is list of candidates appointed as unskilled labour. The terms of reference is restricted to legality of termination of services of workman. The claim for regularisation is not included. The pleadings and evidence of workman w.r.t. regularization of his service is beyond the terms of reference.

8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Jagat Narayan Shukla. Witness remained absent for cross- examination. The evidence of workman remained unchallenged that he completed 240 days continuous service. Workman submitted application for production of documents related to Attendance Register, Pay Slips and other record pertaining to payment of wages by IInd party. The documents are not produced. The workman has produced same documents discussed above. I find no reason to disbelieve unchallenged evidence of workman that he completed 240 days continuous service. The service of workman are terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation therefore termination of services of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my findings in Point No. 1 in Negative.

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1086.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंदिरा गांधी राष्ट्रीय मानव संग्रहालय, भोपाल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/180/98) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-42012/14/98-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल,डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

S.O. 1086.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/180/98) 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 Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20/05/2015.

[No. L-42012/14/98-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/180/98

.... Workman Smt. Sunita Sisodia, H.No. 369, Naya Basera, Kotra Sultanabad, Bhopal

Versus

9. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1, termination of service of workman is illegal for violation of section 25-F, N of ID Act, question arises whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. The documents Exhibit W-2, 3 shows engagement of workman as casual worker for specific period. There is no evidence that workman was appointed following recruitment process therefore it would be appropriate to grant reinstatement with back wages. Considering the period of engagement 1983 to 1991, compensation Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

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

.... Management Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya Shamla Hills, Bhopal

AWARD

(1) The action of the management of General Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid works in terminating the services of Shri Veeramchandra S/o Shri Pyareji w.e.f. 30-6-91 is not proper and legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One Lakh to the workman within 30 days from the date of publication of award.

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

annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer Passed on this 30th day of April, 2015

1. As per letter dated 11-8-98 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per notification No. L-42012/ 14/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal in terminating the services of Smt. Sunita Sisodia 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/1 to 6/4. Case of Ist party workman is that she was appointed in clear vacancy on post of Sangralaya Pracharak w.e.f. 18-1-92. Her service record was satisfactory. Her services were terminated from 27.3.94. Ist party workman submits that she was continuously working more than 240 days in preceding calendar year. She is an employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. Her services were terminated without paying retrenchment compensation is illegal. IInd party has violated Section 25-H of ID Act while terminating her services. On such ground, he prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.

6. IInd party submitted additional Written Statement at page 9/1 to 9/2 contending that workman was not regular employee. Normally unskilled labours work at their choice and discontinued from the work at any time.

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

(i) Whether the action of the In Negative

management of Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal in terminating the services of Smt. Sunita Sisodia is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the As per final

workman is entitled to?" order.

REASONS

3. IInd party submitted Written Statement at page 7/1 to 7/4 opposing claim of workmkan. IInd party submits that it is registered under Societies Registration Act. It is run from aid received from Government of India, any productive activity is not carried out. It is not covered as industry under Section 2(j) of ID Act. Workman was engaged on contractual basis under daily rate system. Her engagement was on contract as per need. Her contractual engagement was not extended. There was no work for her. The contractual engagement of daily wages doesnot confer any right of employment. There was no termination or retrenchment of workman. By amendment, IInd party has pleaded that Dy. Labour Commissioner, Bhopal referred industrial dispute to Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1 Bhopal vide letter dated 13.1.03. Said letter was registered bearing No. 146/03. It is further contented that after reference made by State Government relating to Shri Nanka S/o Surtan for the alleged dispersion of service. As per decision taken by MP State Government, the establishment of IInd party is an industry and appropriate Government under Section 2 A is State of MP and not Central Government.

4. Without prejudice to above contentions, IInd party reiterates that the workkan was engaged on daily wages from 19.1.93 on contractual basis as and when work was available. She was not appointed on the post of Sangrahalay Parichalak from 18.1.92. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service. She is not covered as employee under Section 25-B of ID Act. In April 94, there was no need of applicant. She was not provided work. Violation of Section 25-F,G of ID Act is denied. It is further contented that establishment of IInd party is not an industrial establishment. There was no question of obtaining permission from Appropriate Government.

5. Ist party submitted rejoinder at Page 8 reiterating its

contentions in statement of claim.

8. Workman is challenging termination of her services for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman has stated that she was appointed on post of Museum Pracharak on 18.1.92. She was continuously working till 27.3.94. She completed 240 days continuous service. She was not paid retrenchment compensation. In her cross-examination, workman says she had not received appointment letter. She was paid twice in a month. The wages were not paid daily. She has not produced documents about the working days. She has not submitted any documents with IInd party. Order of termination was not issued to her. She was paid wages only for her working days. 25 daily wagers were working with her. She denied suggestion that she had not completed 240 days continuous service.

9. IInd party did not examine any witness to substantiate its contentions. IInd party has admitted engagement of Ist party workman. The defence of IInd party was that workman was engaged on daily wages, contractual basis. IInd party did not adduce any evidence to prove that workman was engaged on contractual basis. Any record about her working days is not produced by IInd party. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri R.R. Shrivastava at the time of argument emphasized that the daily wager has no right for regularization.

10. In support of his argument, reliance is placed on

ratio held in:

"Case of Sr. Suptd. Telegraph Bhopal versus Santosh Kumar Seal and others reported in 2010(2) SCC(L&S) 309. Their Lordship dealing with retrenchment of daily wagers in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act held if by way of reinstatement with back wages not automatic, termination of employees is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and monetary compensation in cases of such nature."2396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] management of the Kendriya Bhandaran Nigam Shramik Kalyan Sangh, Lucknow Regional Office and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 20.05.2015.

[No. L-42011/15/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

11. IInd party has failed to adduce any evidence, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of workman whether her engagement is admitted though documents about her working days are produced by IInd party, any contract is not produced. The evidence of workman that her services were terminated without paying retrenchment compensation is not settled. The 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 Negative.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM -LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 64/2012

12. Point No.2- the evidence in cross-examination of workman shows appointment letter was not given to her. Order of termination was not issued to her. She was paid wages twice in a month. Considering the working period of workman from 18.1.92 to 27.3.94 about 2 year 2 months, compensation Rs. 30,000/- would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

Ref. No. L-42011/15/2012-IR(DU) dated 26.07.2012

BETWEEN

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

(1) The action of the management of Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal in terminating the services of Smt. Sunita Sisodia is not proper.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 30,000/- to the workman within 30 days from the date of publication of award.

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

annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015

Vice President Kendirya Bhandaran Nigam Shramik Kalyan Sangh U.P. Lucknow, Regional Office 4/87 Virat Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow-10

AND

1. The Managing Director

Central Warehousing Corporation 4/1, Siri Institutional Area, Hauz Khas New Delhi-110016

2. Regional Manager

Central Warehousing Corporation Regional Office, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow

AWARD

का.आ. 1087.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय भण्डारण निगम श्रमिक कल्याण संघ लखनऊ रीजनल ऑफिस के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 64/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं॰ एल-42011/15/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी॰के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

S.O. 1087.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 64/2012) 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 1. By order No. L-42011/15/2012-IR(DU) dated 26.07.2012 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 Vice President, Kendirya Bhandaran Nigam Shramik Kalyan Sangh, Lucknow and the Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi and Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

''Whether the Action of The Management of Central Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow & Gorakhpur allotting inhabitable accommodation to Shri Vindyachal, Chaukidar-1 & deduction of house rent from his salary w.e.f. 01.06.2003 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2397 3. The order of reference was endorsed to the Vice President, Kendirya Bhandaran Nigam Shramik Kalyan Sangh, Lucknow with the direction to the party raising the dispute to file the statement of claim along with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

4. The claim statement W3 has been filed on behalf of the Kendirya Bhandaran Nigam Shramik Kalyan Sangh, Lucknow (espousing cause of Sri Vindhyachal, Chaukidar-I) stating therein, that the opposite party had dedudcted House Rent illegally from the wages/salary of the workman although he had vacated the quarter allotted by the opposite party.The applicant has further stated that the Sangh sent a letter dated 28.08.2003 to Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corpon., Lucknow requesting that the workman had vacated the said quarter on 01.06.2003, letter was referred by the Regional Manager, Lucknow to Warehouse Manager, Gorakhpur on 08.09.2003, workman's application dated 22.04.2006 was further forwarded by the Warehouse Manager, Gorakhpur to the Regional Office, Lucknow, which reflects that the desired repairing was not conducted in the said quarter. Reminder dated 22.05.2006 was also given by the workman, which was further forwarded by the Warehouse Manager, Gorakhpur to Regional Office, Lucknow. It has further been pleaded that despite several letter of requests given by the workman in writing, house rent was continuously deducted from his monthly salary, compelling him to move Kendirya Bhandaran Nigam Shramik Kalyan Sangh, Lucknow. Thereafter the workers Sangh sent a letter to the Regional Office, Lucknow requesting therein that the deducted house rent be paid back to the workman, reply dated 24.04.2010 was sent by the management informing that certain facts have to be ascertained from the Gorakhpur Office.

5. The applicant has expressed his regret, agony and astonishment on the conduct of the opposite party for appropriate relief was not provided to the workman during the last more than 7 years. Four members committee was allegadly formed by the opposite party, which has submitted his report dated 22.10.2010. This report reads as under;

"It is intimated that the Chowkidar quarter of Central Warehouse, Gorakhpur are required major repairing. There are so many Peepal & Bargad tree over roof of Chowkidar quarters for which Warehouse Manager, Central Warehouse, Gorakhpur may be asked first its cuting. Quarters of Sri Vindhyachal are leaking due to Peepal and Bargad tree roots which are entered in kitchen room & bathroom through roofs and walls. It is intimated that only urgent items have been taken in this estimate. Septic tank and pipes are also damaged. All the sunshades of windows are damaged."

6. It has further been pleaded in the claim statement that during the conciliation proceeding before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Lucknow another four members committee in its report dated 15.04.2011 has made the following observations;

"So many trees have developed over roof which are damaging the roofs and walls at many places. The roots of the tree are entering inside the rooms through walls and roof, recently heavy roof leakages which require immediate repairing. Replastering is urgently required at some places.

Septic tank of CDR quarters are having all connecting pipes have been completely damaged which require major repairing total water supply fitting require replacement including four numbers of water storage tank. All window/ ventilator shutters require major repair, replacement including all fittings. Two numbers of new steel door are required over roof the prevent the entry of monkeys etc. in the quarters. WC pans (4nos) require its raising about 1½ feet from existing level including providing new flushing cisterns. Our CDR quarters two feet below the main road due to which water stagnates around the quarters resulting septic tank over flow and sludges are scattered around the campus.

So sand earth filling and brick on edge soling required to raise the height of the campus. All electric fittings require its replacement white washing, colour washing painting are require including minor repairing wherever required.

(i) After major repairing as stated above it can be

utilized.

(ii) It can be repaired.

(iii) Approximate minimum expenditure on repairs and Maintenance are to be rupees three lakh twently thousand only."

7. It has further been stated by the Sangh that the committee members have clearly mentioned that without repair work indicated therein the said quarter is not worth living. Later on order for not deducting house rent was passed by the opposite party on 12.05.2011 but the date should have been 01.06.2003 when workman Sri Vindhyachal vacated the said quarter. After appropriate repair work the quarter was again allotted to the workman. Sangh has requested that the illegal deduction of house rent from the salary of the Sri Vindhyachal w.e.f. 01.06.2003 to 11.05.2011, be paid back to the said workman along with penal interest.

8. Paper Nos. 3/7 to 3/28 have been annexed with claim

statement W3.

9. Written statement/reply M7 has been filed on behalf of the opposite party management, wherein it has been2398 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] admitted that the accommodation in question was allotted to Chowkidar on 28.09.1999, the workman sent a letter dated 31.03.2003 to the opposite party informing that the roof of the said quater is leaking, the house required repairing as well. The opposite party emphasized that the workman did not vacant the house till the date of last inspection i.e. May 2011, the Warehouse Manager directed to Sri Vindhyachal to be present in the house till further order, the Regional Manager enquired the status of the house, letter dated 31.03.2003 sent by the workman and 07.08.2003 by the Regional Officer have been annexured with written statement.

10. It is further submitted that the Warehouse Manager had informed the Regional Office on 22.05.2006 that the complaint of Vindhyachal, Chowkidar is quite correct and seepage is there. By his letter dated 22.05.2006, it reflects that Vindhyachal, Chowkidar was in possession of the said house. It is crystal clear that Mr. Vindhyachal Chowkidar was in regular possession of the house in question even on April 2010.

11. It is further submitted that Mr Vindhyachal, Chowkidar never informed the management or warehouse Manager that he has vacated house in question nor handed over the possession. Moreover, Mr. D.K. Misra, G.S. of a Union is neither authorized by Mr Vindhyachal, Chowkidar to represent him anywhere nor the answering respondent received any letter in this regard. Mr. D.K. Misra is only trying to brighten his political/Trade Union career and he is representing himself without any authorization and request from Mr. Vindhyachal, Chowkidar.

12. It is further submitted that the management respondents had directed to his construction cell for repairing in the month of July 2008 and sanctioned Rs. 15,647/against thereafter house was repaired and completed on 17.11.2008. A completion certificate was issued by the then Warehouse Manager on 09.02.2010. Subsequently, the respondents demanded some information regarding the houses of Chowkidar from the Warehouse Manager, Gorkhpur on 20.02.2010.

14. Department spot inspection report dt. 28.10.2010 and 15.04.2011 have been admitted in the written statement but the opposite party has pleaded that in the inspection report dated 12.05.2011 sent by the Warehouse Manager, in which Vindhyachal, Chowkidar, Sri Ram Nakshatra, Superintendent and 8 other official were present, it is mentioned that on last visit/inspection on dated 22.10.2010 and 15.04.2011, the house in question was locked by allottee but today doors are open. It means Sri Vindhyachal, Chowkidar was in possession of the said house. The house is unlocked by him on or just before 12.05.2011 without any prior information to the Warehouse Manager. It is also pertinent to mention here that on inspection date i.e. on 12.05.2011, Vindhyachal, Chowkidar was present on site but denied to affix his signautre.

15. The opposite party has pleaded that work order dated 29.06.2011 for special maintenance work, repairing and maintenance was completed on 19.09.2011, the site was earlier lastly inspercted on 12.05.2011 and for the first time the said house was found unlocked, the workman Sri Vindhyachal, Chowkidar was also present as member of the committee but denied to put his signature on paper vide order dated 04.10.2011, the house rent was not being deducted from the salary w.e.f. 12.05.2011.

16. It is further pleaded that security guards (Chowkidar) are always provided quarters within the campus for the security of the werehouse. Sri A.K. Srivastava from 03.10.2002 to 02.08.2006, Sri D.S. Vishwakarma from 03.08.2006 to 31.05.2008 and Sri Munib Prasad from 01.06.2008 to 03.11.2011 were Warehouse Manager consecutively of the Central Warehouse, Gorakhpur. All the Warehouse Manager posted within year 2003 to 2011 have clarified in writing that Sri Vindhyachal, Chowkidar was in possession of the house in question.

17. It is submitted that return of deducted HRA are concerned, Vindhyachal was requested by the Warehouse Manager through a letter no. 821 dated 24.11.2011 issued in complianced of the R.O. office order No. A-3861 dated 17.10.2011 to produce evidence/documents that during the period from 2003 to 12.05.2011 he was residing elsewhere on rent or his own house outside the campus of the Warehouse as he say so. In reply, Vindhyachal have submitted a letter dated 30.11.2011 mentioning therein that period he was residing at his own house situated at Kudaghat, Gorakhpur with his family and annexed a ration card in his support which is issued on 12.08.2011. The reply and averments made by him are not sufficient and not believable that he was not in possession. He neither submitted any document that he has vacatecd the house which is inhabitable nor any document regarding handing over taking over of possession of the said house. He has failed to establish that he was vacated the house in question not in possession during 01.06.2003 to 11.05.2011.

18. It is crystal clear that Sri Vindhyachal, Chowkidar was in regular possession from 01.06.2003 to 11.05.2011 and was residing in. This fact is also confirmed by report of inspection dated 12.05.2011 sent by the Warehouse Manager, Gorakhpur that during last inspection the door was locked by the allottee.

19. The management has pleaded that an opportunity was given to Sri Vindhyachal, Chowkidar to prove his statement with supportive documents that during the period, he was not residing in the house and vacated the same but he failed to produce any evidence. The opposite party has prayed to dismiss the case with cost filed by the workman, being devoid of merits.

20. Affidavit in support of the written statement has

been filed by Mr. Kushal Soreng.

21. Paper Nos. 25 to 59 have been annexed with the

written statement and affidavit by the opposite party.

22. Rejoinder W8 has been filed by the workman, denying the allegations levelled by the opposite party in the written statement, and reiterated the plea taken in the claim statement. Sangh has prayed for refund of the deducted HRA for the said period alongwith 18% penal interest. Further document 8/12 to 8/48 including the affidavit of the workman have been filed alongwith rejoinder. Another Affidavit W9 has been filed by the workman alongwith Annexure 9/12 to 9/39. In evidence another affidavit W10 was also filed by the workman alongwith annexure 10/7 to 10/24.

23. The opposite party/management did not file any evidence in support of the written statement or any reply to the rejoinder given by the workman. Regarding rejoinder W9, it was objected by the opposite party that it has been filed without any oath, thereafter fresh rejoinder W9 was filed.

24. Sufficient opportunity was provided to the opposite party by my learned predecessor to cross-examine the workman but none appeared on behalf of the opposite party thereafter several dated were given to the parties but the management did not came either to cross-examine the workman or to further proceed with the defence taken earlier. On 13.11.2014, an adjournment application was moved before me which was strongly opposed and allowed by the Court on the payment of Rs. 200/- as cost. Neither the adjournment cost was paid nor learned AR for the management appeared in the Court on subsequent dates viz. 05.01.2015, 17.03.2015 and 06.05.2015. It is evident from the perusal of the record that the opposite party has shown gross negligence in defending the case filed by the Sangh. Such type of callous and negligent attitude on behalf of any Govt. Department can never be appreciated.

25. Arguments advanced by the learned AR of the workman have been heard at length. Record has been perused thoroughly.

26. In support of the claim statement comprehensive self explanatory affidavit of Mr. Vindhyachal has been submitted. The management has admitted in written statement filed before the court that said quarter required thorough repairs for which work order was issued by the management. Copy of letter dated 28.08.2003, sent by General Secretary of Sangh to the Regional Office, Lucknow has been filed by the workman. Letter dated 07.08.2003 sent by the Regional Office to the Warehouse Manager, indicate that the said quarter was suffering from seepage etc. Copies of the letter sent by the workman to the opposite party for proper repair of the said quarter have also been filed alongwith claim statement. Photo copy of the special repair report dated 22.10.2010 (3/23) have been filed wherein estimated cost for the repair is determined as Rs. 1,77,898/-. Copy of another special report dated 15.04.2011 has also been filed. The opposite party has not denied these reports. It is worthwhile to mention here that workman has honestly admitted that after 11.05.2011 he has been in possession of the said quarter because proper repairs were done by the opposite party. During the arguments it was pointed out by the Learned AR of the workman he is going to retire very soon.

27. After having heard the learned AR of the workman and close scrutiny of the record available before the Court, it is genuinely inferred that the stand taken by Sangh on behalf of Mr. Vindhyachal, Chowkidar is duly proved. The written statement filed by the opposite party and the relevant documents clearly indicate that quarter in question was in very dilapidated condition. The opposite party had miserably failed to adduce any cogent and reliable evidence in rebuttal, neither the workman was cross-examined on behalf of the management, although sufficient opportunity was provided to the management.

28. Therefore, in the light of the facts and observations made here-in-above, it is inferred that the action of the management of Central Warehousing Corporation Ltd., Lucknow and Gorakhpur regarding deduction of house rent from the salary of the workman Mr. Vindhyachal, Chowkidar w.e.f. 01.06.2003 to 11.05.2011 is illegal and unjustified. The opposite party management is hereby directed to make payment of the referred sum to the workman within two months from the date of notification of the award by Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi.

29. Award as above.

Lucknow May 13th, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1088.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डिपार्टमेंट ऑफ टेलीकम्यूनिकेशन, कानपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 100/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-40012/43/2004-आई आर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

S.O. 1088.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 100/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the2400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Department of Telecom, Kanpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20/05/2015.

Kanpur in terminating the services of their workman Shri Viresh Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Jagat Narayan w.e.f. 5.7.1989 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

[No. L-40012/43/2004-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 100/2004

Ref. No. L-40012/43/2004-IR(DU) dated: 26.10.2004

BETWEEN

Sh. Viresh Kumar Pandey S/o Sh. Jaga Narayan Pandey Mansukh Khera, Gangaghat, Unnao (UP)

AND

1. The Divisional Engineer Telecom.

DET, OFC, CTO Compound, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)

2. The Director

BSNL Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.)

3. The Chairman and Managing Director

BSNL Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi-110001

AWARD

3. The case of the workman, Viresh Kumar Pandey, in brief is that he was engaged as casual labour w.e.f. 17.02.1982 on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange after interview etc. and worked accordingly upto 03.07.1989. It is submitted by the workman that he was sent to jail in wake of an FIR being lodged on account of death of his wife on 04.07.1989. It is further stated that on grant of bail, the workman approached the management for joining but they declined the same; moreover he submitted an affidavit dated 27.09.1989 as per the demand of the Assistant Engineer. It is submitted by the workman that he raised an industrial dispute before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur which was rejected for the want of jurisdiction and later approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, which directed the management to consider the representation of the workman. It is stated that the workman as per directions of the CAT, moved a representation before management of BSNL, which rejected the same vide order dated 27.05.2003. On rejection of the representation, the workman again raised an indutrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), which was in turn referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. The workman has submitted that the management in its written statement, in reply to his statement of claim, before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur has submitted that "the applicant was not taken on duty as he was arrested by the police on the charge of murder of his wife and reminded in jail for more than 48 hours. The management further submitted that the applicant is not entitled of the any relief till he is acquitted honourably by the Criminal Court". The workman has further submitted that in reply to his rejoinder statement before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, the management has submitted that "He was not taken on duty due to the charge against him for the murder of his wife and subsequent arrest by the police on 14.08.1989. Shri Viresh Kumar has not been removed from employment under any industrial dispute, but he was not taken on duty for the reasons quoted above." The workman has submitted that he has been acquitted of the offence under which he was charged vide judgement and order dated 03.07.1995 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao. The workman has given details of his working in each year of engagement and has prayed that he be reinstated with continuity in service and back wages. He has also prayed that he be held entitled for same position and designation as already given to his junior workmen.

1. By order No. L-40012/43/2004-IR(DU) dated: 26.10.2004 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 Sh. Viresh Kumar Pandey, S/o Sh. Jagat Narayan Pandey, Mansukh Khera, Gangaghat, Unnao (UP) and the Divisional Engineer Telecom, DET, OFC, CTO Compound, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.) & the Director, BSNL, Servodaya Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.) & the Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of Management of Divisional Engineer Telecom., D.E.T., O.F.C., C.T.O. Compound,

4. The management of the BSNL has filed its written statement, denying the claim of the workman; wherein it was submitted that the workman was engaged as casual laboured purely on daily basis and he continued to work[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2401 up to 3rd July, 1989 and thereafter he did not turn up for duty nor any intimation was given by him to the department explaining his absence from duty. It is submitted by the management that the reason for not turning up on duty on 4th July, 1989 was that the applicant was absconded from police as he was involved in a dowry death case of his wife and was later on arrested by the police. It is specifically pleaded by the management that the contention of the workman that he was restrained from resuming his duties by the Assistant Engineer, is false and baseless; and there was no question of given any assurance to the workman by any of the officers of the department to engage him after his release on bail. The management has submitted that the dispute pertaining to the alleged termination of service of the applicant has already been adjudicated upon by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur vide its award notified on 04.02.1997, therefore, the workman cannot agitate the same issued again before this Tribunal as the same is barred by the principle of resjudicata. It is also contention of the management that the workman had not been absolved from the charges on merits but was given benefit of doubt. It is stated that the workman was not covered by the Casual Labourers Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme 1989 as the said scheme was introduced on 01.10.1989 and it was precondition that the official should have been in employment on 01.10.1989 and since the workman did not attend his duty after 03.07.1989, therefore, the benefit of temporary status scheme could not have been given to the workman. The management has submitted that the workman himself did not report for duty as he was involved in a criminal case, therefore, after his acquittal in criminal case he could not have been re- engaged in service as there was a complete ban on the engagement of fresh casual labourers and further he could not have been given the benefit of the Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme 1989 as he was not in the employment on he cut off date i.e. 01.10.1989. Accordingly the management has submitted that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

5. The workman has field its rejoinder wherein apart from reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim he has denied that he was a contract labour and stressed that he was appointed as casual worker by the management.

6. The workman has filed the photocopy of numerous documents in support of his claim; whereas the management has filed none. The workman ha examined himself and the management examined Shri Raj Kumar Bhargava, Asstt. Engineer (Retd.) & Shri B.D. Vidhyarthi, JTO in support of their case. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral arguments.

7. Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties at length and perused entire evidence on record in light thereto.

8. The workman has come up with a case that he was engaged as casual labour by the opposite party after calling the names from the Employment Exchange. The authorized representatives of the workman has contended that the workman was falsely implicated in a criminal case on death of his wife on 04.07.1989 and he was sent to jail. When the workman was released on Bail he approached the management, which did not allow him to join the duties. It is also contended by the workman that the management regularized other junior casual labourers sparing him. The authorized representative has also argued that the CGIT- cum-Labour Court, Kanpur did not give its award on merits but it rather rejected the same for the want of jurisdiction.

9. The authorized representative of the management has submitted that the workman had never been terminated by the management rather he abandoned the services by himself due to criminal case instituted against him. The management has also contended that the present industrial dispute is barred by the principle of resjudicata and accordingly, the present reference is bad in the eye of law.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties.

11. The management has taken preliminary objection that the present industrial dispute is barred by the principal of resjudicata as the same has already been decided by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The workman has denied the same with contention that the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur rejected the claim for the want of jurisdiction.

Having gone through the documentary evidence relied upon by the workman, it is evident that the Central Government referred the industrial dispute regarding termination of the services of workman, Viresh Kumar to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, which vide their award dated 20.01.1997 returned the above reference unanswered with following observation without going into the merits of the case:

"3. It is unnecessary to given the detail of the case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sub. Divisl. Inspector Versus Vaikem V.T. Joseph Lab I.C. 1996 (105) (SC) has held that Telecom Department is not an Industry. Hence this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Accordingly the reference is returned unanswered."

Thereafter, the workman approached the CAT, Allahabad for redressal of grievances, which too instead of passing any order on merit, directed the respondent/ management to consider the representation of the workman: and on rejection of the representation of the workman by2402 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the management of BSNL, the workman approached the conciliation officer of the appropriate government since by the time the Telecom Department has been nominated as BSNL and declared an Industry. Thus, the issue/dispute that existed between the workman and the management of BSNL had never been decided on merit; and accordingly, the present industrial dispute is not barred by the principal of resjudicata as contended by the opposite party.

12. Now coming to the merits of the case, admittedly, the workman, Viresh Kumar has been engaged as a casual labour after observing due formalities available under Rules by the management of BSNL on 17.02.82 and worked as such continuously till 03.07.89. On 04.07.89 the wife of workman, Viresh Kumar died due to burn injuries and he was taken into police custody on institution of criminal case against him on alleged charges of dowry death of his wife. The workman was sent to jail and later on was released on bail. The workman has come up with a case that on his release on bail he approached the department but he was denied joining due to his involvement in criminal case. Per contra, the management of the BSNL has taken a very clear cut stand that it the workman abandoned the services w.e.f. 04.07.89 and never informed the department about his absence whatsover. It is also the case of the management that the management never terminated his services at any point of time; rather the workman himself did not turn up to join the duties. The management witnesses during their evidence before this Tribunal have stated that the workman did not turn up before the management to given his joining and also that he never informed the management of his absence. In rebuttal, the workman has stated that after releasing from bail, he approached the BSNL for joining but he was not allowed. However, he submitted an affidavit dated 27.09.1989 as per demand of the Assistant Engineer.

13. The management of the BSNL, before this Tribunal has taken a specific stand that it was the workman who abandoned the services and did not turn up to join the services. The workman has pleaded that on release from jail, on bail, he approached the management for joining the submitted an affidavit dated 27.09.89 as per directions of Assistant Engineer; but even then he was not allowed to join.

On close perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the workman it is evident that the management of the BSNL in its written statement before CGIT-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur had submitted that the "applicant was not taken on duty as he was arrested by the police on the charge of murder of his wife and remained in Jail for more than 48 hrs." It has further been submitted in the written statement that "the workman is not entitled for any relief till he is acquitted honourably by the competent court of law. However, in the para 6 of the written statement, it is submitted that "the applicant was accused of murder of his wife which is under trial as dowry death of his wife. His prayer for affording relief can only be considered with he is acquitted by the court." This goes to support the pleadings of the workman that the management would have asked him to give affidavit and when the furnished the affidavit to the effect that on holding guilty he may be turned out of service and if is acquitted he may be deemed continued in service. There is no iota of evidence from the management as to what steps have been taken by the management on acquittal of the workman, particulary when it stated before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur that any relief regarding joining can only be provided to the workman if he is acquitted in the criminal case instituted against him. Hence, when the workman was acquitted vide judgement and order dated 03.07.95 then it was incumbent upon the management to call the workman to join his duties.

Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Bhadrawati Shikshan Sanstha and another vs. Hashib Pasha & others 2015 (144) FLR 1059 has observed that "termination for unauthorized absence for long period, without notice to report on duty, is legal." Therefore, the action of the management not calling he workman to join the duties on his acquittal amounts to termination of his services without notice."

14. The workman has also pleaded that he was entitled for regularization under Casual Labourers Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme 1989 as the cut of date of the scheme was 01.10.1989. It is the case of the workman that he remained in jail from 14.08.89 to 14.09.89 and on release, on bail, he approached the BSNL on 15.09.89 he was not allowed to join the duties. The workman was subsequently acquitted of the criminal charges, thus had he been allowed joining on 15.09.89 he have been in service on the cutoff date i.e. 01.10.1989 and might have been regularized like other juniors to the workman.

15. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made here in above; I am of considered opinion that not allowing the workman to join the duties and amounts to his termination without notice, which is illegal and unjustified, particularly in view of his acquittal in the criminal case; and accordingly. I come to the conclusion that the workman, Viresh Kumar Pande is entitled for re-in-statement with continuity in service, except back wages as he was a daily wager only, Further, he shall also be entitled for regularization under Casual Labourers Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme 1989 at par with other juniors who were engaged with the workman.

16. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

17. Award as above.

Lucknow 7th May, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2403

Award Passed on : 15.05.2015

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1089.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल सपल सर्वे ऑफिस शिमला के प्रबंध्तत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 18/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-42025/03/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

S.O. 1089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 18/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the National Sample Survey Office, Shimla and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20/05/2015.

[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

1. The workman raised the dispute directly to this Tribunal regarding his dismissal from service by the respondent management of NSSO (FOD) on the certificate No. 8(28)2012/ACH/dated 28.09.2012 issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh under Section 2(a)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the conciliation proceedings not concluded in prescribed time under the law. The workman filed claim statement stating there in that the workman joined as daily wage with the respondent management w.e.f. 14.11.2000 and thereafter he was assigned the duties of chowkidar. It is further pleaded that the establishment in which the workman was working is 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The workman rendered more than 10 years continuous service and this Tribunal has the jurisdiction of the matter. The workman further stated in the claim statement that false allegation leveled against the workman pertains to the absence from duty on 14.02.2011 and secondly locks of the guest house and training hall of the office campus were found broken and taps of the toilets of guest house were also broken and were taken away and thereafter on 27th April 2011 and 15th May 2011 the workman was found absent from duty and thereafter the Head Office decided to take the contract services of the security guard agency and the services of the workman was terminated w.e.f. 16.05.2011. The workman was not given any opportunity of being heard and without appointing any enquriy officer, without charge sheet which is against the principles of natural justice. The workman was appointed as per rules and in the services of the management for more than 11 years when his services were illegally terminated. It is prayed by the workman that subject matter of the complaint may be allowed.

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT 1, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 18 of 2012

Sh. Davinder Kumar son of Shri Chandru, resident of Tutikandi, Shimla Near Zoo, (Ganpati Niwas), Shimla.

.... Workman

VERSUS

Deputy Director General, NSSO(FOD), HP Region, Boswell Villa, Shimla-171006.

.... Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman: Sh. Davinder Chauhan Jaita,

Advocate

For the Management: Sh. Shri Kuldip Singh Rathore,

Advocate

2. The management of NSSO filed reply to the claim application. Preliminary objections has been taken that office of the respondent do not fall within the ambit of industry as defined in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the present application of the applicant may not be admitted. On merits it is stated in written statement that the applicant was engaged on daily wages as chowkidar in the Office of Deputy Director General NSSO Regional Office, Shimla since 17.09.2001 and his termination from service was not illegal and the same is justifiable as per non performance of duty and careless in discharge of office duty. As applicant was found careless, his engagement was discontinued on the ground of non performance to the satisfaction of office following the due process and no false allegation made against him. Enquiry was conducted and he was given reasonable opportunity to sbmit his defence. Deputy Director Regional Office NSSO conducted preliminary enquiry in the allegation of theft and damaged to office premises. The applicant appeared in preliminary equiry and he was duly accorded opportunity of being heard and the applicant did not put forth his defence statement. In the2404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] case of the applicant, as he was engaged as casual labour on daily wages regular enqiry was not warranted, therefore, there was not need to issue charge sheet and appointment of enquiry officer. As respondent does not have a sanctioned post of chowkidar, therefore, the workman was engaged through local employment exchange on daily wages basis for specific period on specific terms and conditions. On incident of theft FIR was lodged and no principles of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of constitution of India has been violated and applicant has not right to claim for regularization of services. As he was on daily wages to perform part time job and on noticing laxity in his performance his contractual engagement was not extended. It is prayed that application made by the applicant may be rejected.

3. The workman filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterating the claim made in the claim petition. In evidence workman filed his afficavit along with documents. The management also submit affidavit of Sh. Ram Kishan DDG NSSO Shimla who examined in evidence as MW 1. The workman stated before this Tribunal that he was engaged as coal boy for full day. He admitted that as chowkidar his duties hours were from 5.30 P.M. to 9 A.M. He also stated that management might have told him that he may be removed from service if his work is not satisfactory. He further stated that FIR for theft was lodged in police.

I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence

and record of the case.

5. The first point raised by the management is that the respondent office does not fall within the ambit of industry as defined in Section 2-J of the I.D. Act 1947. Section 2 sub section-J of ID Act 1947 defines the Industry means as under:

(j) "Industry" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;

This Section subsequently substituted by Industrial Disputes (Amendment Act, 1982) wherein, it has been provided that:—

(j) "Industry" means any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an employer and his workmen (Whether such workmen are employed by such employer directly or by or through any agency, including a contractor) for the production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature), whether or not:—

(i) Any capital has been invested for the purpose

of carrying on such activity; or

(ii) Such actifivity is carried on whith a motive to

make any gain or profit, and includes—

(a) Any activity of the Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948)

(b) Any activity relating to the promotion of sales or business or both carried on by an establishment,

6. This argument of the management has been opposed by the learned counsel for the workman. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that office of Deputy Director General, NSSO (FOD), HP Region Shimla Comes well within the ambit of the provisions 2j of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment Act 1982). From the perusal of the pleadings by the parties, the management has not specifically mentioned as to why the respondent does not fall within the definition of Industry which clearly shows that the management comes within the definition of Industry as provided under section 2j of the I.D. Act (Amendment Act, 1982).

7. Workman filed documents which show that workman was called for interview for the post of coal boy through employment exchange and started his service career as daily wager w.e.f. 14.11.2000. There after he was assigned the duties of chowkidar by DDG, NSSO who issued office memo dated 17.09.2001 stating therein that workman is being deputed as watchman w.e.f. 18.09.2001 on daily wages. It is also mentioned that his duties hours would be 5.30 p.m. to 9 a.m. It is also provided that workman would not be entitled for regularizing his services and his services can be terminated an any time. He was paid monthly wages as per document D-2 which is payment sheet. From the record it is revealed that workman continued serving the department up to 16.06.2001 when his services terminated vide order No. 1045 dated 16.6.2011 by DDG, NSSO, Shimla on the ground that the workman failed to perform his duties with honesty and dedication as a theft took place on 14.2.2011 in the office and guest house. Locks were found broken of guest house and training hall and the taps of both of the bathrooms were stolen and broken as the workman remained absent from duty. He was also found absent from duty by the officials on sudden checking and despite asking him time and again orally but the workman failed to perform his duty honestly. It is also stated in this memo that taking into consideration the directions of Head Quarter, the security of the office work would be taken by the security agencies on contract.

8. It is admitted by MW1 Sh. Ram Krishan, Deputy Diretor General in his statement that "Preliminary equiry report has not been filed by the management in this Tribunal. No final finding enquiry report has been filed by the management in this Tribunal. FIR was lodged against theft took place in guest house. No case was initiated further in any court. No recovery was ever made from the workman in view of the contents of the letter Ex. M-2. After the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2405 Governmment hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 56/ 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Central Public Works Department, Madurai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.05.2015.

[No. L-42012/89/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

disengagement of the workman, the work was taken from the out sourced staff." Thus from the statement of witness of the management, it is clear that no preliminary enquiry and final finding report has been filed by the management in this Tribunal. WW1 workman Devinder Kumar in his statement made before this Tribunal deposed that department did not make any enquiry regarding theft. Workmen also stated that it incorrect to sugested that in the alleges departmental enquiry he was found negligent. It is also the case of the workman that no charge sheet was issued to the workman and no enquiry officer was appointed to conduct departmental enquiry against the workman. The workman served the management from 14-11-2000 to 16-06-2011. At the time of termination no retrenchment compensation, one month pay in lieu of notice was paid to the workman. The management has violated the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act 1947 as the termination of workman is against the principles of natural justice.

Thursday, the 7th May, 2015

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 56/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Central Public Works Department, Madurai and their workman)

BETWEEN

9. The workman was serving the department as chowkidar (night) on daily wage basis. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the workman cannot be reinstated in services. The justice would be met if the workman is allowed compensation in lieu of reinstatement. As the workman worked for more than ten years therefore, Rs.75000/- (seventy five thousand) would be just compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

10. The management is directed to pay Rs.75000/- (seventy five thousands) as compensation to the workman within one moth from the date of the publication of the award.

11. The reference is answered accordingly. Soft as well as hard copy be sent to the Central Government for publication.

Chandigarh 15.05.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015

Sri P. Paul Pandi : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Superintending Engineer MDUCC

Central Public Works Department J.N. Nagar, 2nd Street, Valluvar Colony Madurai-625014

: 2nd Party/1st Respondent

2. The Executive Engineer

Central Public Works Department Madurai Central Division, Meenambalpuram Madurai-625002

: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

APPEARANCE :

का.आ. 1090.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल लोक निर्माण विभाग, मुदैरे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 56/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19.05.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-42012/89/2014-आईआर (डीयू)] For the 1st Party/ : Sri S. Ravi, T. Ramkumar,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/ : Sri M. Liagatali, Respondent Advocate

AWARD

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

S.O. 1090.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/89/2014-IR (DU) dated 07.07.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M3.

6. The points for consideration are:

"Whether the action of the Management of Central Public Works Department, Madurai over the issue of alleged illegal termination of Sri P. Paulpandi w.e.f. 09.03.2013 is legal and justified? if not to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

(i) Whether the petitioner was terminated from

service by the Respondent?

(ii) If so, what if any is the relief to which the

petitioner is entitled?

The Points

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 56/2014 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent in the year 2009 on temporary basis. No written order of appointment was issued to him. The petitioner was assigned the duties of an Attender. He was transferring files from one Section to another, arranging files and doing bank related work as Messenger and also other works assigned by the superior Officers. Initially wages were paid to the petitioner by way of vouchers. The petitioner had been employed continuously without any break. The work done by the petitioner was perennial in nature. The petitioner had demanded the Respondent to regularize his service and to provide him benefits alongwith similarly placed permanent employees. The Respondent got furious upon this and denied emloyment to him from 09.03.2013. No written order of termination was served on the peitioner. The dispute is raised accordingly. An order may be passed directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The Respondent had called tenders for providing labour services for maintenance of buildings and other attendant works. The Contractor who has taken the work provided labour service to the Respondent. The petitioner was initially engaged by John Batcha, Contrator who has taken contract. He had executed agreement for a period of 12 months starting from 27.07.2009. The contract was renewed from time to time and the work was awarded to successive Contractors. The petitioner was engaged by the Contractors. There is no employer-employee relationship between the Respodent and the petitioner. Contractor, John Batcha had paid Rs. 11,590/- as arrears of wages to the petitioner. The petitioner was lastly engaged by Venkataraman who had taken contract for the year 2012- 2013. On expiry of this contract period the service of the petitioner was dispensed by the Contractor and not by the Respondent. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the Respondents.

7. The petitioner has claimed that he had entered the service of the Respondent in the year 2009 on temporary basis. According to him he was not given any Appointment Order, the appointment having been temporary. He has stated in the Claim Statement that he was assigend duties of an Attender and he was doing his work satisfactorily. The petitioner has given evidence as WW1 and has reiterated his case in the Proof Affidavit filed by him.

8. The contention of the Respondents is that the petitioner was never employed by them and there was never employer-employee relationship between the Respondents and the petitioner. It is stated in the Counter Statement that work contracts were executed by CPWD with different Contractors and the petitioner was employed by some of the Contractors who worked for the Respondents. According to the Respondents there was no question of terminating the petitioner from service as there was no employer-employee relationship. The case is that one Venkataraman who was a Contractor for one year had dispensed with the service of the petitioner after expiry of the contract.

9. The only document produced by the petitioner to prove his case is Ext. W1. The petitioner has claimed that for some time he was paid directly by the Respondents, though he was admitted that subsequently he was paid by Contractor. What we has stated during his cross- examination is that for the first three months after his appointment he was paid directly by the Respondents. Ext. W1 the document dated 19.11.2009 is a hand receipt issued by the Executive Engineer of Madurai Central Division, CPWD. However, this receipt is for payment of Rs. 230/- towards bus charge claimed for 23 days @ Rs. 10/- per day. As seen from the document the payment is towards expenses to go to the Post Office. This document will not show that the petitioner was employed dirrectly by the Respondents. Though it is claimed that he was paid directly for the first three months no such documents are produced. It is admitted by the petitioner that after the first three months John Batcha the Contractor was paying salary to him.

10. The evidence tendered by MW1, and Officer of CPWD Madurai Circle would show that the petitioner was employed by the Contractor and not by the Respondents[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2407 directly. This witness has stated that the petitioner has received DD for Rs. 11,590/- from John Batcha, the Contractor. It is admitted by the petitioner during his cross- examination that he has received this amount from John Batcha through labour Commissioner. It seems the petitioner has approached the Labour Commissioner alleging that the Contractor was not paying him minimum wages and the Labour Commissioner had directed the Contractor to pay arrears of wages. It is accordingly draft for Rs. 11,590/- copy of which is marked as Ext. M1 was given to the petitioner. It is very much clear from this document that at the time when the draft was issued the petitioner was working under Contractor.

11. The evidence of MW1 shows that CPWD had been executing agreement for works to be carried out. Ext. M2 and Ext. M3 are the copies of agreements of the year 2009-2010 and 2012-2013 respectively. As seen from Ext. M3 one B. Venkataraman was the Contractor for the year 2012-2013. During the date of the alleged termination Venkataraman must have been during work for the Respondents on contract.

12. There is total dearth of evidence to prove the case of the petitioner that he was ever employed by the Respodents directly or terminated by them from service. Even as per the case of the petitioner direct employment was only for three months and thereafter only through Contractor. So the Respondents are not liable to reinstate him in service. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered against the petitioner. An

award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1091.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप-धारा — (3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2015 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धारा-76 की उप-धारा-(1) और धारा 77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

रेवेन्यु विल्लेज - वेलूर, तालुक - तलप्पिल्ली, जिला - तृश्शूर।

[सं॰ एस-38013/37/2015—एसएस-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1091.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2015 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely:—

Revenue Village of Velur in Thalappilly Taluk of

Thrissur District.

[No. S-38013/37/2015-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner WW1, Sri P. Paul Pandi

For the 2nd Party/ MW1, Sri G. Ganesan 1st and 2nd Management

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date Description

Ex.W1 19.11.2009 Hand Receipt approved by the

Respondent

का.आ. 1092.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप-धारा (3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2015 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धरा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धरा-76 की उप-धारा-(1) और धारा 77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

On the Management's side

Ex. No. Date Description

Ex.M1 — Copy of DD No. 861977 dated

22.10.2012

Ex.M2 — Copy of Agreement No. 23/

MCD-1/2009-10

Ex.M3 — Copy of Agreement No. 34/

MCD-1/2012-13

रेवेन्यु विल्लेज - पांजाल, तालुक - तलप्पिल्ली, जिला - तृश्शूर।

[सं॰ एस-38013/38/2015—एसएस-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1092.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State2408 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2015 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely:—

Revenue Village of Panjal in Thalappilly Taluk of

Thrissur District.

[No. S-38013/38/2015-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1093.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप-धारा (3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2015 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धरा-76 की उप-धारा-(1) और धारा 77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

रेवेन्यु विल्लेज - मण्णूर, तालुक - पालक्काड, जिला - पालक्काड।

[सं॰ एस-38013/39/2015—एसएस-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1093.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2015 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely:—

Revenue Village of Mannur in Palakkad Taluk of

Palakkad District.

[No. S-38013/39/2015-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1094.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप-धारा (3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2015 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धरा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धरा-76 की उप-धारा-(1) और धारा 77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

रेवेन्यु विल्लेज - ब्रहमकुलम, तालुक - चावक्काड, जिला - तृश्शूर।

[सं॰ एस-38013/40/2015—एसएस-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1094.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2015 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely:—

Revenue Village of Brahmakulam in Chavakkad Taluk

of Thrissur District.

[No. S-38013/40/2015-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1095.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप-धारा — (3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2015 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धारा-76 की उप-धारा-(1) और धारा 77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

रेवेन्यु विल्लेज - तय्यूर, तालुक - तलप्पिल्ली, जिला - तृश्शूर।

[सं॰ एस-38013/41/2015—एसएस-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1095.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2015 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2409 force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely:—

Revenue Village of Thayyur in Thalappilly Taluk of

Thrissur District.

[No. S-38013/41/2015-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1096.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप-धारा-(3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2015 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धरा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धारा-76 की उप-धारा-(1) और धारा-77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

रेवेन्यु विल्लेज-तंगलूर, तालुक-तृश्शूर, जिला- तृश्शूर।

[सं॰ एस-38013/42/2015-एसएस-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1096.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2015 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely:—

Revenue Village of Thangalur in Thrissur Taluk of

Thrissur District.

[No. S-38013/42/2015-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1097.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप-धारा-(3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2015 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धारा-76 की उप-धारा-(1) और धारा-77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

रेवेन्यु विल्लेज-तंगलूर, तालुक-तृश्शूर, जिला- तृश्शूर।

[सं॰ एस-38013/43/2015-एसएस-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1097.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2015 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in thefollowing areas in the State of Kerala namely:—

Revenue Village of Thangalur in Thrissur Taluk of

Thrissur District.

[No. S-38013/43/2015-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1098.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप-धारा-(3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2015 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धारा-76 की उप-धारा-(1) और धारा-77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

रेवेन्यु विल्लेज-पावरट्‌टी, तालुक-चावक्काड, जिला-तृश्शूर।

[सं॰ एस-38013/44/2015-एसएस-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1098.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2015 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into2410 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] force] of the said Act shall come into force in thefollowing

areas in the State of Kerala namely:—

Revenue Village of Paveratty in Chavakkad Taluk of

Thrissur District.

[No. S-38013/44/2015-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1099.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप-धारा-(3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2015 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धरा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धरा-76 की उप-धारा-(1) और धारा-77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध तेलगांना राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

''तेलगांना राज्य के महबूबनगर जिले के जड़चरला मंडल में आने वाले राजस्व गांवों की सीमा के अंतर्गत क्षेत्र-जड़चर्ला, बाड़ेपल्लि, माचारम, गोल्लापल्ली, बुरेड्‌डीपल्ली, मल्लेबोइनपल्ली, नागासाला, पोलेपल्लि, कोरमपेट, श्ांकरायपल्ली तथा भूतपुर मंडल के शेरिपल्ली (बी) और महबूबनगर मंडल के अप्पननापल्ली''

[सं॰ एस-38013/45/2015-एसएस-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1099.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st June, 2015 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter

V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in thefollowing

areas in the State of Telangana namely:—

"All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue

Villages of Jadcherla, Badepaly, Macharam,

Gollapally, Bureddypally, Malleboinpaly, Nagasala,

Polepally, Lurampet, Shankaraipally of Jadcherla

Mandal, Sheripaly (B) of Bhoothpur Mandal and

Appannapaly of Mahaboobnagar Mandal of

Mahaboobnagar district of Telangana State."

[No. S-38013/45/2015-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1100.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप-धारा-(3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2015 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम केअध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धरा-76 की उप-धारा-(1) और धारा-77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

रेवेन्यू विल्लेज-किरालूर, तालुक-तलापिल्ली, जिला- तृश्शूर।

[सं॰ एस-38013/46/2015-एसएस-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015

S.O. 1100.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2015 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in thefollowing areas in the State of Kerala namely:—

Revenue Village of Kiralur in Thalappilly Taluk of

Thrissur District.

[No. S-38013/46/2015-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1101.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार टाटा स्टील लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नं॰ 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 38/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-20012/249/2003-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम॰ के॰ सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2015

S.O. 1101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 38/2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2411 industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Tata Steel Limited and their workmen received by the Central Government on 18/05/2015.

[No. L-20012/249/2003-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH,Section Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2015

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 1102.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 179/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD,

REFERENCE NO. 38/2004

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947.

[सं. एल-20012/239/2001-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

एम॰ के॰ सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2015

Parties:

Employer in relation to the management of 6&7 Pits, Tata Steel Limited.

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

S.O. 1102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 179/2001 of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2015.

[No. L-20012/239/2001-IR (CM-I)] Appearances:

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

For the workman : None

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

State : Jharkhand

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

Industry : Coal

Date 6/4/2015

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(D)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947.

AWARD

Ref. No. 179/2001

By order No. L-20012/249/2003/IR (C-I) dated 26/4/2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

Employers in relation to the management of Block II area of M/S BCCL

AND

their workmen

Present :

SCHEDULE

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE:

"Whether the demand of the RCMS from the management of Tisco 6 & 7 Pits colliery to declare Shri Pyare Mahato unfit on medical grounds and to provide employment to his dependent son Shri Dileshwar Yadav is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

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

For the workman : Shri N.G. Arun, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Date 13/3/2015

AWARD

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates, subsequently no steps taken by the workman. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer By order No. L-20012/239/2001 IR (CM-I) dated 10/8/2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of2412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

Court No. a, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. JCM and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2015.

SCHEDULE

[No. L-20012/686/1997-IR (C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

"Whether the demand of the RCMS for providing employment to the son-in-law of Late Shraswati Nonia No. 3 on compassionate ground is legal and justified? to what relief the opplicant entitled?"

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 88/1998

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 10.09.2001. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 16.10.2001. Thereafter the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 06.08.2002. Rejoinder and document also filed by the parties. The workman adduced one witness as WW-1 and the workman also marked the document as W-1 to W-10.

Employer in relation to the management of Jagdamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises, Govindpur

AND

Their workmen

Present :

3. The claimant claims job as he is the dependant's son-in-law of the deceased workman as per NCWA. But getting a job is not a matter of right but the person who is in harness to get.

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

    4.  In  this  case  no  evidence  led  regarding  harness,
whatever may be the situation the workman died in the
year 1999, now it is 2015. By now there would not have        For the Employers       :  Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate
been  any  harness,  as  no  evidence  led  no  he  is  cross For the workman         :  Sri R.A. Chamaria, Advocate
examined.
                                                              State                   :  Jharkhand
                                                              Industry                :  Coal

Date 12/3/2015

AWARD

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that, the demand of RCMS for providing employment to the son-in-law of Late Shraswati Nonia No. 3 on compassionate ground is not justified, therefore the claim for job is refused.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2015

By order No. L-20012/686/1997/IR (C-I) dated 10/09/1998 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 1103.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जेसीएम के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 88/1998) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/686/1997-आईआर (सी-I)]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2015

S.O. 1103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pubishes the Award Ref. 88/1998 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour "Whether the action of the management of M/s. Jagdamba Coke manufacturing Enterprises, Rundi Road, P.O. Govindpur, Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Kedar Nath Mahto S/o Lata Ganpat Mahto is legal If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 21.09.1998. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. The workman files their written statement on 16.11.1998. Thereafter the management also files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 31.05.2000. Rejoinder and document also filed by the parties. Both side adduce one witness each on Preliminary point. But the management[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2413

ANNEXURE

also adduce one witness on merit. Document marked by the management as M-1 to W-9.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

3. In this case the workman was dismissed on the

ground absenteeism. The workman was a permanent

employee and his past record was good. Due to In the matter of reference U/s 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 08/2014

absenteeism a departmental enquiry conducted and the

LOK ADALAT

workman was dismissed. But before this Tribunal the

Parties:

domestic enquiry was held not fair and proper.

4. Though the management examined a witness he

was not stated any misconduct of workman except

absenteeism. Hence the order of dismissal is

disproportionate.

Employers in relation to the management of W.W. Zone, Mahuda M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present :

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

I hold the action of managemetn of M/s. Jagdamba Coke Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

manufacturing Enterprises, Tundi Road, P.O. Govindpur,
Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Kedar Nath Mahto S/o  Late        For the Employers      :  Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
Ganpat Mahto is not Proportionate & justified. Accordingly   For the workman        : Shri K.N. Singh, Advocate
the workman be reinstated atonce and he is retired by now,   State                  :  Jharkhand
Hence he be not given any back wages, as per no work no      Industry               :  Coal
pay theory. He be granted other superannuation benefits.     Date 1/4/2015

AWARD

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2015

By Order No. L-20012/64/2013-IR (CM-I) dated 30/12/2013 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 1104.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 08/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/64/2013-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

एम॰ के॰ सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2015

S.O. 1104.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby pubishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/2014)

of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

18/05/2015.

[No. L-20012/64/2013-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the action of the management of W.W. Zone Mahuda of M/s. BCCL in denying employment to Smt. Asgari Khatoon, dependant wife of Late Naushad Alam (After got medically examined and declared fit for job) under the provisions of NCWA is fair and justified? To what relief the dependant wife of late Naushad Alam is entitled to?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 16.01.2014. After receipt of the reference both parties are noticed. The sponsoring unon files their written statement on 25.02.2014.

3. Short point to be decided, as to whether the widow, who has been declared as medically unfit to be appointed under NCWA or not.

4, This case is taken of at Lok-Adalat, in which the management agree to give employment to any of the LR of deceased workman in employment.

5. The deceased wife is to get a job. But when she is found medically unfit her son Md. Alamgir @ Md. Alam be taken into job to save the family from harness.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer2414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1105.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार गेल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 192/1996) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2015 प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-30012/22/1996- आईआर (सी-I)]

एम॰ के॰ सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2015

S.O. 1105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 192/

1996) 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. GAIL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18/05/2015.

[No. L-30012/22/1996-IR (C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the demand of the Union that the contractors engaged by M/s. GAIL, Vijaypur, Guna are sham or not genuine is justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen engaged through these contractors entitled?"

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/192/96

Genral Secretary,

LPG Udyog Mazdoor Union (CITU),

Shukla Bhawan (Sadan),

New Road, Guna (MP)

...Workman/Union 2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party union filed statement of claim at Page 7/21. Case of Union is that it is registered under Trade Union act 1926 bearing Registration No. 4114 dated 25-9-90. IInd party GAIL is undertaking of Government of India is fully controlled and financed by Union of India. IInd party carries industry of extracting natural gas etc. for consumption of industries of general Public. IInd party has got LPG plant at Birjapur, Distt. Guna. Said plant was established in the year 1989. IInd party employs more than 200 contract labours through contractors. The details given in para-4 of statement of claim. It is further submitted that Union could get names of the contractors and number of employees from information received from staff of IInd party. That IInd party engaged contractor that with a view to deprive workman working under contractors of benefit available to its employees. Ratio held by Apex court in case of Gujarat Electricity Board versus Hind Mazdoor Sabha reported in 1995 LAB IC 2207 is not implemented by IInd party. IInd party is authority under Article 12 of the constitution. That work done through contractors is regular part of the industry of IInd party. That the work carried by IInd party through contractors is of perennial nature and is of sufficient duration. That the workers are infact the workers of employees/IInd party.

VERSUS

Executive Director,

Gas Authority of India Ltd.,

Vijaypur, Guna (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of March, 2015

1. As per letter dated 1-10-1996 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-30012/22/96-IR(C-I). The dispute under

reference relates to:

3. That Ist party Union had served notice of demand of IInd party. Conciliation was started. No settlement was arrived between parties. The dispute has been referred. The Ist party reiterates that workers of contractors was engaged workers of IInd party. Workers are entitled to get all benefits of regular employees. That the contracts are not genuine but contracts are sham. Contracts are executed with malafide motive to deprive works given to regular employees under different labour laws. The workers working under different contractors for several years. The services of workmen are terminated. IInd party deliberately delayed conciliation proceeding so that the workers may not get any interim order. The biggest contractor was Indu Engineering Services which had employed 67 workers. The services were terminated w.e.f 15-7-96 on pretext that contract period with IInd party was over, no retrenchment compensation was paid, bonus was not paid. Contractors did not deposit contribution of PF in office of Regional PF Commissioner, Surat. The amount of PF has not been paid to the workers.

Amount of EL was not paid to the workers. Workers engaged by other contractors were also not given such benefits.

4. It is submitted that Indu Engineering Services was engaged by IInd party for the work of loading, unloading, 55 workers were enaged for loading unloading works in the Railway tracks. Some of the workers of Indu Engineering services were engaged at the store house of LPG Gas. Some workers were engaged at IG Plant and Cooling Tower which are essential part of industry. Safai Kamgar Sahkari Samiti was performing the essential duties of cleaning the plant. Said protion was essential part of industry of IInd party. It cannot be denied that maintenance is essential part of industry. Other contractors were performing miscellaneous work.

5. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 35 to 57 oppossing claim of Union. Preliminary submissions are raised that IInd party is known as Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL). In view of automated nature of operations, requirement of regular manpower is very limited for running the plant. For carrying out operations, only highly specialized personnel with technical qualifications and experience are deployed. The establishment of LPG plant Vijaypur is registered under the CL (R&A) Act. The contractors employed 20 or more persons who possess valid licence specified unde the Act. That IInd party being principal employer had complied with statutory provisions. The contracts are valid and genuine. That engagement of contract labour under the contract is permissible except in the activities which are prohibited by the Appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act. That contract system is not illegal as per the Act. The contract Labour (R&A) Act does not declare all contract labours illegally. No notification prohibiting abolition of any operation process or contract has been issued by Central Government unless such notification issued following procedure under Section 10 of the Act. IInd party has right to enter into agreement or make arrangements for contract labours through the contractors. The contracts awarded to various contractors adhering to the CL(R&A) Act are proper and legal. Contractors engaged their own workman who work under control and supervision of contractors. The management of IInd party has nothing to do with the claimants, there is no employer employee relationship between IInd party and contract labours.

6. That reference is made without application of mind. The contract labours who raised dispute are employees of 9 independent organizations. The contractors are not impleaded as party to reference therefore reference is bad. That all the contract labours were engaged by contractor to fulfill the terms of contract. The contract labours are covered by terms and conditions accepted by the contractors. IInd party has no role to play. The transfer of employees from contractor to other employer is not permissible.

7. W.r.t. ratio held in case of Gujrat State Electricity Board versus Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha has held that industrial dispute can only be raised by the direct workman of the Principal Employer and not by the contract labour. In present case, dispute is not raised by direct employee of Principle employer therefore reference deserves to be rejected.

8. IInd party further submits that in LPG Udyog, work is carried by contract labours and not by the direct employees of IInd party. It is reiterated that there is no employer employee relationship. That IInd party is not controlled by Union of India. Govt. of India holds only 67% of total capital. That IInd party has not directly engaged in labours for carrying out various pereferal activities, IInd party entered into separate agreements/contracts. All the contracts are genuine. Contractors might have engaged some labour for carrying out their contractual obligation. Management of IInd party is not aware about the number of labours engaged by respective contractors. He submitted that contract labour were working under supervision, control of the contractors. It is reiterated that all contractors engaging more than 20 labours were holding licence under CL(R&A) Act, 1970. Engagement of contract is legal. Contract labours were not engaged in prohibited activities/operations, any such notification is not issued by appropriate Government. The contracts were given after publication in news paper through limited tender following the procedure. That 1st party Union has made allegation of malafide motive. The allegations are false. The activities undertaken by contractors are intermittent, non perennial in nature. IInd party submits that activities of contract labours are not prohibited. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

9. 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 Union that the contractors engaged by M/S GAIL, In Negative Vijaypur, Guna are sham or not genuine is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the Workmen are not

workman is entitled to?" entitled to any relief.

REASONS

10. The terms of reference pertains to demand of Union that engagement of contractors by M/s GAIL is sham or not genuine. The terms of reference does not include legality of termination of any contract labour, non-payment of PF, Bonus etc. the contentions raised in statement of claim by Ist party Union w.r.t. termination of services of contract labors, non- payment of PF, bonus are clearly beyond the terms of reference. Ist party Union has contented that IInd party engaged contractors to avoid benefits of regular employees to be employees engaged through the contract labours. The contracts are not genuine.

11. Ist party Union has produced documents Exhibit W-1 to W-15. Document No. W-1 to W-12 relates to the demands of Union and its consideration in the meetings. In any of those document, there is not reference as to who was paying salary, who was controlling contract labours engaged and supervision of their work. Exhibit W-13, 13-A, 3-B are letters issued by ALC, Bhopal w.r.t. the conciliation proceedings. Exhibit W-14 letters given by Indu Engineering to Brij Kishore about transfer of his service to other site of Indu Engineering services. Exhibit W-15 is list of employees engaged by different contractors and wages paid to them.

12. Turning to the evidence of witnesses of Ist party Union, affidavit of Shri Om Prakash Soni, Dr. Vishnu Sharma, Suresh Saini, Raghuvir Singh Kushwah filed are almost identical. That establishment of IInd party is undertaking of Govt of India. More than 200 contract labours are engaged, Identity Card are issued to contract labours. The documents about engaging contract labours are produced. That contract for long period shows that the employees are not of contractor but of the IInd party. The contractors are engaged to deny benefits of regular employees under labour laws. That services of contract labours terminated, PF is not deposited in office of PPF Commissioner. Work of loading, unloading is carried by contract labours. The contract labours are not paid arrears of wages, regular pay, bonus. As stated above the terms of reference are silent about above demands narrated in affidavit of evidence. Shri Omprakash in his cross-examination says in 1995 Union demand that the work was of perennial nature. Documents about oral settlements before Labour Commissioner are produced. He says he passed 8th standard. No notice for recruitment of staff was published in newspaper by the management. That out of 12 companies, presently 5-6 companies are working. Except the present reference, there is no dispute between employees and contractor. That MP Labour Inspector comes for inspection to establishment of IInd party as well as contractors. Employees are paid more than minimum wages. From evidence of Dr. Vishnu Sharma, the documents Exhibit W-5 to W-15 have been proved. Those documents are discussed Supra. Dr. Vishnu Sharma in his cross says that in application submitted by him to the management, he did not allege that the contracts were bogus rather he claimed that work was of perennial nature. In Para 36 of his cross examination, witness says in 1990, he received information that the contractors were bogus but he did not raise said point in lieu of his representations. That the contractors were bogus. In document W-15 the name of contractor appearing in it, the wages are paid by said contractor to its labours. He further says that he knows about educational qualification. He says that he has not produced any document, that leave be granted by management. In Para 40 of his cross-he says he did not work in the establishment of IInd party. He is not having any gate pass therefore he could not enter the establishment of IInd party.

13. Shri Suresh Saini in his cross says that in his affidavit, he has not stated that he was working under contractor. His affidavit was prepared by Union President. Since last 15 years, he was not working with any contractor. Earlier he was not working with the contractor of IInd party. After strike of labours, management prepared documents about contractors. He had studied up to 5th standard. He has not brought his Original I Card. That he has no dispute with any of the contractors. Presently IInd party is using vehicles on hire. He claims ignorance whether IInd party was having its own vehicle when he was working in the establishment. He was not given appointment letter. He is not having any document about payment of wages, the wages were paid as per attendance register. He didnot meet with any contractors. The contractor Shital Prasad is from Gwalior. Since past 15 years, he has no knowledge about any of the contractors.

14. Witness Raghuvir Singh Kushwah in his cross- examination says he was working under contractor for 20-22 years. Appointment letters were issued by contractor. On its basis, security pass was issued by IInd party. The contractor is paying prescribed wages deducting the contribution of PF. That he was working under the contractor Shital Prasad. He has no dispute with the contractor Shital Prasad. The contract was given to Shri Prasad after publication. Earlier he was working in Indu Engineering Service. Presently any work is not carried by said Indu Engineering Contractor. In para-28 of his cross examination, he admits that contracts given to Shital[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2417

    Prasad is not bogus. The contract given by IInd party           employees presently related to the dispute. He claims
    to  the  contractors  complete  their  work  and  leave.        ignorance  about  the  work  of  loading  unloading,
    That  Registration  Certifaicate  of  Union  is  not            payment of wages to employees engaged on such
    produced.  Presently  he  is  elected  as  Secretary  of        work.
    Union but no documents are produced. That he had
                                                                18. As  stated  above,  the  terms  of  reference  does  not
    not submitted any application that the contractors
                                                                    cover the point of non-payment of wages, bonus, PF
    were bogus. He had not challenged that contractor
                                                                    etc.
    Shital Prasad was bogus. In his futher cross, he says
    that he was working 30 days in a month. He was paid         19. Document W-16 is about verification of payments of
    wages  for  26  days.  IInd  party  has  not  issued            wages to Shri Ramgopal Noda for the month of May
    appointment  letter  to  him.  He  not  submitted  any          96. Exhibit W-17 is certificate of competency issued
    application to IInd party for employment. For past 21           for minor competency to Shri Gopilal Mani on 3-5-97.
    years, he was working in Indu Engineering Services              Those documents have no direct bearing to establish
    and contractor Shital Prasad. During past 18 years,             that  the  contracts  between  IInd  party  and  the
    he was working under Shital Prasad.                             contractor are bogus and camouflage.
15. Management  filed  affidavit  of  witness  Shri  Sham       20. Counsel for Ist party Shri Rajesh Chand during course
    Sunder Kondawathini supporting contentions of IInd              of  argument  submits  that  contract  works
    party. Contractors engaged by IInd party. At present            continuously worked. Work is of  permanent nature.
    contractors  Prakash  construction,  safai  Karmchari           Workmen are still working they should be treated as
    Sahkari Samini, ACR contractor etc. are not doing               permanent employee of IInd party. He also referred
    any work. This witness in his cross-examination says            to  documents    Exhibit  W-14(a),  15,  16,  17  and
    the contractor shown in W-15 was carrying work of               emphasized that employees working under Exhibit
    loading unloading. Presently those persons are doing            W-18-1  to  3  as  contract  labours  are  continuously
    the work cleaning, sweeping. He denies that work of             working.  He  also  referred  to  the  evidence  of
    loading, unloading, sweeping are regular works of               management's witness Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, Sham
    IInd party establishment. He denied that attendance             Sunder  and  emphasized  that  the  work  carried  by
    of  the  employees  represented  by  Union  was                 contract labour is of permanent nature.
    maintained by the management of IInd party. It is           21. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri P. Jain submits
    denied  that  contract  labours  were  working  under           that  contractors  are  not  impleaded  as  parties.
    supervision  of  officers  of  IInd  party.  He  claims         Management's witness Shri Rajesh Kumar not asked
    ignorance about agreement M-2 to M-5. In his further            about  contractors  were  bogus.  Union  has  not
    cross, he says that when representative of contractor           produced  registration  certificate.  Sor  far  as  non-
    remained present while contract labours are carrying            production of Union certificate does not go through
    their work.                                                     the route of the matter as the dispute was raised by
16. Management  filed  affidavit  of  Shri  Rajesh  Jain            Union itself and documents Exhibit W-1 to W-12.
    contractors.  He  says  that  he  was  working  as              The  demand of Union are produced on record.
    contractor for about 20 years at plant of IInd party.       22. Learned counsel relied on ratio held in case of "Ram
    Work  of  loading  unloading  etc.  was  carried  by            Singh and others versus Union Territory reported in
    contractor Shital Prasad. Any person cannot enter               2004(1) SCC 126. Their Lordship of the Apex Court
    the plant without permission of management. The                 dealing with determination of employer employee
    labours engaged by him were issued pass.  The CIF               relationship. Multiple pragmatic approach is stressed.
    is entrusted Securtiy of plant. The work above Rs.50            Factors to be considered inter alia are (i) control, (ii)
    Lakh are given by tender. The contract labours are              integration, (iii) power of appointment and dismissal,
    given benefits of leave, PF, bonus, medical facilities          (iv) liability to pay remuneration and deduct insurance
    etc. In his cross-examination this witness says after           contributions, (v) liability to organize the work and
    completion  of  contract  period,  advertisement  was           supply  tools.
    issued  following  tenders.  Since  past  20  years,  he
                                                                    The  evidence  of  the  witnesses  of  Ist  party  is  not
    was continuously getting contract. He was carrying
                                                                    cogent  on  any  of  those  points  that  the  contract
    the work as per contract.
                                                                    labours  engaged  or  were  appointed  by  IInd  party.
17. Evidence of witness Shri Ashish Dadel is on the point           They  were  dismissed  by  IInd  party.  The  work  of
    of calling tenders for contracts of the work of repairs,        supplying tools to contract labours were made by
    cleaning,  loading  unloading  etc.  In  his  cross-            IInd party. It is suprising to say that evidence adduced
    examination, this witness says he is not knowing the            by Union is lacking on above points.

    In case of Charan Singh versus Presiding Officer,               absorption  of  contract  labour  on  issuing  a
    Industrial  Tribunal  cum  Labour  Court  reported  in          notification by the appropriate Government under
    2014-LLR-747. Their Lordship of Punjab and Haryana              Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 prohibiting employment
    High  Court,  it  was  observed  that  workman  was             of contract labour in any process operation or other
    employee  of  the  contractor.  Workman  had  not               work  in  any  establishment.  Consequently,  the
    produced  any  independent  evidence  in  support  of           principal  employer  cannot  be  required  to  order
    his claim. Workman did not implead the contractor.              absorption  of  the  contract  labour  working  in  the
    Hence workman is not entitled to claim any relief               establishment concerned.
    from the management.
                                                                    In Para-5 on issuance of notification under Section
    In  case  of  Ghisa  Khan  versus  Labour  Court  and           10(1) of the CLRA Act is not issued by Central Govt.
    Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer and another reported in              Point needs no discussion.
    2014-LLR 753. Their Lordship of Rajasthan High
    Court held workman neither impleaded the contractor             Para 6- Their Lordship contented if the contract is
    as a party nor moved any application for summoning              found  to  be  genuine  and  prohibition  notification
    the relevant records to prove his case on summoning             under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of
    the contractor as witness. Labour Court held him to             the establishment concerned has been issued by the
    be employed by the contractor and not by employer               appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of
    was upheld.                                                     contract  labour  in  any  process,  operation  or  other
                                                                    work  of  any  establishment  and  where  in  such
    In case of Pradumn Singh vrs Shiv Raj Singh reported
                                                                    process, operation or other work of the establishment
    in ILR 2014(MP) 424. Their Lordship held affidavit
                                                                    the  principal  employer  intends  to  employ  regular
    prepared by counsel and the witness merely signing
                                                                    workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile
    it. It can be inferred that statement produced on behalf
                                                                    contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if
    of witness is not his actual statement.
                                                                    necessary by relaxing the condition as to maximum
    Ratio held cannot be applied to present case as all             age appropriately, taking into consideration the age
    the witnesses of Ist party cannot be said that they             of the workers at the time of their initial employment
    had only signed the affidavits without knowing the              by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as
    contents.                                                       to  academic  qualifications  other  than  technical
    In case of International Airport Authority of India             qualifications.
    versus  International  Air  Cargo  Workers  Union               As such demand is not raised by Union. Therefore
    reported in AIR 2009 SC-3063. Their Lordship of the             demand of Union cannot be allowed.
    Apex court dealing with production of Section-10 of
    Contract Labour (R&A) Act. Their Lordship held plea        24. Learned counsel for IInd party also relies on ratio
    that  contract  is  sham,  nominal  and  merely  a              held in case of employers in relation to management
    camouflage  to  deny  employment  benefits  to  the             of Madan Pal Singh versus State of UP reported in
    employees and that there is in fact a direct employment         AIR  2000-SC-537.  I  have  carefully  gone  through
    by playing tests like who pay the salary, who has the           those  judgments  and  found  the  ratio  cannot  be
    power  to  remove/dismiss  from  service  or  initiate          applied to present case at hand.
    disciplinary action, who can tell the employees the
                                                                    Counsel for 1st party Shri Rajesh Chand relies on
    way in which the work should be done, in short who
                                                                    ratio held in case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd versus
    has direction and control over the employees.
                                                                    ALC(C), Raniganj and others reported in 2001-II-LLJ-
    The  evidence  of  Union  is  not  devoted  on  any  of         1467. The ratio held in the case pertains to amendment
    such points, not devoted that IInd party was having             of  certificate  of  registration  issued  under  TA  of
    control over the employees engaged by contractors.              Contract Labour (R&A) Act.
23. Ist party counsel relied on ratio held in case of—              The ratio held in case no bearing to the controversy
                                                                    between the parties. The facts of the case are entirely
    Steel  Authority  of  India  Ltd  and  others  versus
                                                                    different. The ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.
    National  Union  Waterfront  workers  reported  in
    2001(7)SCC-1.  In  para  125  of  the  judgment  their     25. To conclude, evidence adduced by Ist party is not
    Lordship outlined the above discussions considering             sufficient to establish that contractors engaged by
    the ratio held in various cases.                                IInd  party  were  sham  and  bogus.  No  notification
    In Para-3 neither section 10 of the CLRA Act nor                under Section 10(1) of CL(R&A) Act were issued by
    any other provision in the Act whether expressly or             the  Central  Government  prohibiting  any  of  the
    by  necessary  implication,  provides  for  automatic           activities therefore demand of Union cannot be said

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

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

For the workman : Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 15/12/2014

AWARD

(1) The demand of the Union that the contractors engaged by M/S GAIL, Vijaypur, Guna is not justified and legal.

(2) Contracts labours represented by Union are

not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2015

By Order No. L-20012/158/2004-IR (C-I) Dated 17/12/2004, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 1106.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय न॰ 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 17/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-20012/158/2004-आईआर (सी-I)] एम॰ के॰ सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2015

S.O. 1106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2015.

[No. L-20012/158/2004-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union from the management of M/s. BCCL, Koyla Bhawan for employment to Sri Bir Bahadur Tamang, the dependant son of late Puran Bahadur is justified? If so, to what relief is said Sri Bir Bahadur entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 03.01.2005. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed, the Sponsoring Union/workman files their written statement on 01.02.2005. The management also files written statement-cum rejoinder on 14.09.2005. Both side adduce one witness each on their behalf.

3. The short point to be decided in this case as to whether the workman is entitled to job under the management after the death of his father.

4. The workman is admittedly the son of late Puran Bahadur. But the main objection is Puran Bahadur was never worked under BCCL management for a single day and as such his claim is declined. But the case is the father of the applicant alongwith others ordered to be regularized as per the judgment passed in WP(L) 4327/2001.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 17 of 2005

Employer in relation to the management of Koyla Bhawan of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

5. As per the said judgment, the management was processing to appoint the applicant's father and asked him to appear for medical test but the workman could not appear and thereafter he died. Had the workman appointed earlier, the question of his death may not have occurred. Had that been occurred, the present workman would have been absorbed in job.

Present :

Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case. I hold that the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union from the management of M/s BCCL, Koyla Bhawan for employment to Sri Bir Bahadur Tamang, the dependant son of late Puran Bahadur is justified, Therefore if the applicant applies for job, his application be considered and he be given job after waiving formality.

This is my award.

APPEARANCES:

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

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer2420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1107.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मिनरल एक्सप्लोरेशन कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय न॰ 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 32/2010) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-20012/99/2009-आईआर (सीएम-I)] "(i) Whether the action of the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, Nagpur in retrenching the 25 workman (as per annexure) working at BCCL & CCL without obtaining prior permission of the conciliation Officer under Section 33(1)(a) of the I.D. Act 1947, before whom the conciliation proceedings were pending to justified and legal? (ii) To what relief are the workmen concerned entitled?"

ANNEXURE

List of workman in MECL

एम॰ के॰ सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2015

S.O. 1107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the managment of M/s. Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2015.

[No. L-20012/99/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer Sl. Name Father's Name Designation No.

1. Anil Kumar Singh Late Ram Jee Singh CAT-II

2. Inamul Haque Sri Hafizual Haque CAT-I

3. Rajib Ranjan Sinha Sri Surendra Pd. Sinha CAT-I

4. Narendra Kumar Sinha Late Basudeo Pd. Sinha CAT-I

5. Sunil Kumar Sri Deo Kumar Sinha CAT-I

6. Rao Ranvijay Singh Late Sakaldeo Singh CAT-I

7. Ghanshyam Kumar Sri Sukhdeo Ram Nayak CAT-II

Nayak

8. Anil Kumar Srivastava Late Satay Narayan CAT-II

Prasad

ANNEXURE

9.     Sunil  Kumar  Sharma    Late  Narayan  Pd.  Sharma CAT-II
10.    Indrapal  Singh         Balbir Singh              CAT-I

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.

                                                                 11.    K.P.  Narayan         Lakshan  Prasad         CAT-I
In the Matter of a Reference U/s 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D.          12.    B.  Hansada           Sri  Ghasiram  Hansada  CAT-I
                       Act, 1947.                                13.    S.K.  Ram             Ram  Bilash  Ram        CAT-I
                                                                 14.    A.K.  Pandey          Ramjee  Pandey          CAT-I

Ref. No. 32 of 2010

                                                               15.   Sanjay  Kumar         Satrughan  Pd.  Sinha   CAT-I
Employers in relation to the management of Mineral
                                                               16.   Satyajit  Pradhan     Bansidhar  Prasad       CAT-I
            Exploration Corporation Ltd.
                                                               17.   Kallola  Pradhan      —                       CAT-II
                        AND
                                                               18.   Manmohan  Pandey      Sri  R.N.  Pandey       CAT-II
                   Their workman.
                                                               19.   Uttam  Kr.  Mahto     Sri  S.K.  Mahto        CAT-II

Present :

                                                       20.   Rajesh  Kumar         Sri B.N. Lal           CAT-I
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer              21.   Agam  Kumar           Sri Amrendra Gung      CAT-I
                                                                                   Bahadur

APPEARANCES:

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

For the workman. : Sri S.C. Gour, Advocate

State : Jharkhand. Industry : Coal.

Dated 25/3/2015

22. Kenon Horo Late Heran Horo CAT-I

23. R.C. Ghoshal Sri B.K. Ghoshal CAT-I

24. Gopal Ji Prasad Sri Janki Sahu CAT-I

25. S.K. Rai R.Kl. Rai CAT-I

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/99/2009 - IR (CM-I), dated 29/03/2010, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in excercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

08.04.2010. After receipt of reference, both parties are noticed, the workman files their written statement on 03.05.2010, and the management files their written statement- cum-rejoinder on 25.10.2010. The workman adduced two witnesses but the management adduced one witness. Workman marked document as Ext. W-1 to W-14 and the

management marked document as Ext. M-1 to M-3/9.

3. The short point to be decided in this case, is whether the retrenchment of 25 nos. workman, while the conciliation proceeding is pending is fair and proper.

dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/470/98-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

4. Admittedly the worman were engaged by the management for a temporary period as per their requirement. It is stated that when the requirement is over the management, retrenched them. But prior to that a conciliation proceeding was pending before ALC.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

5. It is submitted by the management counsel that retrenchment of workman is no retrenchment and it is proper.

PRESENT :

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 24 OF 1999

PARTIES :

6. On the said question, this Tribunal do not express any opinion. But this Tribunal holds that, when the conciliation proceeding is pending, the management should have taken approval of the conciliation Officer or to intimate all fact to him before taking any action against them.

7. Therefore the action of the management violating section 33(1)(a) of the I.D. Act is improper, therefore before retrenchment the conciliation proceeding should have been finalized.

The management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Burdwan

Vs.

Sri Hari Singh Gurung

REPRESENTATIVES :

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, Nagpur in retrenching the 25 workmen (as per annexure) working at BCCL & CCL without obtaining prior permision of the conciliation Officer under Section 33(1)(a) of the I.D. Act, 1947, is not legal. The management is a Central Govt. Organization, it may engage the workman any where they like in their organization as per the prevalent wage, but no back wages is allowed.

For the Management : Sri A. Chakraborty, Ld. Adv.

SBI

For the union (Workman) : None

Industry : Bank

State : West Bengal

Dated : 29.04.2015

AWARD

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-12012/ 470/98-IR(B-I) dated 22.3.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 1108.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या (24/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/470/98-आईआर (बी- I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 24/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region IV, Burdwan, in dismissing the services of Sri Hari Singh Gurung, Clerk, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L-12012/470/98-IR(B-I) dated 22.03.1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 24 of 1999 was registered on 30.03.1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support2422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

PARTIES :

of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Case called out. Both the parties are absent.

The President,

Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank Employees Association, Mangal Pandey Road, Ara, Distt; Bhojpur (Bihar).

Vs.

The Chairman Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, Mangal Pandey Road, Ara, Distt.; Bohjpur (Bihar)

Order No. L-12012/93/93-IR(BI) dt. 27.5.1993.

APPEARANCES:

On perusal of the case record I find that the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step from 12.02.2007. registered notices were issued to him on 05.03.2009, 29.03.2010 and 18.11.2014 and after 12.02.2007, 14 dates have been granted to the workman but all in vain. Last notice issued on 18.11.2014 has come back with the remarks that the workman is dead. Since the workman is dead and none of his legal heir has appeared before the Court with any claim the case is closed and accordingly a "No Dispute Award" may be passed.

On behalf of the Workman/Union : Mr. B. Prasad,

ORDER

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

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

Ld. Representative.

On behalf of the Management : Mr. V.N. Sahay.

LD. Adv.

State

: Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st April, 2015

AWARD

का.आ. 1109.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भोजपुर रोहतास ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 76/1993) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

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-12012/ 93/93-IR (B-I) dt. 27.05.1993.

SCHEDULE

[सं. एल-12012/93/93-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/1993) 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 Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/93/93-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer " Whether the action of the Management of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri Sunil Kumar w.e.f. 29.1.1989 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

Present :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

2. Neither any representative for the Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank Employees 'Association nor workman Sunil Kumar appeared. But Mr. K.R. Pd. Srivastava, the Manager (HRD) as the Authorized Representative for the OP/ Management of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, Bhojpur is present. Mr. Srivastava, the Representative for the OP/ Management has moved the petition dt. 22.09.2014 filed on behalf of the Management for the closure of the case, as the claimant/the Union concerned has not appeared in this case for afresh hearing over the representative of Shri V.N. Sahay as the practicing Lawyer for the OP/Management in the term of Sec. 36 of the Industrial Dispute Act as directed by the Hon'ble High Court as per the order dt. 13.05.1999 passed in CWJC No. 8537 of 1998, Management of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank Vs. Union of India & Ors., by quashing impugned order dt. 16.04.1998 of the Tribunal in the instant Reference. Further Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna was pleased to pass an order dt. 03.09.1999 setting aside the impugned order dt. 16.04.1999 of the Tribunal in respect

REFERENCE OF 76 OF 1993

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

of other Reference No. 95/96 related to CWJC No. 8639 of 1998, with direction to the Tribunal to hear the parties over the question of authorization of Shri V.N. Sahay to represent the Management and pass afresh order on that issue after hearing both the parties.

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 22/2010

Ref. No. L-41011/127/2009-IR (B-I) dated : 08.11.2010

BETWEEN

In compliance with the Hon'ble Court's Order as noted above, which was final order of the Hon'ble High Court, three Regd. Notices dt. 20.12.2012, 10.04.2012 and lastly 04.08.2014 were issued to the President of the Union concerned on his addresses as noted in the reference itself for the purpose of hearing over the matter of issue over the representation/authorization of Shri V.N. Sahay to represent the Management. But neither the Union Representative nor workman Sunil Kumar appeared or responded to any of three Regd. Notices issued by the Tribunal. The Instant Reference relates to an issue over the termination of the services of the workman concerned.

Mandal Sangatan Mantri Uttar Railways Employee Union 283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora PO. Manak Nagar, Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri Prem)

AND

1. Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) Uttar Railway, Charbagh Lucknow.

2. Deputy Chief Manager (Stores) Northern Railway, Stores Depot Alambagh, Lucknow.

AWARD

Under these circumstances, the Union Representative and the workman concerned by their own conducts appear to be quite reluctant to contest the Reference case. They appear to have failed to appear before the Tribunal for hearing over the issue of authorization of Sri V.N. Sahay to represent the management under Sec. 36 of the I.D. Act, 1947. It resulted in long pendency of the instant Reference for an adjudication, for which neither the Union Representative nor the workman concerned has least concern with it. Hence the case is closed as No Industrial Dispute existent. Accordingly, an order of "No Dispute Award" is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1110.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 22/2010) प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-41011/127/2009-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1110.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.

[No. L-41011/127/2009-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer 1. By order No. L-41011/127/2009-IR (B-I) dated: 08.11.2010 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Mandal Sangatan Mantri, Uttar Railways Employee Union, 283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora, PO. Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Uttar Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow & Deputy Chief Manager (Stores), Northern Railway, Stores Depot, Alambagh, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of Management of Northern Railway, Lucknow in not giving Shri Prem T.No. 189 status of temporary worker from the date of completion of 120 days of service is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the workman, Prem, has been engaged as casual labour with in construction unit under opposite party No. 1 and is presently working under opposite Party No. 2. It has been alleged by the workman's union that the workman under dispute was to be given temporary status after completion of 120 days of working as per P.S.N. 7850, Master Circular2424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but he was granted temporary status after five years' of his engagement, which is not only unfair labour practice but also is against Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed that the workmen concerned be granted temporary status from the date he has completed 120 days' working with consequential benefits.

8. Head learned authorized representatives of the

parties at length and perused entire evidence on record.

9. The authorized repesentative of the workman has contended that the workman was not project casual labour; rather they were casual labour engaged in construction division/unit. Therefore, he was eligible for grant of temporary status from the date he completed 120 days of service. The railway administration instead treated him as project casual labour and granted him temporary status after lapse of five years which is unfair labour practice. It is also contended that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra) is not applicable on the workman. The workman's union has relied on :

(i) Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & Another

2008 (116) FLR 1046.

(ii) Union of India & Others vs. Basant Lal &

others 1992 SCC (L&C) 611.

(iii) L. Rebert D'Souza vs. Executive Engineer,

Southern Railway & Another 1982 SCC

(L&S) 124.

(iv) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnanmurthy ACJ

1998 1347 SC.

(v) Kuldeep Singh vs. GM. Instrument Design

Development and Facilities Centre & another

2011 (128) FLR 121.

(vi) Din Mohammed (Dead) by LRs. vs. Union of

India & Others 2002 (92) FLR 1216.

(vii) The Union of India & another vs. Girja

Shankar & Others 2003 (96) FLR 1094.

4. The management of the North Central Railways has filed its written statement denying the allegations of the workman's union with submission that the workman under dispute was initially engaged by them as Project Casual Labour in Construction Unit with intermittent gap w.e.f. 15.07.78 and has been granted temporary status on 01.01.84 vide letter No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 dt. 01.06.84. It has been submitted that the railway formulated a scheme to provide the temporary status to Project Casual Labour, circulated vide No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 dated 01.06.84 as per directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav & Others vs. Union of India & others (1985) 2 SCC 648. The management has submitted that as per modified date of grant of tempoary status, the workman was screened and posted accordingly; and he is in fruitful emplpoyment of the oppsoite party for last more than 20 years, thus, raising the present industrial disputes after lapse of 20 long years makes it time barred hence, not maintainable in the eye of law. It is specifically submitted by the management that the workman has been engaged as project casual labour and as per existing Railway Rules 360 days' continuous service is required for grant of temporary status therefore, the claim of the workmen for grant of temporary status after 120 days is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman's union be rejected being devoid of any merit.

5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the statement claim has submitted that the workman under dispute has not been appointed in any project, therefore, decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra) is not applicable on him and he should be granted temporary status after completion of 120 days of service.

6. The workman's union has not filed any documentary evidence in support of its claim, rather it has stated that the Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman and his Service Book, is with the employers, in original.

The management has filed photocopy of Casual Labour Card and Service Book in respect of the workmen along with its written statement.

7. The women's union has examined workman; whereas the management examined Sri Sita Ram Sonkar, APO in support of their claim. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the each other's witnesses apart from putting oral arguments as well as written arguments.

10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the management has contended that the workman has been project casual labour in construction unit and worked with intermittent gap and he was granted temporary status as per Railway Board's letter dated 01.03.85. It has been submitted that the Railway Board vide its letter dated 11.09.86 modified the date of temporary status to the workmen in view of decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra). The management has contended that the workman was not entitled for grant of temporary status after completion of 120 days continuous service since he was engaged as project casual labour and as per existing Railway Rules, 360 days' continuous services is required for grant of temporary status to a project casual labour. The authorized representative of the management has also contended that the workman has turned up after lapse of more than 20 years and his cause is not tenable in the eye of law being time barred. The management has relied on Indre Pal Yadav & Others vs. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648.

11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in light thereto.

12. The workman's union has come up with a case that the workman has been engaged as casual labour in the Construction Unit of the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway, Lucknow and he was entitled for grant of temporary status on completion of 120 days of service under P.S.N. 7850, Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but the management granted him temporary status after five years' of their appointment, amounting to unfair labour practice. The workman's union has not filed any documentary evidence in support of their case; rather it has pleaded that the same is in power and possession of the Railways.

13. The management of the Nothern Railways, rebutting the claim of the workman's union has come up with a clear cut case that the workman had been engaged as Project Casual Labour and accordingly, he was entitled for grant of temporary status on completion of 360 days continuous service; and accordingly, he was granted temporary status. Later on with the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra), the date of grant of temporary status was modified vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.09.86 whereby the workmen was given temporary status from previous date. The management has also stressed upon the facutm of delay in raising the present industrial dispute after lapse of more than 20 years. The authorized representative of the management has pointed out that the workman is working with the railways for decades; but neither he preferred any representation, on the issue; nor moved to the court for redressal of his grievances. It is also stressed by the managment that the workman has raised the present industrial dispute at a highly belated stage without any explanation to the delay. It has also been argued that though there is no limitation in the I.D. Act, 1947; but the same should not be condoned for the want of any explanation from the workman's union. He has also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of its verdicts has observed that Courts should exercise their discretion, judiciously, while condoning the delay.

14. The workman's union has adduced evidence of the workman who stated in his cross-examination that he had been recruited as casual labour construction in railway in 1979 and had been granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.03.85 which was revised as per directions of Supreme Court as 01.01.83.

15. The workman has not filed any documentary proof in support of their claim but has relied on the photocopy of the service record and casual labour card of the workman, filed by the management. The service record of the workman shows the entry regarding of temporary status of the workman of different dates and there after grant of revised temporary status from different dates as per Railway Board's circular dated 11.09.86 The Phtocopy of the casual labour card, field by the management has details regarding working of the workman with Permanent Way Inspector (Contrusction) at different-different stations.

Thus, both the parties have relied on the same set of

documents in support of their different stands.

16. After going through the rival pleadings of the parties and documentary and oral evidence relief upon by the parties the bone of contention is as to whether the workman was Project casual labour or just casual labour engaged in the railway administration. Had he been Project Casual Labour then the action of the management was right and if he was casual labour on the rolls of railways then he ought to have been granted temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous service.

The burden that lied upon the workman's union was to come with the evidence that the workman was engaged as casual labour and he completed 120 days continuous service on this particular date, making him entitled for grant of temporary status. Thus it was for the workman's union to lead its evidence on two points firstly that the workman was engaged as Casual Labour and secondly that he completed 120 days of continuous working on such and such date. But the workman's union failed to comply with the above requirement. As it relied on the documentary evidence i.e. casual labour card which in power and possession of the management for working detail; but when the management filed the photocopy of the same then it neither calculated the 120 days' continuous working from it nor disputed its genuineness. This goes to uohold the stand taken by the management that the workman was Project Casual Labour and accordingly he was granted temporary status on completion of 360 days' of continuous working vide Railway Board's letter dated 11.06.84 and thereafter granted them revised temporary status from a back dated vide letter dated 11.09.86 as per guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court.

17. The workman has relied on Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another which pertains to termination of services of a workman in violation of provisions of Section 25F, G & H of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are entirely different; hence not applicable in the present case. The workman has also relied on Union of India & others vs. Basant Lal & others 1992 SCC (L&S) 611; wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a workman having completed 120 days of working becomes entitled for regularization as temporary worker and the Railway cannot deny them the temporary status on the ground that they had been appointed as causal labour on a project work and2426 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] not on construction work on open line and as such they would acquire the temporary status only after completing 360 days of service. But in the present case the workman's union failed to specify the date when the different workmen completed 120 days' of continuous service, rendering them for grant of temporary status. The workman's union has also relied on L. Robert D'Souza vs. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124 but the fact of the case law is entirely different from the present case hence not applicable. Likewise the facts of the case law relied upon by the workman in the Union of India & another vs. Girja Shankar & others 2003 (96) FLR 1094, Kuldeep Singh vs. GM Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011 (128) FlR 123 and Din Mhammaed (Dead) by LRs. vs. Union of India & others 2002 (992) FLR 1216 are quite different from the facts of the present case hence not appreciable.

18. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an action, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the action; and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden was on the workman's union to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the action of the management in not granting the temporary status to the workman after completion of 120 days' of continuous working. For this the burden of proof was on the workman's union to come with the evidence, that the workman under dispute has been engaged by the management of Railways as casual labour and under Rules they were entitled for grant of temporary status from completion of 120 days services with the employers; but the workman's union has failed to discharge the burned that lied upon them. The workman's union made a pleading, to explain the reason why it is not in position to file any documentary evidence before this Tribunal, in their statement of claim to the effect that the relevant document in support of their claim i.e. Casual Labour Card is attached in their Service Book. The workman' union in its rejoinder required the management to produce Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman before this Tribunal resultantly, the mangement filed photocopy of Casual Labour Card and Services Book in respect of the workman. The workman's union did not dispute the service details filed by the management i.e. Casual Labour Card and extracts of Service Book. Therefore, when the management has field the photocopy of Casual Labour Card as desired by the workman's union then it was incumbent upon the workman's union to come forward and sort out the relevant extract of the Casual Labour Card, which bears working details i.e. working period and number of days to show that the workman completed 120 days of continuous on such and such date he was entitled for grant of temporary status from such date. But the workman has utterly failed to bring any evidence to the effect before this Tribunal that the workman was engaged as Casual Labour and that the workman was casual labour and it also failed to specify the date as to when the workman completed 120 days' of continuous working, making him eligible for grant of temporary status.

19. On the contrary the management has come with a clear cut case that the workman was engaged as Project Casual Labour with Construction Unit. It is also contended by the learned authorized representative of opposite party that there are so many projects which go on with the Construction Unit and the workmen were kept engaged in different Projects. It is also specifically pleaded and proved by the management that the workman was granted temporary status vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84; but due to Supreme Court's direction in Indra Pal Yadav Case (supra), the Railway Board vide its letter dated 11.09.86, changed the date of grant of temporary status, as per modified policy and accordingly, reduced the date of Temporary Status through notice. The management has filed photocopy of Service Record in respect of workman, which bears entries regarding grant of temporary status to the workman.

20. The management has made a specific pleading to the effect that the claim of the workman's union is stale one and time barred as the union has preferred the case before this Tribunal after lapse of more than 20 years. The workman's union in rebuttal has submitted that there is no provision regarding limitation in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; hence their claim is maintainable.

In this regard the workman's union has relied on N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347; wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter delay has observed that length of delay does not matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. But the workman's union has not given any explanation in its pleadings as to what prevented them to raise an industrial dispute at an early state. However, in the evidence it has been stated that the workman/union wrote many letters to the opposite parties and the same are pending with them; although no copy of such letter/representation finds its reference either on record or annexed with the affidavit. Moreover, the management witness vide para 9 of his affidavit had denied of submissions of any such application by the workmen.

In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & others vs. T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772, Hoble Apex Court has observed as under:

"The court should bear in mind that it is exercising and extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2427 be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay come in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of litigant—a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, 'procrastination is the greatest thief of time' and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the Court, yet the writ Court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification."

के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 20/2010) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/5/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-41011/108/2009-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी,अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1111.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 20/2010) of the Cent. Govt. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/5/2015.

[No. L-41011/108/2009-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye Hospital vs. State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the State Government in denying the making reference of case after 22 years held that it is not expedient for State government to refer against order of termination dated 26.6.1982 being old and stale case, where the workman filed an application raising industrial dispute after 22 years in 2004. Hon'ble High Court observed that there is nothing to indicate as to why the workman could not approach the authority under the ID Act.

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 20/2010

Ref. No. L-41011/108/2009-IR (B-I) dated: 03.11.2010

BETWEEN

Thus from the face of record it is crystal clear the workman did not bother to approach the management or any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more than 20 years; and the explanation forwarded by the workman's union before this Tribunal is insufficient.

21. Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case and law cited herein above; I am of considered opinion that the action of the management of Northern Railway, Lucknow in not giving temporary status to the workman, Sri Prem, from the alleged date of completion of 120 days of service is neither illegal nor unjustified. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman's union is not entitled to any relief.

22. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

23. Award as above.

LUCKNOW 8th May, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Mandal Sangatan Mantri Uttar Railways Employee Union 283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora (Premvati Nagar) PO Manak Nagar Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri Kedar Singh)

AND

1. Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) Uttar Railway, Charbagh

Lucknow.

2. Deputy Chief Manager (Stores) Northern Railway, Stores Depot Alambagh, Lucknow.

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1111.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे प्रबंध्तंत्र 1. By order No. L-41011/108/2009-IR (B-I) dated: 03.11.2010 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercicse of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of2428 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Mandal Sangatan Mantri, Uttar Railways Employee Union, 283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora (Premvati Nagar), P.O. Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Uttar Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow & Deputy Chief Manager (Stores), Northern Railway, Stores Depot, Alambagh, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of management of Northern Railway, Lucknow in not giving Shri Kedar Singh, T. No. 187 status of temporary worker from the date of completion of 120 days of service is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the workman, Kedar Singh, has been engaged as casual labour with in construction unit under opposite party No. 1 and is presently working under opposite party No. 2. It has been alleged by the workman's union that the workman under dispute was to be given temporary status after completion of 120 days of working as per P.S. N. 7850, Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but he was granted temporary status after five years' of his engagement, which is not only unfair labour practice but also is against Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed that the workmen concerned be granted temporary status from the date he has completed 120 days' working with consequential benefits.

4. The management of the North Central Railways has filed its written statement denying the allegations of the workman's Union with submission that the workman under dispute was initially engaged by them as Project Casual Labour in Construction Unit with intermittent gap w.e.f. 10.05.79 and has been granted temporary status on 01.01.85 vide letter No. 2-E SEN/C/S.O.G./Screening S.O.G. A.OP.H. dt. 01.03.85. It has been submitted that the railway formulated a scheme to provide the temporary status to Project Casual Labour, circulated vide No. E(NG)II/84/CL/ 41 dated 1.6.84 as per directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav & others vs. Union of India & others (1985) 2 SCC 648. The management has submitted that as per modified date of grant of temporary status, the workman was screened and posted accordingly; and he is in fruitful employment of the opposite party for last more than 20 years, thus, raising the present industrial disputes after lapse of 20 long years makes it time barred hence, not maintainable in the eye of law. It is specifically submitted by the management that the workman has been engaged as project casual labour and as per existing Railway Rules 360 days' continuous service is required for grant of temporary status, therefore, the claim of the workmen for grant of temporary status after 120 days is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman's union be rejected being devoid of any merit.

5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the statement claim has submitted that the workman under dispute has not been appointed in any project, therefore, decision of Hon'bleApex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra) is not applicable on him and he should be granted temporary status after completion of 120 days of service.

6. The workman's union has not filed any documentary evidence in support of its claim; rather it has stated that the Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman and his Service Book, is with the employers, in original.

The management has filed photocopy of Casual Labour Card and Service Book in respect of the workman along with its written statement.

7. The workman's union has examined workman; whereas the management examined Sri Sita Ram Sonkar, APO in support of their claim. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the each other's witnesses apart from putting oral arguments as well as written arguments.

8. Heard learned authorized representatives of the

parties at length and perused entire evidence on record.

9. The authorized representative of the workman has contended that the workman was not project casual labour; rather they were casual labour engaged in construction division/unit. Therefore, he was eligible for grant of temporary status from the date he completed 120 days of service. The railway administration instead treated him as project casual labour and granted him temporary status after lapse of five years which is unfair labour practice. It is also contended that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra) is not applicable on the workman. The workman's union has relied on:

(i) Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another 2008(116) FLR 1046.

(ii) Union of India & others vs. Basant Lal & others

1992 SCC (L&S) 611.

(iii) L. Robert D'Souza vs. Executive Engineer, Southern

Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124.

(iv) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy ACJ 1998

1347 SC.

(v) Kuldeep Singh vs. GM, Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011 (128) FLR 121.

(vi) Din Mohammed (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India

& others 2002 (92) FLR 1216.

(vii) The Union of India & another vs. Girja Shankar &

others 2003 (96) FLR 1094.

In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the management has contended that the workman has been project casual labour in construction unit and worked with intermittent gap and he was granted temporary status as per Railway Board's letter dated 01.03.85. It has been submitted that the Railway Board vide its letter dated 11.09.86 modified the date of temporary status to the workmen in view of decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra). The management has contended that the workman was not entitled for grant of temporary status after completion of 120 days continuous service since he was engaged as project casual labour and as per existing Railway Rules, 360 days' continuous services is required for grant of temporary status to a project casual labour. The authorized representative of the management has also contended that the workman has turned up after lapse of more than 20 years and his cause is not tenable in the eye of law being time barred. The management has relied on Inder Pal Yadav & others vs. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648.

11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in light thereto.

12. The workman's union has come up with a case that the workman has been engaged as casual labour in the Construction Unit of the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway, Lucknow and he was entitled for grant of temporary status on completion of 120 days of service under P.S. N. 7850, Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but the management granted him temporary status after five years' of their appointment, amounting to unfair labour practice. The workman's union has not filed any documentary evidence in support of their case; rather it has pleaded that the same is in power and possession of the Railways.

13. The management of the Northern Railways, rebutting the claim of the workman's union has come up with a clear cut case that the workman had been engaged as Project Casual Labour and accordingly, he was entitled for grant of temporary status on completion of 360 days continuous service; and accordingly, he was granted temporary status. Later on with the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra), the date of grant of temporary status was modified vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.09.86 whereby the workmen was given temporary status from previous date. The management has also stressed upon the fact of delay in raising the present industrial dispute after lapse of more than 20 years. The authorized representative of the management has pointed out that the workman is working with the railways for decades; but neither he preferred any representation, on the issue; nor moved to the court for redressal of his grievances. It is also stressed by the management that the workman has raised the present industrial dispute at a highly belated stage without any explanation to the delay. It has also been argued that though there is no limitation in the I.D. Act, 1947; but the same should not be condoned for the want of any explanation from the workman's union. He has also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of its verdicts has observed that Courts should exercise their discretion, judiciously, while condoning the delay.

14. The workman's union has adduced evidence of the workman who stated in his cross-examination that he had been recruited as casual labour construction in railway in 1979 and had been granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.03.85 which was revised as per directions of Supreme Court as 01.01.83. The workman admitted the photocopy of service record and casual labour card, filed by the management, from paper No. M-9/3 to 9/7.

15. The workman has not filed any documentary proof in support of their claim but has relied on the photocopy of the service record and casual labour card of the workman, filed by the management. The service record of the workman shows the entry regarding grant of temporary status to the workman of different dates and there after grant of revised temporary status from different dates as per Railway Board's circular dated 11.9.86. The photocopy of the casual labour card, filed by the management has details regarding working of the workman with Permanent Way Inspector (Construction) at different-different stations.

Thus, both the parties have relied on the same set of

documents in support of their different stands.

16. After going through the rival pleading of the parties and documentary and oral evidence upon by the parties the bone of contention is as to whether the workman was Project casual labour or just casual labour engaged in the railway administration. Had he been Project Casual Labour then the action of the management was right and if he was casual labour on the rolls of railways then he ought to have been granted temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous service.

The burden that lied upon the workman's union was to come with the evidence that the workman was engaged as casual labour and he completed 120 days continuous service on this particular date, making him entitled for grant of temporary status. Thus, it was for the workmna's union to lead its evidence on two points firstly that the workman was engaged as Casual Labour and secondly that he completed 120 days' of continuous working on such and such date. But the workman failed to comply with the above requirement. As it relied on the documentary evidence i.e. casual labour card which was in power and possession of2430 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the management for working detail; but when the management filed the photocopy of the same then it neither calculated the 120 days' continuous working from it nor disputed its genuineness. This goes to upheld the stand taken by the management that the workman was Project Casual Labour and accordingly he was granted temporary status on completion of 360 days' of continuous working vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.03.85 and thereafter granted them revised temporary status from a back date vide letter dated 11.09.86 as per guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court.

17. The workman has relied on Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another which pertains to termination of services of a workman in violation of provisions of Section 25F, G & H of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are entirely different; hence not applicable in the present case. The workman has also relied on Union of India & others vs. Basant Lal & others 1992 SCC (L&S) 611; wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a workman having completed 120 days of working becomes entitled for regularization as temporary worker and the Railway cannot deny them the temporary status on the ground that they had been appointed as causal labour on a project work and not on construction work on open line and as such they would acquire the temporary status only after completing 360 days of service. But in the present case the workman's union failed to specify the date when the different workmen completed 120 days' of continuous service, rendering them for grant of temporary status. The workman's union has also relied on L. Rober D'Souza vs. Executive Engineeer, Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124 but the fact of the case law in entirely different from the present case hence not applicable. Likewise the facts of the case law relied upon by the workman in the Union of India & another vs. Girja Shankar & other 2003 (96) FLR 1094, Kuldeep Singh vs GM Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre & anotehr 2011 (128) FLR 123 and Din Mhammaed (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India & others 2002 992) FLR 1216 are quite different from the facts of the present case hence not appreciable.

18. It is well settled that is a party challenges the legality of an action, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the action; and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden was on the workman's union to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the action of the management in not granting the temporary status to the workman after completion of 120 days' of continuous working. For this the burden of proof was on the workman's union to come with the evidence, that the workman under dispute has been engaged by the management of Railways as casual labour and under Rules they were entitled for grant of temporary status from completion of 120 days services with the employers; but the workman's union has failed to discharge the burned that lied upon them. The workman's unon made a pleading, to explain the reason why it is not in position to file any documentary evidence before this Tribunal, in their statement of claim to the effect that the relevant document in support of their claim i.e. Casual Labour Card is attached in their Service Book. The workman's union in its rejoinder required the management to produce Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman before this Tribunal, resultantly, the management filed photocopy of Casual Labour Card and Services Book in respect of the workman. The workman' union did not dispute the service details filed by the management i.e. Casual Labour Card and extracts of Service Book. Therefor, when the management has field the photocopy of Casual Labour Card as desired by the workman's union then it was incumbent upon workman's union to come forward and sort out the relevant extract of the Casual Labour Card, which bears working details i.e. working period and number of days, to show that the workman completed 120 days of continuous on such and such date and he was entitled for grant of temporary status from such date. But the workman has utterly failed to bring any evidene to the effect before this Tribunal that the workman was engaged as Casual Labour and that the workman was casual labour and it also failed to specify the date as to when the workman completed 120 days' of continuous working, making him eligible for grant of temporary status.

19. On the contrary the management has come with a clear cut case that the workman was engaged as Project Casual Labour with Construction Unit. It is also contended by the learned authorized representative of opposite party that there are so many projects which go on with the Construction Unit and the workmen were kept engaged in different Projects. It is also specifically pleaded and proved by the management that the workman was granted temporary status vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.03.85; but due to Supreme Court's direction in Inder Pal Yadav Case (supra), the Railway Board vide its letter dated 11.09.86, changed the date of grant of temporary Status through notice. The management filed photocpy of Service Record in respect of workman, which bears entries regarding grant of temporary status to the workman.

20. The management has made a specific pleading to the effect that the claim of the workman's union is stale one and time barred as the union has preferred the case before this Tribunal after lapse of more than 20 years. The workman's union in rebuttal has submitted that there is no provision regarding limitation in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; hence their claim is maintainable.

In this regard the workman's union has relied on N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347; wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter delay has observed that length of delay does not matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. But the workman's union has not given any explanation in its[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2431 pleadings as to what prevented them to raise an industrial dispute at an early state. However, in the evidence it has been stated that the workman/union wrote many letters to the opposite parties and the same are pending with them; although no copy of such letter/representation finds its reference either on record or annexed with the affidavit. Moreover, the management witness vide para 9 of his affidavit has denied of submissions of any such application by the workmen.

In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewer- age Board & others vs T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772, Honble Apex Court has observed as under:

that the action of the management of Northern Railway, Lucknow in not giving temporary status to the workman, Sri Kedar Singh, from the alleged date of completion of 120 days of service is neither illegal nor unjustified. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman's union is not entitled to any relief.

22. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

23. Award as above.

Lucknow. 08th May, 2015.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1112.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर पूर्व रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 6/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-41011/97/2013-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1112.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Eastern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.

"This Court should bear in mind that it is exercising

an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a Con-

stitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights of the

citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the

primary principle that when an aggrieved person, with-

out adequate reason, approaches the Court at his own

leisure or pleasure the Court would be under legal obli-

gation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage

should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in

the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and

laches may be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate

delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who

knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity

and inaction on the part of litigant-a litigant who has

forgotten the basic norms namely, "procrastination is

the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not per-

mit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring

a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand,

though there has been four years' delay in approaching

the Court, yet the writ Court chose not to address the

same. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize whether

such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justifi-

cation."

[No. L-41011/97/2013-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 06/2014

Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye Hospital vs State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the State Government in denying the making reference of case after 22 years held that it is not expedient for State Govern- ment to refer against order of termination dated 26.6.1982 being old and stale case, where the workman filed an application raising industrial dispute after 22 years in 2004. Hon'ble HIgh Court observed that there is nothing to indicate as to why the workman could not approach the authority under the I.D. Act.

Ref. No L-41011/97/2013-IR(B-I) dated 13.01.2014

BETWEEN

Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear the workman did not bother to approach the management or any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more than 20 years; and the explanation forwarded by the workman's union before this Tribunal is insufficient.

21. Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case and law cited hereinabove; I am of considered opinion The President Rail Sewak Sangh Through Sri D.P. Awasthi 49, Tilak Nagar, Lucknow2432 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AND

Sr. Divisional Personnal Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow (U.P.)

8. Award as above

LUCKNOW 08.05.2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/97/2013-IR(B-I) dated

13.01.2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

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

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

industrial dispute between the President, Rail Sewak Sangh,

through Sri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar, Lucknow and the

Sr. Divisional Personnal Officer, North Eastern Railway,

DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow for adjudication,

2. The reference under adjudication is:

''Kya Purvottar Railway Prashashan, Lucknow dwara

shramik Sri Preetpal Singh, Dealing Assistant

(Establishment) Gonda ko dandadesh dated

12.07.2011 diya jana nyayochit evam vaidh hai? Yadi

nahi to kamgar kis rahat ko pane ka haqdar hai?"

3. The order of reference was endorsed to the

President, Rail Sewak Sangh, through Sri D.P. Awasthi,

Lucknow with the direction to the party raising the dispute

to file the statement of claim along with relevant documents,

list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen

days of the receipt of the order of reference and also forward

a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1113.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पूर्व रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 95/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-41011/11/2002-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1113.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Eastern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.

[No. L-41011/11/2002-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

parties involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

4. The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal

on 03.03.2014 and notice was issued for filing statement of

claim by the workman.

In the matter of a reference u/s 10(1) (d) (2a) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Ref. No. 95/2002

5. The workman did not file statement of claim. Several

dates i.e. 28.03.2014, 12.05.2014, 12.06.2014, 30.07.2014,

05.09.2014, 10.11.2014, 04.12.2014, 19.01.2015, and

26.02.2015, were fixed for filing statement of claim but parties

did not turn up.

Employers in relation to the management of Eastern Railway, Danapur, Patna

AND

Their workmen.

Present :

6. It appears that the workman does not want to further

proceed with the case. His grievance, has perhaps been Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

APPEARANCES:

settled.

7. Under the circumstances and the facts mentioned

herein, no relief is legally required to be given to the

applicant/workman Sh. Preetpal Singh. The reference under

adjudication is answered as NO CLAIM AWARD.

For the Employers : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

For the workman : Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate.

State : Bihar Industry : Railway

Dated. 29.4.2015[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2433

AWARD

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Eastern Railway, Danapur in denying absorption of workmen S/Shri Brajesh Kishore Sinha and others (list enclosed) is justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled?"

By Order No.L-410011/11/2002 -IR (B-I), dated. 21.08.2002, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

ANNEXURE

List of workmen

Sl.No. Worker's Name Father's Name Village Post Distt.

CARRIAGE DEPARTMENT

 1. Brajesh Kishore Sinha      Nawal Kishore Sinha            Sarthua..               Daniawan       Patna.
 2. Brajrangi Ray              Bashisht  Roy                  Dopulwa                 Jakanpur       Patna
 3. Awadhesh Prasad            Ramchandra Singh               Jirwakhandha            Chiksaura      Nalanda
 4. Birendra Kumar Singh       Ganauri Prasad Singh           Kismirichak             ...            Nalanda
 5. Arbind Kumar               Bishnu Singh                   Jirwa Khanda            ...            Nalanda
 6. Bipin Chandra Pal          Ram Lakhan Prasad,             Gorail                  Rajgir         Nalanda
 7. Umesh Prasad               Dular Chand Prasad Singh       Jirwa Khanda            ...            Nalanda
 8. Shiv Kumar Prasad          Sitaram Prasad                 Jirwa Khanda            ...            Nalanda
 9. Bhushan Prasad             Sitaram Prasad                 Jirwa Khanda            ...            Nalanda
10. Brij Nandan Prasad         Late Chok Narayan Prasad       Station Road Surya      Fatuha         Patna
11. Raj Kumar Gupta            Sitaram Prasad                 Station Road Surya      Fatuha         Patna
12. Parasnath                  Bhekh Narayan Prasad           Intasan Rahui           ...            Nalanda
13. Ashok Kumar                Ramachandra Ram                Chhoti Devi Asthan      Shaluganj      Nalanda
                                                                                      Bihar Sharif
14. Anil Kumar                 Kauleshwar Ram                 Station Road            Fatuha         Patna
15. Rajiv Kumar                Balmiki Singh                  Chandpura               Ali Nagar      Munger
16. Sunil Kumar                Shiyaram Prasad                Wadi                    ...            Nalanda
17. Santanu Kumar Singh        Niranjan Singh                 At  Top                 ...            Patna
18. Mahesh Prasad              Hardeo Prasad                  Sheikh                  Mohamatpur     Sheikhpura
19. Rajesh Kumar               Indar Prasad                   Sarthua                 ...            Patna
20. Rajesh Kumar               Lakhan Ram                     Station Road            Fatuha         Patna
21. Pappu  Kumar               Gugeshwar Prasad               Chhoti Line             Fatuha         Patna
22. Kundan Singh               Jit Narayan Singh              Sigriyawan              ...            Patna
23. Nandu Singh                Kamla Singh                    Tiwari Gali             Chhoti Patan   Patna
                                                                                      Devi
24. Mahesh Kumar               Sri Kesho Singh                Sakarpura               Bhobhi         Nalanda

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:

25. Vijay Kumar               Shivji Mahto                  Murdalichak            Damodarpur    Nalanda
26. Ayodhya  Prasad           Chhedi Mahto                  Keshochak              Chiksaura     Nalanda
27. Bijindra Prasad           Ramesh Mahto                  Banwara                Chisraura     Nalanda
28. Chhote Lal Prasad         Tunni Prasad                  Paharpur               Chhoti Dewara Jahanabad
29. Amarendra Prasad          Tunni Prasad                  Paharpur               Chhoti Dewara Jahanabad
30. Raghunandan Paswan        Ramswarup Paswan              Ariyawan               Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
31. Nagina Paswan             Nanku Paswan                  Asharalpur             Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
32. Arun Kumar                Rameshwar Pd. Singh           Singriyawan            Singriyanwan  Patna

Sl.No. Worker's Name Father's Name Village Post Distt.

33. Govind Paswan             Chandeshwar Paswan             Kangali Bigaha         Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
34. Ravindra Kumar            Kuldeep Ram                    Daniyanwan             Daniyanwan    Patna
35. Prithwiraj Prasad         Ram Narayan Singh              Jolbigaha              Ven           Nalanda
36. Mahendra Ram              Kesho Ram                      Saidpura               Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
37. Umesh Ram                 Bachu Ram                      Saidpura               Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
38. Hari Ram                  Gobind Ram                     Kosiyama               Ekangar Sarai Salanda
39. Faggu Singh               Prameshwar Singh               Budhu Chak             ...           Patna
40. Deo Nandan Paswan         Swarup Paswan                  Ariyama                Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
41. Nagendra Kumar            Rameshwar Singh                Paharpur               Deora         Jahanabad
42. Rajaram Paswan            Late Saudi Paswan              Kangali Bigaha         Khapura       Nalanda
43. Ramlakhan Prasad          Late Shri Singh                Kismiriya              Mohinuddinpur Patna
44. Praveen Kumar             Shiv Narayan Singh             Maksudpur              Fatuha        Patna
45. Ajay Kumar                Mohan Ram                      Murera                 Bankipur      Patna
46. Sunil Kumar               Rajendra Prasad                Mukundan Bigaha        Jaitpur       Nalanda
47. Yamuna  Mistry            Ram  Ishwar  Mistry            Daniyawan              Daniyawan     Patna
48. Satendra Prasad           Basudeo Prasad                 Khajuriya Bigaha       Chandi        Nalanda
49. Arbind Kumar              Mahabir Prasad                 Chandu Bigaha          Aashadhi      Nalanda
50. Sudhir Kumar              Saryug Prasad                  Paharpur               Deora         Nalanda
51. Rajesh Kumar              Bhagwat Prasad                 Fajillapur             Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
52. Sanjay Kumar              Bandho Mahato                  Kewaidih               Nursarai      Nalanda
53. Birendra Prasad           Ramchandra Prasad              Jagdishpur             Nirpur        Nalanda
54. Satendra Prasad           Ramchandra Prasad              Paharpur               Deora         Jahanabad
55. Sahilendra Prasad         Sukhdeo Prasad                 Paharpur               Deora         Jahanabad
56. Rajeshwar Prasad          Raghunandan Pd.                Basdih                 Basdih        Nalanda
57. Devendra Prasad           Ramchandra Prasad              Paharpur               Deora         Jahanabad
58. Gorakh Prasad             Ramu Prasad                    Paharpur               Deora         Jahanabad
59. Umesh Prasad              Basudeo Mahato                 Maghada                Deo Nagar     Nalanda
60. Rajendra Prasad           Bhagwat Prasad                 Fajillapur             Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
61. Mahendra Prasad           Rajendra Prasad                Fajillapur             Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
62. Sunil Prasad              Lakhand Singh                  Kanjas                 Ekangar Saray Nalanda
63. Kapil Prasad              Sharan Prasad                  Badi Sangat            Nohata Fatuha Patna
64. Pramod Kumar              Ramdahin Singh                 Bishunpur              Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
65. Sharad Kumar              Ramdahin Singh                 Bishunpur              Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
66. Devendra Kumar            Indradeo Prasad                Faridpur               Badhauna      Patna
67. Hari Prasd                Ramchandra Mahto               Daniyanwan             —             Patna
68. Ranjit Kumar              Jagdish Prasad                 Kishmiriya             Fatuha        Patna
69. Bhushan Prasad            Ram Lakhan Prasad              Dulchandpur            Rahui         Nalanda
70. Rakesh Kumar              Birjnandan Prasad              Dulchandpur            Rahui         Nalanda
71. Sanjeev Kumar             Balmiki Prasad                 Mohadipur              Bind          Nalanda
72. Kamlesh Kumar             Golul Prasad                   Datu Bigaha            Ekangar Sarai Nalanda
73. Indradeo Mahato           Sitaram Mahato                 Faridpur,              Bardhauna     Patna
74. Ram Bachan Paswan         Krishna Paswan                 Daniyanwan             —             Patna
75. Ramchandra Mahato         Late Jagarnath Mahto           Kishmiriya             Fatuha        Patna
76. Amar Kumar Pandey         Baijnath Pandey                Bankipur               Gorakh        Patna
77. Rakesh Kumar              Sat Bhushan Singh              Fatuha                 Fatuha        Patna
78. Pradeep Kumar             Jago Prasad                    Nai Saray              Bihar Sarif   Nalanda
79. Ramjani Singh             Ramduli Singh                  Ghuranpura             Fatuha        Patna

Sl.No. Worker's Name Father's Name Village Post Distt.

 80. Dilip Kumar                Ram Lakhan Singh              Top                     Fatuha        Patna
 81. Awadhesh Kr. Verma         Ramchandra Saw,               Kachahariya             Kanchariya    Nalanda
 82. Umesh Prasad Singh         Late Jag Lal Singh            Sarthua top             Top           Patna
 83. Prasidh Kumar Sinha        Laxmi Narayan Singh           Chhittar Bigha          —             Nalanda
 84. Laxmichand Prasad          Mudal singh                   Akaid Chandi            —             Nalanda
 85. Umesh Prasad               Saryug Prasad                 Badi Sangat             Fatuha        Patna
 86. Shailendra Prasad          Ramchandra Prasad             Paharpur                Ghosi         Nalanda
 87. Shiv Kumar Prasad          Sitaram Prasad                Jirwa Khandha           —             Nalanda
 88. Madhusudan Prasad          Rameswar Ram                  Kudwapar                Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
 89. Shyam Babu                 Ram Swarup                    Chhoti  Hasanpur        Khushrupur    Patna
     Chaudhari                  Chaudhari
 90. Binod Kumar                Raghubir Ram                  Devichak                Fatuha        Patna
 91. Ajay Kumar                 Jageshwar Ram                 Station Road            Fatuha        Patna
 92. Dhirendra Prasad           Ram Swarup Singh              Gori Pundah             Fatuha        Patna
 93. Kishore Kumar              Goind Prasad                  New Babu Bazar          Aarah         Bhojpur
 94. Bijindra Prasad            Shiv Charan Prasad            Aligunj                 —             Jahanabad
 95. Raj Mohan Sinha            Narbdeshwar Prasad            Raipura                 Fatuha        Patna
 96. Brije Paswan               Bhagwar Paswan                Balwapar                Yogipur Hilsa Patna
 97. Sanjay Kumar               Krishan Prasad                Chaurasi                Nagan Nausa   Nalanda
 98. Ramjee Prasad              Bechan Prasad                 Satrajjabad             Karaiy ParasurayNalanda
 99. Raj Kishora Paswan         Sitaram Paswan                Kangali Bigaha          Khapurqa      Nalanda
100. Arbind Prasad              Chhotu Saw                    Kalyanpur               Fatuha        Patna
101. Bimal Kriti Bhatt          Dhirendra Mohan Bhatt         Laxman Sahay Lane       —             —
102. Anuj Kumar                 Indra Prasad Singh            Sarthua                 Top           Patna
103. Lalitesh Prasad            Ramdeo Pd. Singh              Chitamanchak            Gowasa        Patna
104. Ramkrishna Chand           Sitaram Pd. Sinha             Musahari  Kistipur      Chandi        Nalanda
     Prasad Sinha
105. Shailendra Kumar           Chandeshwar                   Singariyanwan           Singariyanwan Patna
     Sinha                      Prasad Singh
106. Rajiv Kumar                Balmiki Singh                 Chandanpur              Ali Nagar     Munger
107. Kaushlendra Ranjan         Nawal Kishore Sinha           Bhusanda                Bniyadganj    Gaya
108. Bimal Singh                Bhatu Singh                   Sndaut                  Hilsa         Nalanda
109. Abhay Kumr                 Balram singh                  Pachrukhiya             Baikatpur     Patna
110. Siddhnath Prasad           Budhan Ram                    Bintoli                 Arrah         Bhojpur
111. Satendra Prasad            Sadhu Sharan                  Raypura                 Fatuha        Patna
     Singh                      Prasad Singh
112. Mithlesh  Prasad           Sri Shukhdeo Prasad           Gulani                  Bhokilapur    Nalanda
113. Basant Singh               Kriti Narayan Singh           Gajendra Bigha          Bhokilapar Hilsa Nalanda
114. Upendra Kumar              Ram Lakhan Prasad             Gajendra Bigha          Bhokilapar Hilsa Nalanda
115. Rabindra Kumar             Raghubansh Pd. Singh          Soradih Harnaut         Soradih Harnaut Nalanda
116. Upendra Prasad             Siya Saran Prasad             Jahanpur                Pabheda       Patna
                                                                                      Dhanuruwa
117. Ram Prawesh Prasad         Gobind Prasad                 Maksudpur               Shahanjahpur  Patna
                                                                                      Fatuha
118. Anil Kumar                 Bangali Lal Verma             Daniyawan               Daniyawan     Patna
119. Mani Lal Prasad            Shyam Narayan Prasad Singh    Pendapur                Kawa Hilsa    Nalanda
120. Ajay Kumar                 Hari Prasad                   Daniyawan               Daniyawan     Patna
121. Anil Kumar Sinha           Hanumant Lal Sahay            Mohan Nagar             Chhapra       Saran
122. Jai Prakash Srivastava     Raj Narayan Prasad            Kolhuwa                 Kolhuwa       Siwan
123. Anil Kumar                 Durga Prasad                  Shanti Ashram           Chiraiya Tand Patna

Sl.No. Worker's Name Father's Name Village Post Distt.

TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT

124. Ashok Kumar               Dwarika Pd. Singh              Lachchhu Bigaha        Mahanandpur   Nalanda
125. Jitendra Prasad           Ramprit Singh                  Lasgari Chak           Parsa Fatuha  Patna
126. Anil Kumar                Prasadi Singh                  Vidyapuri              Hilsa         Nalanda
127. Satendra Kumar            Sri Chand Prasad               Station Road           Hilsa         Nalanda
128. Ram Prawesh Ram           Basant Paswan                  Bishunpur              Nagar Nausa   Nalanda
129. Ram Anil Kumar            Chandeshwar Pd. Singh          Jirwakhanda            Chiksaura     Nalanda
130. Anil Kumar                Siddheshwar Prasad             Bhareti                Yogipur Hilsa Nalanda
131. Ram Jatan Ram             Basudeo Ram                                           Hilsa         Nalanda
132. Bachchu Kumar             Lakhan Prasad                  Dularchandpur          Rahui         Nalanda
133. Birmani Prasad            Siddheswar Prasad              Gudaru                 Islampur      Nalanda
134. Mahendra Prasad           Gurushran Singh                Nohta  Kothi           Fatuha        Patna
135. Awadhesh Kumar            Ramchandra Singh               Budhuchak              Fatuha        Patna
136. Ratnesh Kumar Sinha       Late Jaglal Singh              Station Road           Fatuha        Patna
137. Rakesh Kumar              Jaykrishna Prasad              Lila House             Gorhatta      Patna
                                                              Mitanghat
138. Stendra Prasad            Ramkeshwar Prasad              Shakarpura             Bhobhi Nagar  Nalanda
                                                                                     Nausa
139. Rajnish Kumar             Harihar Prasad                 Barabigaha             Bhobhi        Nalanda
140. Arun Kumar                Sukhlali Mahato                Daniyawan              Daniyawan     Patna
141. Jitendra Prasad           Jayram Prasad                  Mukundan Bigaha        Jaitpur       Patna
                                                                                     Bhathhar
142. Chaudhari Anil Kumar      Chaudhari Ram Awatar Prasad    Amraura                Tharthari     Nalanda
143. Nikhil Kumar Mishra       Anand Kumar Mishra             Jatanwar               Varanasi      U.P.
144. Kamlesh Kumar Singh       Dharamraj Singh                Shahjahanpur           Shahjahanpur  Patna
145. Rajani Kant Rakesh        Shiv Narayan Singh             Maksudpur              Shahjahanpur  Patna
146. Mannu Kumar               Balimiki Singh                 Kaji Bigaha            Singriyawan   Patna
147. Tuntun Kumar              Shivbalak Singh                Jiwanchak              —             Patna
148. Anil Kumar Sukla          Devi Prasad Shukla             Jalilpur               Varanasi      U.P.
149. Dharambir Prasad          Jagdish Prasad                 Amaita                 Harnaut       Nalanda
150. Anita Devi                Dharmendra Kumar               Mora Talab             Rahui         Nalanda
151. Sanjay Kumar              Indradeo Mahato                Bada                   Noorasary      Nalanda
152. Sujanti Devi              Jatat Narayan Prasad           Seuda                  Harnaut       Nalanda
153. Kukum Sinha               Birendra Kumar                 Maujipur               Fatuha        Patna
154. Pramod Kumar              Raghubir Ram                   Devichak               Fatuha        Patna
155. Sudhir Kumar              Surju Lal                      Station Road           Fatuha        Patna
156. Amar Kumar                Moti lal                       Station Roada          Fatuha        Patna
157. Ranjeet Kumar             Ram Lakhan Ram                 Rasalpur Karay         Parasurai     Nalanda
158. Satendra Kumar            Bhairo Ram                     Prurani Chowk          Nohta Fatuha  Patna
159. Chandan Kumar Singh       Jit Narayan Singh              Singariyawan           Fatuha        Patna
160. Arjun Kumar               Nanhaku Mahato                 Korawa                 Hilsa         Nalanda
161. Uday Kumar                Nandan Ram                     Nawdiha                Dhuganw       Nalanda
162. Vinay Kumar               Basudeo Prasad                 Har Mandir Gali        Patna  City   Patna
163. Hari Nandan Ram           —                              —                      —             —
164. Surendra Prasad           —                              —                      —             —
165. Anil Kumar                Saryug Prasad                  Diwan Mohalla          Patna         Patna
166. Aanand Suman              Sumeshwar Prasad Suman         Mitanghat              Gurhatta      Patna
167. Stendra paswan            Late Ramdeo Paswan             Daniyawan              Patna         Patna

Two witnesses examined on behalf of the workman. No witness produced by the management.

3. The workmen filed Written notes of argument in which they submitted list of 37 workman. He also files 37 affidavits of workmen alongwith document barring rest.

The thirty-seven workmen's list is given below:—

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 11.09.2002 alongwith FOC Report. After notice both parties appeared, the workman files their written statement on 13.01.2003. But, the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 04.08.2003. Thereafter rejoinder and document filed by the parties. Documents of workmen marked as Ext. W-1 to W-28 as well as documents of management marked as Ext. M-1 to M-3.

List of Carriage Department Employee

Sl.No. Name Father's\Husband's Name Village Post Police S. Distt.

1. Bhusan Prasad           Sitaram Prasad              Girwa Khanda           Hilsa                    Nalanda
2. Brijnandan Prasad       Lt. Chokh Narayan Pd.       Station Road Suryamil  Fatuha        Fatuha     Patna
3. Ashok Kumar             Ram Chandra Ram             Chhotidevi Asthan      Shalugung     Bihar Sharif Nalanda
4. Shyam Kishore Prasad    Babulal Prasad              Purani Chowk Nohta     Fatuha        Fatuha     Patna
5. Kundan Singh            Jit Narayan Singh           Sigriyawan             Sigriyawan               Patna
6. Nandu singh             Kamla Singh                 Tiwari Gali            Chhoti Patan             Patna
                                                                              Devi

List of Engineering Department Employees

 7. Vijay Kumar            Shivjee Mahto             Murdalichak           Damodarpur —           Nalanda
 8. Rabindra Kumar         Kuldeep Ram               Daniyawa              Daniyawa     —         Patna
 9. Mahendra Ram           kesho Ram                 Saidpura              Nagarnausa   —         Nalanda
10. Umesh Ram              Bachhu Ram                 Saidpura             Nagarnausa   —         Nalanda
11. Ajay Kumar             Hari Prasad               Daniyawa              Daniyawa     —         Patna
12. Yamuna  Mistry         Ram  Iswar  Mistry        Daniyawa              Daniyawa     —         Patna
13. Arbind Kumar           Mahabir Prasad            Chandu Bigha          Hilsa        —         Nalanda
14. Rajesh Kumar           Bhagwat Prasad            Fajilapur             —            Nagarnausa Nalanda
15. Birendra Prasad        Ram Chandra Prasad        Jagdishpur            Nirpur       —         Nalanda
16. Hari Prasad            Ram Chandra Mahato        Daniyawa              Daniyawa     —         Patna
17. Sanjeev Kumar          Balmiki Prasad            Mahandipur            Bind         Bind      Nalanda
18. Umesh Prasad           Basudeo  Mahto            Maghra                Maghra                 Nalanda
19. Nagina Paswan          Nanhku Paswan             Ashulpur              Nagarnausa             Nalanda
20. Birendra Kr. Singh     Ganauri Pd. Singh         Kismirichak                                  Nalanda
21. Madhusudan Prasad      Rameshwar Ram             Kurwapur              Nagar Nausa
22. RajMohan Sinha         Narmadeshwar Prasad       Raipura               Fatuha       Fatuha    Patna
23. Ajay Kumar             Mohan Ram                 Murera                Bakipur      Machh-    Patna
                                                                                        riyawan
24. Sudhir Kumar           Sarjug Prasad             Paharpur              Dewra                  Jahanabad
25. Sanjay Kumar           Bandho  Mahto             Kewaidih              Nursarai               Nalanda

List of Traffic Department Employees

26. Sudhir Kumar           Sarju Lal                   Station Road           Fatuha       Fatuha     Patna
27. Satendra Kumar         Bhairo Ram                  Purani Chowk           Nahata       Fatuha     Patna
28. Ram Jatan Ram          Basudeo Ram                                                                Nalanda
29. Awadhesh Kumar         Ramchandra Singh            Budhuchak                                      Patna
30. Anil Kumar Shukla      Devi Pd. Shukla             Jalilpur                                       Banarsi (UP)
31. Dharambir Prasad       Jagdish Prasad              Amaita                              Harnaut    Nalanda
32. Anita Devi             Dharmendra Kumar            Mora Talab             Mora Talab   Rahui      Nalanda
33. Sujanti Devi           Jagat Narayan Prasad        Sauda                  Harnaut      Nalanda
34. Amar Kumar             Moti Lal                    Station Road           Fatuha                  Patna
35. Sateyendra Kumar        Shrichand Prasad           Station Road           Hilsa                   Nalanda
36. Chandan Kr. Singh       Jit Narayan Singh          Sigariyawo             Fatuha                  Patna
37. Sateyandra Paswan      Late Ramdeo Paswan          Daniyawa               Daniyawa     —          Patna

4. The short point to be decided in the reference, whether the workman is to be absorbed in the Eastern Railways Patna or not.

5. The workmen claims that they were employees of Fatuha Islampur light Railway after the Nationalization and merger of Fatuha slampur light Railway in the Eastern Railway Patna, they are to be given employment. Fatuha Islampur light Railway sent the list of its employees but with melafied intention did not submit the list of 168 employee of Fatuha Islampur Light Railway to Eastern Railways Patna. Eastern Railways gave others job. But present 168 workmen are left.

6. It is the case of the present workmen, that though they were given employment in Fatuha Islampur Railway, the Erstwhile Islampur Railways did not submit the present workmen's name for absorption, for which the dispute arose.

7. The workmen also filed photo copy of appointment letter, duty slip and many other documents to prove that they were working on the appointed day of Nationalization in the Fatuha Islampur Light Railway. Which show that the management issued the same to them.

8. The management Eastern Railways counsel submitted that the names, which is submitted by Fatuha Islampur light Railways have been given job. Since the names of the workmen was not there in the list, they did not give employment, nor they have any knowledge.

the date of publication of award the Tribunal may grant time without imposing the Rs. 10,000/-as ordered supra, as otherwise the order passed above will be enforceable on the 61th day.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1114.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर पूर्व रेलवे के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 49/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-41012/74/2007-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of North East Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.

[No. L-41012/74/2007-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

9. But before this Tribunal, the concerned workmen submitted the appointment letters given to them by Fatuha Islampur light Railways before 1985, and also files the payment vouchers, as well as many original documents marked as Ext. 3 to 28 which show the workmen work before 1985, that the workmen concerned were working under Islampur Railway but it is felt that the management Islampur Railways in a malafide intention did not recommend the names of the workmen concerned.

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 49/2007

Ref. No. L-41012/74/2007-IR(B-1) dated: 21.09.2007

BETWEEN

10. Since the workmen concerned were the employees of Fatuha Islampur light Railways, they be given employment in Eastern Railways Patna at once with continuity of service.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of this, I hold that the action of the management of Eastern Railway, Danapur in denying absorption of workmen/S/Shri Brajesh Kishore Sinha and others, but the above mentioned 37 concerned workmen be given employment within two months. If they are not given job within two months i.e. within 60 days from the date of publication of the award, they are to be paid Rs. 10,000/- per month each from the sixty first day. If the Railway management prays for time to given employment to this Tribunal within two months from Executive Member North East Railway Shramik Sangh, C/o Sri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar Lucknow

AND

1. Divisional Railway Manager (Per)

North East Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2439 2. Senior DME (Power)

North East Railway Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/74/2007-IR (B-1) dated 21.09.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this Industrial dispute between Executive Member, North East Railway Shramik Sangh C/o Sri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar, Lucknow and the DRM (Personnel); North Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow and Sr. D.M.E. (Power) North Eastern Railway, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Wherther the Action of the Management of North Eastern Railway in not giving 30% running allowance to Sri Prem Chand, Diesel Assistant while absorption on Lower Division Clerk, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

3. Applicant Sh. Prem Chand has submitted a claim statement dated 07.01.2008 before this Tribunal, stating therein that he was appointed as Cleaner on 06.05.1967. He was promoted as Fireman in the year 1984. He was further promoted to the post of Diesel Assistant in the year 1991 and was posted under North Eastern Railway, Gonda. The workman further submitted that on 12.10.1998 he was sent to Railway Hospital for periodical medical examination and he was declared unfit in category A-1 but fit in category A-2. That the necessity arose to decategorise and absorb him in any other category keeping in view to protect his pay which he was taking before absorption in decategoriesed cetegory. The workman stated that working as Diesel Asstt. in Diesel Loby, Gonda he was taking salary in grade of Rs. 3050/4590 at Rs. 4590/- and he was also taking 30% of his pay as running allowance/mileage in addition to his pay which comes at Rs. 4590+1377-5967/- as pay excluding DA & other allowances admissible from time to time. The workman stated that as per the existing Rules in Railway the workman is entitled for his posting against any post on decategorisation due to medical unfitness in his original category after giving him benefit of 30% mileage/running allowance on his pay and he was to be absorbed in basic pay of Rs. 5967/- It is furher stated opposite party violated the rule by not giving 30% extra as mileage while absorbing the workman due to decategorisation. The workman further submitted that similarly situated cases were of S/Sr Vishwanath Rai, Diesel Asstt. Diesel Loby, Gonda, Vashish Kumar Misra, Gonda and Sri Hanbans Lal Srivastava was Diesel Assistant and absorbed on the post of Sr. Cleark in pay scale (4500-125- 7000). The workman submitted that he had sent several representations for redressal of his grievances but the opposite party did not pay need to his request. The said workman was prayed to give the direction to North Eastern Railway to pay 30% running allowance to workman and absorb him in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 at pay of Rs. 5875+92 personal pay.

4. On behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 written statement M-9 dated 08.07.2009 was filed before this Tribunal. The facts mentioned in the written statement and the specific averments emphasize that the claim statement is absolutely false and fabricated without any substantive evidence. The opposite parties have also pleaded that workman was appointed on 07.09.1996 on the post of Engine Cleaner and on 01.01.1984 he was promoted as Fireman. Fireman and Diesel Assistant are in the same pay scales. The opposite party stated that Railway Manual para 1313 (2B) denied the pay protection. Pay protection is given in case of injuries caused Railway Rule Manual para 1313(2B) and since the workman was not decategorsied due any injury caused, therefore, he is not entitled for pay protection. Accordingly, the opposite parties have prayed that the claim of the workman's union is liable to be rejected without any relief to the workman concerned.

5. The workman's union has filed its rejoined wherein apart from reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim have introduced nothing new.

6. The parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective pleadings and workman's union has examined the workman whereas the management has examined Shri Nasim Akhtar. UDC, DRM Office, NER, Lucknow in support thereto. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral arguments.

7. Head learned authoorized representatives of the parties at length and perused entire evidence on record in light thereto.

8. The authorized representative of the workman's union has contended that on decategorisation on medical grounds the workman was entitled for pay protection and 30% running allowance in view of Rules 1307 and 1308 and 1313 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, hereinafter referred to as Manual.

9. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the management has submitted that the pay protection is admissible to the workman under para 1313 (b) of the Manual; whereas the workman has been categorized due to illness, therefore, pay protection is not admissible to him under para 1313(a).

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties.

staff, the fixation will be based on basic pay plus a

percentage of such pay in lieu of running allowance as

11. Admittedly, the workman, Prem Chand was decategorised on medical grounds and absorbed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 3050- 4590/ and his pay was fixed at Rs. 4590/-. The case of the workman's union is that the workman was entitled for pay protection, including running allowance, as per provisions contained in Rules 1307, 1308 and 1313 of the Manual.

Per contra, the management's case, is that the workman was not entitled for pay protection/running allowance as he was decategorised on medical grounds under para 1313 (b) of the Manual.

12. Thus, for the just appreciation of the case, it would be prudent to go through the provisions contained in Rules 1313 (a), 1307 & 1308 of the Manual, which are re-produced as under:

1313. Fixation of Pay.

(a) On absorption in an alternative post, the pay of the railway servant decategorised on account of circumstances which did not arise out of an in the course of his employment will be fixed at a stage corresponding to the pay previously drawn in the post held by him before decategorisation. If there is no such stage in the post in which he is absorbed, he may be given the stage just below the pay previously drawn by him. For running staff, the fixation will be based on basic pay plus a percentage of such pay in lieu of running allowance as may be in force.

1307. Absorption in alternative employment to be circularized. If an when a railway servant is absorbed in an alternative post, intimation will be sent by the officer, under whom he was previously serving, to all other officers to whom his name was notified. On receipt of such intimation, his name will be deleted from the registers. Similarly, the name of any railway servant who refuses to accept one or more offers of alternative appointment till the time of expiry of the leave will also be deleted and all concerned offices informed.

1308. Before any post is filled on a promotion is ordered, officers concerned will refer to their registers and satisfy themselves that no medically incapacitated railway servant who is suitable for the post is available. Such medically incapacitated railway servant will under all circumstances be given preference over a surplus retrenched or demoted railway servant and with shorter service."

A bare perusal of the above Rules goes to show that an employee who gets decategorised on medical grounds will be absorbed in an alternative post. While fixing the pay of such decategorised employee who is absorbed in another post, it is provide in Rule 1313 (a) that "for running may be in force". Since the workman was a Diesel Assistant,

who was a running staff, therefore, in view of above Rule

he was entitled for running allowance while making his pay

fixation.

13. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstance of

the case and discussions made hereinabove; I am of

considered opinion that the workman, Prem Chand while

being absorbed on the post of Lower Division Cleark should

have been given 30% running allowance as per Rules and

the action of the management of the North Eastern Railway

in denying the workman the same is neither legal nor

justified; and accordingly I come to the conclusion that

the workman, Prem Chand is entitled for running allowance

under Rules. The opposite party/management is directed

to make payment accordingly to the workman within two

months from the date on which this Award is notified by

the Government of India.

14. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

15. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

06th May, 2015.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1115.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों का बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 143/96) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/45/95-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 143/ 96) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/45/95-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2441

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/143/96

Shri Mahendra Kumar Gubrele Through Dr. Nirmal Dubey, Dy. General Secretary, State Bank & Assistant Bank Employees Union Near Jain Mandir, Jabalpur

...Workman/Union

Versus

Assistant General Manager, Regional-I, State Bank of India, Divisional Officer, Marhatal, Jabalpur.

...Management together at time of their evidence. Evidence was not properly recorded. Enquiry Proceedings was not properly maintained. It is alleged that Enquiry Officer forcibly obtained signautre of workamn on blank papers. The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings was not read over to workman. workman was not allowed to remain present. Enquiry was conducted . When evidence of management's witness was recorded, workman was not given opportunity to cross-examine management's witness. Enquiry Officer recorded evidence of management's witness. Workman was not given opportunity for defence. Principles of matural justice were not followed, enquiry conducted against workman is vitiated. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. As enquiry against workman is illegal, the punishment imposed on basis of report of Enquiry Officer is illegal. On such ground, it is prayed that workman be reinstated with full back wages.

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of May, 2015

1. As per letter dated 10-06-96 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-12012/ 45/95-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whethere the action of the management of State Bank of India, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Mahendra Kumar Gubrele, Ex Messenger, Jawahrganj Branch vide order dated 5-11-93 and order passed by Appellate Authority dated 21.2.94 terminating his services is legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. On behalf of workman, statement of claim is submitted by Asstt. General Secretary Nirmal Dubey of State Bank Employees Union Jabalpur at Pages 3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party is that workman Mahendra Kumar Gubrele was member of above said Union. Union is registered under Trade Union Act, 1926. Working was employed by IInd party on post of messenger by Asstt. General Manager from 24.1.1982. The services of workman were terminated vide order dated 5-11-93. Before terminating his services, chargesheet was issued to workman on 27.5.92. The allegations in chargesheet were vague and false. The reply submitted by workman was not considered by IInd party. Enquiry was set up against him. Enquiry conducted against workman was merely formality. Enquiry Officer was appointed to paid employees of the Bank. Enquiry cannot be expected from such persons. Enquiry Officer acted as prosecutor other than judge. Enquiry was not conducted as per rules without following proper procedure. All witness of management were allowed to sit 3. IInd party filed Written Statement at pages 7/1 to 7/9 opposing claim of the workman. Case of IInd party is workman was appointed on post of messenger at Jawaharganj Branch. He committed theft of cheque No. 825196 and 679511. Those cheques were stolen from check book bearing No. 8251181 to 825200, 679500 to 679520. Those cheques were misused by the workman for personal gain. The relevant cheque books were not issued by the Bank to any customers. Workman had purchased various articles worth Rs. 17,000/- from M/S Boon Electronics Jabalpur. Cheque No. 8251961 was issued by workman on 10.3.92 for amount of Rs. 17,000/- in favour of M/S Boon Electronics. Said cheque was presented for clearing by M/S Boon electronics on 25.3.92 through Vajaya Bank Jabalpur. Workman used to collect cheques pertaining to Jawaharganj Branch of the Bank. It is alleged that workman changed Cheque No. 679511 in place of earlier cheque No. 825196. It is alleged that when cheque was not received back, amount of Rs. 17,000/- was credited to account of Boon Electronics by Vijaya Bank. When it had come to notice of M/S Boon Electronics that the cheque was forged, the goods sold to workman were got back from him and the amount of Rs. 17,000/- credited to account of Boon Electronics by Vijaya Bank. When it had come to notice of M/S Boon Electronics that the cheque was forged, the goods sold to workman were got back from him. The amount of Rs. 17,000 credited to account of M/S Boon Electronics was returned to Vijaya Bank.

4. Workman was served with chargesheet on 25.5.92 alleging workman attempted to cheat the Bank. Theft of cheque misusing the cheques for purchasing articles from Boon Electronics etc. The workman vide letter dated 27.3.92 admitted forgery by him. Vide letter dated 5.7.92, he denied from his admission contending that he was on medical leavy during the relevant period, he was mentally upset. The opinion of handwriting expert was that the writing on disputed documents was of the workman. The enquiry was conducted, various notices were issued to workman enquiry was adjourned time to time. Ultimately the enquiry2442 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] was proceeded exparte as workman failed to appear and participate in enquiry. Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Showcause notice was issued to workman. Considering gravity of proved misconduct, workman was dismissed from service as per order dated 5.11.93.

5. It is further submitted that workman challenged order of his dismissal filing appeal. The appeal was also disposed. Workman had challenged order of his dismissal filing Writ Pitition No. 2624/94. The Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that alternate remedy under ID Act was available. IInd party reiterated that enquiry conducted against workman allowing opportunity for defence. The principles of natural justice were followed. Workman did not participate in the enquiry despite repeated notices. Enquiry is illegal. For proved charges, punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is legal. Workman is not entitled to any relief.

6. As per order dated 15.7.2014, enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal.

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

dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal?

(ii) If not, what relief of the Workman is not workman is entitled to?" entitled to any

relief.

letter Exhibit M-14, workman retracted his admission for charges vide letter dated 5-7-92. He denied charges against him. As per Enquiry Record, his statements were recorded but when charges were explained to workman, he denied the same. As per Enquiry Proceedings at page 8/10, Presenting Officer Mr. P.D. Soni produced documents. Enquiry Proceedings dated 23-11-92 finds reference. The copies of documents were supplied to workman. Copies of documents earlier produced were also supplied to him. The brief details of the documents produced by Presenting Officer are PX-1 zerox copy of cheque No. 679511, PEX-2- zerox copy of memo dated 21-3-92, PEX-3 is explanation submitted by workman dated 27-3-92. Bill No. 302 dated 26-3-92 issued by Boon Electronics to workman is PEX-4, acknowledgement of Rs. 17000/- deposited by M/S Boon Electronics is PEX-5, copy of letter addressed to Dy. General Manager is marked at PEX-6. Order of suspension of workman dated 2-4-94 is PEX-7, copy of chargesheet issued to workman PEX-8. Copy of opinion of handwriting expert is PEX-9. It is pertinent to note that handwriting expert and proprietor of M/S Boon Electronics are not examined as witness. The Enquiry Proceedings at Page 8/ 14 to 8/19 shows statement of Presenting Officer narrating the case of management as per the documents produced on record. That workman had attempted to commit fraud of Rs. 17,000 issuing bogus cheque to Boon Electronics. Proprietor of M/S Boon Electronics Salim Khan returned amount of Rs. 17,000/- to Vijaya Bank. The narration of management's case as per documents is difficult to be accepted as a substantive evidence. Zerox copy of letter dated 27-3-92 is produced at Page 8/24 of the Enquiry Proceedings. Copy of Bill is at Page 8/25 of Enquiry Proceedings. Letter written by Salim Khan proprietor of Boon Electronics is at Page 8/26. Copy of opinion of handwriting expert produced at Page 8/31 shows that the writing on disputed cheque was of workman. Ist party workman did not cross-examine the Presenting Officer.

REASONS

8. As discussed above, enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal. The question whether misconduct alleged against workman are provide needs to be decided on basis of evidence recorded in Enquiry Proceedings. Though workman had filed affidavit of his evidence, on the point of preliminary issue, he not appeared for cross-examination. When case was fixed for evidence on other issues, the workman failed to adduce evidence. From evidence of management's witness Shri Narayan Jetha Enquiry Officer, the documents of enquiry are provide. The charge sheet against workman is at Page 8/4. The charges against workman relates to theft of Cheque No. 825196 and 679511 issued by the workman. He had purchased certain articles from M/S Boon Electronics for Rs. 17,000/- and issued Cheque No. 825196 on 1-3-92, workman had changed said cheque substituting by cheque No. 679511 in place of 825196. That workman had attempted to defraud the Bank, misusing the Bank's cheques. Vide 9. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Ashish Shroti submits that the non-examination of Salim Khan Proprietor of Boon Electronics, non-examination of handwriting expert would not be material. Even if the statement recorded by Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer Mr. Soni is considered only as narration of case, charges against workman are substantiated on the documents produced by Presenting Officer who was Branch Manager of Jawaharganj branch. It is submitted that charges against workman are made out from the documents produced on record. The copies of documents supplied to workman, he has not denied genuiness of the documents. Learned counsel submits that charges against workman are supported by some documentary evidence. It cannot be said that the charges against workman are not supported by any kind of evidence. It cannot be said that the case against workman is of no evidence. The statements of Presenting Officer Mr. Soni who was proprietor of Jawahar Branch certainly speaks[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2443 about theft of two cheques, those cheques were misused

by workman. The cheque of Rs. 17,000/- was given to M/s.

Boon Electronics. Workman has altered change on 21-3-92

when he was sent for clearing of cheques. When Shri Salim

Khan came to know about forgery of cheque, he had taken

back article sold to workman and he returned amount of

Rs. 17,000 to Vijaya Bank.

10. The learned counsel for management Mr. Shroti in

support of his argument relies on ratio held in

Case of State Bank of India and others versus Narendra

Kumar Pandey reported in 2013(2) SCC 740. Their Lordship

dealing with exparte and nature of proof held in case of

exparte enquiry, if charges are borne out from documents

kept in normal course of business no oral evidence is

necessary to prove those charges i.e. uncontroverted

documentary evidence in such situation is sufficient to

prove charges.

The evidence of Presenting Officer that above referred

two cheque books were not issued to any of the customers,

two cheque number given above were stolen by workman

and misused the same. He received letter from Shri Salim

Khan Proprietor of Boon Electronics about getting back

the articles sold to workman and returning of Rs. 17,000 to

Vijaya Bank. As per documents produced on record,

workman has not participated in enquiry. The statement of

Presenting Officer is not controverted, it cannot be said

that the charges against workman are not supported by

any kind evidence. Rather the charges are supported by

the documentary evidence narrated above. Therefore

findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said perverse and

illegal. I hold that the charges against workman are proved

from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. I therefore answer

Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

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

(1) The action of the management of State Bank of India, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services

of Shri Mahendra Kumar Gurbrele, Ex-Messenger is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1116.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 138/02) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/151/2002-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी,अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 138/02) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/151/2002-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

11. Point No. 2—The charges proved against workman

from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings pertains to

committing theft of two cheque numbers supra and BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

attempting to commit fraud of Rs. 17,000/- misusing those NO. CGIT/LC/R/138/02

cheques. The workman had not participated in the reference

proceeding. He filed affidavit of his evidence on Issue No.

1 but failed to appear for cross-examination. He failed to

adduce evidence on other issues. Proved charges against

workman relates to moral turpitude and integrity of workman General Secretary, Daily Wages Bank Employees Association, 9, Sanwar Road, Ujjain ...Workman/Union

Versus

is shaken. Therefore the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman cannot be said excessive and illegal. No

interference is called for in the order of dismissal passed

by Disciplinary Authority. I therefore record my finding in

Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-V, Zonal Office, Hamidia Road, Bhopal (MP)

...Management2444 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 28th day of April, 2015

1. As per letter dated 30-10-02 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, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/ 151/2002-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:

(i) Whether the action of the In Affirmative

management of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in not regularizing the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Verma is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the Workman is not

workman is entitled to?" entitled to any

relief

REASONS

"Whether the action of the management of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in not regularizing the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Verma is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. General Secretary of Daily Wages Bank Employees Association submitted statement of claim at Page 2/2 to 2/ 4 on behalf of workman. Case of Ist party is that workman was engaged as daily wage messenger/peon from 17-7-85 in GOP branch Indore. He worked for 70 days in the branch. He was discontinued from 10-10-85 as per settlement. He submitted application for permanent absorption. His name was in the panel list. During 1996-97, he was again engaged for work in the Bank. He was called for interview on 19-2- 97. He was working as messenger under different Branch Managers. Workman alleged that employees completing less number of days than him were absorbed. Service of workman was not regularised. On such ground, he prays for regularization of his services. He also claims bonus under Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/9 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised that Shri Ram Nagwanshi so called General Secretary of the Union was terminated from service. He is not competent to represent workman in the reference. IInd party did not dispute Ist party worked during the period 17-7-85 to 9-10-85. Workman was paid bonus of Rs. 100/- on 19-10- 2001. As per settlements, considering the working days of workman, opportunity was given to him. Workman was engaged as casual employee on contract basis. Workman was free to come on next date. His discontinuation is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service. He is not covered as workman under Section 25 B of ID Act. Workman was called for interview on 19-2-97. He was found not suitable by interview board. It is denied that services of workman are terminated in violation of Section 25-F. Workman is not covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act, there is no violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. On such ground, it is submitted that employee is not entitled to any relief.

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:—

5. Workman is claiming regularization of his service contending that he completed 70 days working during 17-7-85 to 9-10-85. The document Exhibit W-1 shows that he worked for 70 days during above period. Exhibit W-2 is interview call issued to workman. Exhibit W-3 is reply submitted by IInd party before ALC. Working of 70 days by Ist party workman as per the settlement is admitted. Exhibit W-5 is copy of letter dated 15-3-91 given by Shri Ram Nagwanshi General Secretary. Exhibit W-6 is also submission on identical point. Exhibit W-7 is reply given by IInd party before ALC. W-8 is copy of application submitted by Union Representative before ALC contending the identical ground. In Exhibit W-9 working for 70 days and payment of bonus Rs. 100/- is admitted.

6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his claim that he worked for 70 days during 17-7-85 to 19-10-85. He was again engaged by IInd party during 1996- 97 on wages Rs. 45/- per day. He was discontinued from 1-4-97. He was called for interview on 9-2-97. He alleged the same foul practices in his selection. In his cross- examination, workman says appointment letter was not given to him in 1985, he worked for 70 days. As per settlement between management and Union, public notice was issued. He submitted application. He was interviewed on 19-2-97. He was not absorbed by Bank.

7. The evidence of management's witness Smt. Nirupa Joshi is clear that workman worked for 70 days during the relevant period. He not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman was engaged on daily wages. His discontinuation is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. In her cross-examination, management's witness says she was working in the branch in 1985. Before engaging workman, any procedure was not followed. Attendance of workman was not maintained. He was paid wages Rs. 20/- per day under voucher. The vouchers are not produced. Workman was paid bonus. From payment of bonus Rs. 100/-, working days cannot be assumed. Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation, he was not served notice for termination. The evidence on above point is not relevant for deciding the question of denial of regularization to workman. Copy of settlement is produced at Exhibit M-1 & M-2. Parties are not in dispute that as per settlement,[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2445 Village Jmunia, Nr. Rly. Station, Guramkheri, Tehsil Sohagpur, Distt. Hoshangabad (MP)

...Workman

VERSUS

employees working 30, 70, 240, 270 days during 1975 to 1988 were eligible for absorption on permanent post. The select list Exhibit M-6 shows that name of workman is included at Sl. No. 148 showing his working days 63. List Exhibit M-6 shows last candidates appointed was having 87 days working. The evidence of workmen does not show any candidate having less number of working days than him are appointed. Therefore claim for regularization of workman is not acceptable. So far as the pleading and evidence about termination of his service in violation of Section 25 of ID Act is beyond terms of reference and same cannot be considered. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

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

Sr. Bridge Inspector (Constructions), Central Railway, Jhansi (UP) Executive Engineer, BRE, Central Railway, Manmarh (Maharashtra)

...Management

A W A R D

(1) The action of the management of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in not regularizing the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Verma is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1117.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मध्य रेलवे के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 181/03) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-41012/18/2002-आई आर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी,अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 181/03) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.

[No. L-41012/18/2002-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer Passed on this 1st day of May, 2015

1. As per letter dated 17-11-2003 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made of this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/ 18/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Central Railway, Jhansi in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Gulab Singh w.e.f. 8-12-91 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/2 to 23/4. Case of workman is that he is employed as Bridge Khalasi under management of IInd party No. 2 IInd party No. 1 is Controlling Authority. That he was appointed as Bridge Khalasi from 19-3-84 in Rail Service. He was working till 7-12-91. His services were arbitarily terminated violating provisions under Railway Establishment Manual. As per the Railway Establishment Manual, on completion of 120 days continuous service, the employee cannot be terminated without issuing showcause notice. That his services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. The termination of his service is illegal.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

3. Workman further submits that he had repeatedly submitted representations for reinstatement with IInd party. Ultimately he raised dispute before ALC, Jabalpur on 8-6-01, the conciliation failed. However the reference was refused on ground of delay. The order rejecting reference was challenged before Hon'ble High Court. As per direction issued by Hon'ble High Court, the dispute is referred. On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement with back wages.

NO. CGIT/LC/R/181/03

Shri Ramesh Kumar, S/o Shri Gulab Singh, Near Shri Sitaram Bathare,

4. IInd party management filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/4 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that DRM Jhansi is not Controlling Authority. It is2446 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] admitted that workman was engaged on 19-3-84 as daily rated casual labour. He was not working as Bridge Khalasi. As per service card No. 317279 received by Sr. Bridge Inspector and thump impression register page 11, workman was engaged from 19-3-84. He worked till 30-8-88 under control of Sr. Bridge (Manmad) in casual capacity. It is submitted that workman was not in continuous service from 19-3-84 to 7-12-91. It is denied that services of workman were arbitrarily terminated. The service card clearly shows that workman was unauthorisely absent from 31-8-88 to 3-6-89. All rest of the contentions of workman are denied. IInd party submits that claim of workman deserves to be rejected.

5. Workman submitted rejoinder on 26-2-08 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim. IInd party has admitted his engagement from 19-3-84 to 30-8-88. Consequently workman acquires status of MRCL employees.

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 Central Railway, Jhansi in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Gulab Singh w.e.f. 8.12.91 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the As per final workman is entitled to?" orders were terminated. He denies that he was absent from work during 31-8-88 to 30-6-89. He received casual card. It is marked Exhibit W-1. When he returned from leave in 1988, he came to know that his services were terminated. He submitted leave application, its copies were not produced in the case. Casual service card Exhibit W-1 bearing No. 317279 shows workman was initially engaged on 19-3-84 as bridge khalasi at Hirdaygarh. He was working till 30-8-88. His casual service card bears date of issue 20-10-84. Further endorsement Exhibit W-1 shows workman was absent from 31-8-88 till 3-6-89. He was removed from service from 3-6-89 due to unauthorised absence. Sick pay of Rs. 798/- per month is mentioned. From Exhibit W-1, it is clear that workman was continuously working from 19-3-84 to 30-8-88. Any break in service is not recorded. For unauthorized absence, his services were terminated. When workman completed more than 240 days continuous service, the removal of workman for unauthorized absence without issuing chargesheet or issuing notice for termination of his service in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman has rendered that after completion of 120 days service as per Railway Establishment Manual, his services cannot be terminated. Those submissions of workman are not specifically denied. At the time of any learned counsel for parties did not submit relevant provisions of Railway Establishment Manual for my perusal.

REASONS

7. Workman is praying for reinstatement with backwages submits that his services were terminated in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of ID Act and Railway Establishment Manual. He was not issued any notice. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence contending that he was appointed as Bridge Khalasi on 19-3-84. He was working with devotion till 2-12-91 without any gap. His services were terminated without notice from 8-12-91 or praying retrenchment compensation. He was repeatedly approaching Railway authorities for his reinstatement. He was assured that he would be absorbed in Railway service for 10-15 years, such assurance were given to him. Ultimately he raised dispute before ALC. On ground of delay, the dispute was not referred. The dispute is referred only after direction by Hon'ble High Court. In his across- examination, workman says he was appointed in 1984. The post was not advertised. Appointment letter was not given to him. He admits that his appointment was as daily rated casual labour. He was not suffering from any kind of illness, he was working in bridge department. He denies that after completion of work of construction of bridge, his services 8. The evidence of management's witness Shri Rasid Khan is that he supports contentions of IInd party in Written Statement. It is further submitted that workman did not work under DRM, North Central Railway, Jhansi. Said authority is not Controlling Authority. That Card No. 317279 was issued by Sr. Bridge (DE) Mannad in casual capacity. IInd party has not explained who was Controlling Authority of the workman. Exhibit W-1 shows endorsement that workman had medically passed A-III vide DMO, DSL fit certificate No. 2065 A-3 of 12-12-1985. It bears signature of Sr. Bridge Inspector, Central Railway, Jhansi. The endorsement to removal of workman bears signature of Sr. Bridge Inspector, Central Railway, Gwalior, IInd party No. 2 was not party while making the order of reference. IInd party No. 1 appears Controlling Authority of workman as PWI Gwalior removed workman from service. Therefore I donot find substance in the objection raised by IInd party, when workman had passed medical examination in 1985, he was continuously working till 31st August 1988. The removal of workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. I therefore record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

9. Point No. 2-Workman was removed from service in 1988. In Exhibit W-1, his date of birth is shown 9-7-63. Workman has completed age of superannuation. The relief of reinstatement cannot be granted. Considering the circumstances of the case, workman was removed from service in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, compensation[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2447

VERSUS

Rs. One lakh would be appropriate. Accordingly I record mt finding in Point No. 2.

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

(1) The action of the management of Central Railway, Jhansi in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Gulab Singh w.e.f. 8-12-91 is not legal and proper.

Managing Director, State Bank of Indore, Merged as State Bank of India Local Head Office, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One Lakh to the workman within 30 days from the date of publication of award.

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

annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1118.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंदोर मर्जड एज भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 349/99) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/304/99-आईआर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 349/99) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore Mered as State Bank of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/304/99-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer Passed on this 13th day of April, 2015

1. As per letter dated 24-11-99 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-12012/ 304/99-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Indore in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Rathore, Ex-Car Driver w.e.f. 1-3-93 instead of regularizing his service is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?"

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/349/99

Shri Ram Nagwanshi, General Secretary, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari Sangathan, 9, Sanwer Road, Hardev Niwas, Ujjain

...Workman/Union 2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/4 through General Secretary, Daily Wage Bank Employees Union. The case of Ist party workman is after his interview and taking trial of Driving, the workman was engaged on 30-12-90 in State Bank of Indore. That he was driving car of General Manager Shri Golcha. That he was honestly performing his duty without any compliance. The identity card was issued to him as Driver. One Prakash Chandra sukhram was engaged after him. He was driving car of General Manager (Planning and Development) J.N. Srivastava. said Prakash chand Sukhram has been regularized. Workman requested for regularization of his services as per settlement dated 13-7-93. Despite workman had completed 240 days continuous service, he was not regularized. His services were terminated from 13-7-93 in violation of bipartite settlement. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Principles of 1st come last go was not followed. After termination of his service from 1-3-93, he was not provided re-employment. Workman further submits that junior employee Prakash Chandra Shukla was regularized. He was denied benefit as per bipartite settlement. He was not paid bonus. On such ground, workman is praying for his reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/8 opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that ownus lies on workman to prove that he completed 240 days continuous service. Workman has not produced any documents in that regard. That workman was not employee of the Bank neither he worked as personal driver of General2448 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Manager. The reference is vague and as such not tenable. The justification of termination of employees arises only when employee is employed after recruitment process. Workman was not appointed following recruitment process. There is no employer employee relationship between parties, as such illegality of termination of workman does not arise.

4. IInd party further submits that Shri Ram Nagwanshi is a dismissed employee has no locus standi to represent workman. That IInd party Bank is incorporated under SBI Act 1959. According to prevailing procedure in the Bank, appointment of sweeper, peon is made by Head office following recruitment process giving publication in news paper. The candidates are selected to fulfill requisite qualifications. Bank cannot obtain any sub staff without following procedure. That the services of workman were utilized as personal driver of General Manager as and when required. Workman was paid Grade A wages. Workman was never appointed by the Bank. Appointment letter was not given to him. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service. The engagement of workman for few hours give him right of employee. Workman was paid amount agreed under contract. Thus engagement of workman cannot be said retrenchment, rather it is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Referring ratio held in various cases, IInd party reiterates that workman is not entitled for regularization/reinstatement as he was not appointed following recruitment process.

5. Workman has filed rejoinder at Page 10 contending that IInd party had not filed Written Statement for about 5 years.

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 State Bank of Indore in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Rathore, Ex-Car Driver w.e.f. 1-3-93 instead of regularizing his service is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

Mr. Prakash was driving car of General Manager Shri G.L. Srivastava, that Golcha had issued certificate of his working from 1-7-90 to 27-2-93. His services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Evidence of workman remained unchallenged.

8. Management filed affidavit of its witness Shri Rahul Vaisihnav supporting contentions of IInd party that workman was not appointed as sub staff following the procedure. That services of workman were utilized as personal driver of General Manager as and when required basis. He was paid amount as agreed for doing said work. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service. Management's witness in his cross says during 1990 to 1994, he was not posted in Head office, he had not discussed the matter with then branch Managers. Any procedure was not followed before engaging workman. He claims ignorance whether permission from Competent Authority was obtained for engaging workman. He also claims ignorance about Identity Card issued to workman. Document P-3 is denied by witness. Workman was not given termination notice, he was not given retrenchmment compensation. Management's witness admits that in 2004, notice was published for recruitment of Driver Exhibit W-6.

9. Ist party workman has produced documents Exhibit W-1 letter dated 23-2-01 prohibiting engagement of daily wage labours for sweeping, scavenging, dusting etc. Exhibit W-2 admitted by IInd party the certificate issued by Shri Golcha. The workman was working as Driver from 1-7-90 copy of Bipartite Settlement dated 30-7-93 (Exhibit W-3) is produced. Said bipartite settlement provides —

(1) A one time opportunity for absorption on permanent basis in subordinate cadre as peon cum farrash will be given to temporary employees who have put in more than 240 days of service in a period of twelve consecutive months provided they satisfy the eligibility criteria (as on the date they were first engaged as temporary employees) laid down under the Banks rules such as minimum educational qualifications, age etc.

REASONS

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman has stated that on 30-12-89, driving trial was taken by Manager in the Secretariat for post of peon. On 30-12-89, he was working as peon in Secretariat. From 1-7-90, work of driver was extracted from him. Identity Card was issued. He was driving car of General Manager Shri Golcha. He was also going on tour with Shri Golcha. That junior (2) A list of 20 such temporary employee was prepared based on the information avaialble with the Bank and the Committee. These temporary employees were called to appear for an interview on an appointed day. Those who failed to appear for the interview shall not be considered for permanent appointment in the Bank. In this connection, the Committee has submitted that there may be several more such eligible temporary workmen whose information is not available with Head office at present and that provision should be made for giving them a chance too. Accordingly it is agreed that one more and final opportunity will be given to all such eligible temporary employees present or past by giving 4 months time from the date of this agreement for submitting their claims to the Bank to chief Manager, Personnel Administration by Registered Post.

The pleadings in Written Statement and evidence of management's witness is silent why workman was not extended benefit of above Bipartite Settlement. As per Exhibit W-2, it is clear that workman was continuously working from 1-7-90 to 27-2-93. List annexed with Exhibit W-4 shows names of other employees. Workman was not given benefit of bipartite settlement Exhibit W-3. As discussed above, pleadings and evidence of management's witness is silent why the workman was denied benefit of bipartite settlement.

10. Shri Ram Nagwanshi representative has produced

copies of citations in—

Case of Samishta Dube versus City Board Etawah and another reported in 1998(81)FLR-746. Their Lordship held in absence of any agreement between employer and the workmen in behalf the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workmen who was the last one to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to the recorded, the employer retrenches any other person.

In case Regional Manager, SBI versus Rakesh Kumar Tiwari reported in 2006(108)FLR 733. Their Lordship held provisions of Secion 25-G & H does not require the continuous employment of the workman within meaning of section 25 B of ID Act.

Learned Counsel for management Shri Chaturvedi submitted that Bipartite Settlement Exhibit W-3 was one time benefit extended. Workman is not entitled to its benefit. Considering certificate Exhibit W-2, workman was working from 1-7-90 to 27-2-93 working as termporary employee, workman is covered by the settlement Exhibit W-3. Shri Chaturvedi relies on ratio held in case of Mahmoob Deepak versus Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and another reported in 2008(1) SCC 575. Their Lordship dealing with termination of service of casual daily wager temporary employee held daily wager having completed 240 days service in a year, the service terminated on grounds of misconduct for financial irregularities without complying with Section 6-N of UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held appeallant entitled to compensation Rs. 50,000/-. Their Lordship held merely becuase an employee completed 240 days working in a year preceding date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services would be regularized.

The ratio cannot be applied to present case as in above cited case, there was no bipartite settlement like Exhibit W-3. The benefit of Bipartite Settlement Exhibit W-3 was not extended to the workman despite he was working from July 90 to February 93. Workman is discriminated. The evidence of workman that Shri Prakash Chandra Shukla junior to him was regularized is not challenged. The evidence of management's witness on the point is silent. Thus workman is denied benefit of Bipartite Settlement Exhibit W-3. Junior Prakash Chandra Shukla has been regularized. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

11. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.l, termination of services of workman is illegal, workman is

not given benefit of Bipartite Settlement Exhibit W-3. Shri Prakash Junior to him has been regularized, question arises whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. The affidavit of evidence of workman is silent that he is rendered unemployed after termination of his service. Management has also not adduced any evidence.

At the time of filing affidavit of evidence, age of workman is shown 34 years in 2006. As workman is denied benefit of settlement Exhibit W-3, his services are terminated, workman deserves reinstatment with 40% back wages. Accordingly, I record my finding in Point No. 2.

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

(1) The action of the management of State Bank of Indore in terminating the services of Shri Santhosh Rathore, E-Car Driver w.e.f. 1-3-93 instead of regularizing his service is not legal and proper.

(2) IInd party management is directed to reinstate workman with continuity of service and 40% back wages.

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1119.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सी॰पी॰डब्ल्यू॰डी॰, चंडीगढ़ के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय - 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 134/2014) को प्रकाशित करता है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-42012/194/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 134/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to2450 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the management of the CPWD, Chandigarh and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.

[No. L-42012/194/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer Corrigendum dated 27-01-2015 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of CPWD for not regularising the services of Sh. Kanhaiya,

ANNEXURE

Beldar even consequent upon abolition of contract labour system in the department of CPWD as per Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour's Notification dated 31.1.2002 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?"

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 134 of 2014

Reference No. L-42012/194/2014-IR(D-U) dated 15.01.2015.

and Corrigendum dated 27-01-2015

Sh. Kanhaiya S/o Sh. Vidja Prakash, 857, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarsh.

...Workman 2. On receipt of the refence notices were issued to the parties. The case was fixed for filing of claim statement. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the workman despite notice on the address supplied by the Ministry of Labour. No claim statement has been filed by the workman. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his

reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh.

Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, CPWD, Chandigarh Central Division I, Sector-7B, Chandigarh-160019

2. The Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Chandigarh Central Sub-Division 2, Qtr. No. 1409/A, Aduit Pool Colony, Sec. 41-B, Chandigarsh-160036.

3. M/s Sharma Enterprises, Govt. Contract & Engineer, 617/A, Gate No. 6, Gurbaksh Colony, Patiala (Punjab)-147001

4. The Junior Engineer, O/o Assistant Enginner, CPWD, Chandigarh Central Sub-Division 2, Qtr. No. 1409/A, Audit Pool Colony, Sec. 41-B, Chandigarsh-160036.

5. The Superintendent Engineer, CPWD, Chandigarh Central Circle, Kendriya Sadan, Sec.- 9 A, Chandigarsh-160009.

...Respondents 19.05.2015

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1120.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कॉल डैम हाइड्रोइलेक्ट्रिक पावर प्रोजेक्ट के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय - 1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 39/2010) को प्रकाशित करता है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-42012/163/2010-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी॰के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : None.

For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi Proxy for

Sh. G.C. Babbar.

S.O. 1120.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 39/2010)

AWARD

Passed on 19.05.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide Notification L-42012/194/2014-IR(D-U) dated 15.01.2015 and of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Kol Dam Hydroelectric Power Project and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.

[No. L-42012/163/2010-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2451

ANNEXURE

of the representative of workman, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat, with liberty to file afresh if need be.

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

3. Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Case No. ID 39 of 2010

Reference No. L-42012/163/2010-IR(DU) dated 18.02.2011

Shri Subhash Chand S/o Shri Prem Singh, V.P.O. Lahora, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi (H.P.)

...Workman Chandigarh. 21.05.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

Versus

1. The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric

Power Project, NTPC, Barmana, Bilaspur.

2. Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd., Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village Kayan, P.O. Slapper, Teh. Sundernagar, Mandi. (HP).

3. The Proj. Manager, M/s. ITD Cementation India Ltd., Kol Dam Hydro-Electric Power Project, Village Kayan, P.O. Slapper, Teh. Sundernagar, Mandi. (HP).

...Respondents का.आ. 1121.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार हिंदुस्तान साल्ट लिमिटेड मंडी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (ंसदर्भ संख्या 16/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-42025/03/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Sh. M.S. Gorsi

For the Management : Sh. Hem Raj Sharma.

AWARD

Passed on : 21.05.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-42012/163/2010/IR(DU) dated 18.02.2011 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

S.O. 1121.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 16/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Hindustan Salt Ltd., Mandi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.

[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

Term of Reference

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 16 of 2012

"Whether retrenchment of services of Shri Subhash Chand S/o Shri Prem Singh, V.P.O Lahora, Tehsil sadar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. by the The Proj. Manager, M.s. ITD Cementation India Ltd., Village Kayan, P.O. Slapper, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt, Mandi vide order dated 13.8.2008 without following the principle of last come first go is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. Case taken up in Lok Adalat Today. The learned representative of the workman Sh. M.S. Gorsi made a statement that the workman withdraw the present reference with the right to file fresh if need be. In view of the statement Sh. Duni Chand through Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, working President, Pb. INTUC, 211-1, Brari, P.O. Partap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Distt. Ropar (Pb.)

...Workman2452 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

Manager, Hindustan Salt Ltd., Mandi (H.P)

...Respondent the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Hindustan Salt Ltd., Mandi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar.

[No. L-42012/261/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

For the Management : Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on : 21.05.2015

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PARKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 10 of 2011

1. The workman raised the dispute directly to this Tribunal regarding his termination from service by the respondent management of Hindustan Salt Ltd. Mandi, H.P. on the certificate dated 28-11-2011 given by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh under Section 2 (a) 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the conciliation proceedings not concluded in prescribed time under the law. The workman filed claim statement to which management filed written statement.

Reference No. L 42012/261/2010-IR(DU)

dated 06.05.2011

Shri Satish Kumar, C/o Shri R.K. Singh Parmar, 211-L, Brari, PO-Partap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Ropar.

...Workman

Versus

1. The Manager, Hindustan Salt Ltd., Mandi (HP).

...Respondent

APPEARANCE :

2. Case taken up in Lok Adalat. The learned representative of the workman made a statement that the workman does not press the present reference and may raise the dispute afresh at later stage. In view of the statement of the representative of the workman the present reference is disposed off as withdrawn in Lok Adalat, with liberty to file afresh.

3. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well as hard copy

be sent to the Central Government for publication.

For the workman : Shri R.K. Singh Parmar.

For the Management : Shri S.K. Gupta Advocate.

AWARD

Chandigarh 21.05.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1122.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार हिंदुस्तान साल्ट लिमिटेड मंडी के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (ंसदर्भ संख्या 10/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं॰ एल-42012/261/2010-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल,डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1122.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 10/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in Passed on 21.05.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notificaiton L-42012/261/2010-IR(DU) dated 06/05/2011 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Hindustan Salt Ltd., in termination the services of workman Shri Satish Kumar w.e.f. 28-02-2009 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2. Case taken up in Lok Adalat. Shri R.K. Singh Parmar, authorized representative of the workman made a statement that the workman does not press the reference for the present and may raise again the said dispute. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. as withdrawn in Lok Adalat, with liberty to file afresh.

3. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well as hard

copy be sent to the Central Government for publication.

Chandigarh 21.05.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2453

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1123.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सीपीडब्ल्यूडी, चंडीगढ़ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 125/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-42012/102/2014-आई आर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 125/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the CPWD, Chandigarh and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.

[No. L-42012/102/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer Passed on 21.05.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification L-42012/102/2014 IR(DU), dated 01.09.2014, has referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the CPWD contractor M/s Modern Electricals Chandigarh engaged by Assistant Engineer (E), CPWD in terminating the services of Sh. Raj Kumar Verma w.e.f. 14-3-2014 is valid, just and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2. On receipt of the reference notices were issued to the parties. The case was fixed for filing of claim statement. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the workman despite notice on the address supplied by the Ministry of Labour. No claim statement has been filed by the workman. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution.

3. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be

sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh 21.05.2015

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 125 of 2014

Reference No. L-42012/102/2014-IR(DU) dated 01.09.2014.

Sh. Raj Kumar Verma Son of Balbir Chand, House No. 484, Maloya, Chandigarh.

Workman का.आ. 1124.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सीपीडब्ल्यूडी, चंडीगढ़ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 133/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-42012/195/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल,डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

VERSUS

1. The Assistant Engineer (E), Chandigarh Central Electrical Sub-Division-I, CPWD C.R. Building, Sector-17, Chandigarh.

2. M/s. Jaspal Singh, Modern Electrical, CPWD Contractor, 1015/12, Autya, Sec.- 42, Chandigarh.

Respondents

APPEARANCE :

For the workman : None.

For the management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi proxy

& Jaspal Singh.

S.O. 1124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 133/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the CPWD, Chandigarh and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.

[No. L-42012/195/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer2454 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 133 of 2014.

Reference No. L-42012/195/2014-IR(DU) dated 15.01.2015.

Sh. Raju Sons of Shri Ram Kumar, House No. 2239, Sector-25, Chandigarh-160015.

...Workman 2. On receipt of the reference notices were issued to the parties. The case was fixed for filing of claim statement. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the workman despite notice on the address suppled by the Ministry of Labour. No claim statement has been filed by the workman. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh 21.05.2015

VERSUS

1. The Executive Engineer, CPWD, Chandigarh Central Division-I, Sector-7-B, Chandigarh-160019.

2. The Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Chandigarh Central Sub-Division-2, Qtr. No. 1409/A, Audit Pool Colony, Sec. 41-B, Chandigarh-160036.

3. M/s Sharma Enterprises, Govt. Contract & Engineer, 617/A, Gate No. 6, Gurbaksh Colony, Patiala (Punjab)-147001.

4. The Junior Engineer, O/o Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Chandigarh Central Sub-Division-2, Qtr. No. 1409/A, Audit Pool Colony, Sec. 41-B, Chandigarh-160036.

5. The Superintendent Engineer, CPWD, Chandigarh Central Circle, Kendriya Sadan, Sec.-9A, Chandigarh-160009.

...Respondents

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1125.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कमांडर हेड क्वार्टर्स कोस्ट गार्ड डिस्ट्रिक्ट नंबर 4 कोचीन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, एर्णाकुलम के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 40/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-14011/09/2014-आई आर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

S.O. 1125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 40/2014)

APPEARANCE :

For the workman : None.

For the management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi proxy of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour- Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Commander, The Head Quarters Coast

AWARD

Passed on 21.05.2015

Guard No. 4, Cochin and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.

[No. L-14011/09/2014-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification L-42012/195/2014 IR(D-U) dated 15.01.2015 and Corrigendum dated 27-01-2015 has referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

"Whether the action of the Management of CPWD for not regularising the services of Sh. Raju, Beldar even consequent upon abolition of contract labour system in the department of CPWD as per Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour's Notification dated 31.1.2002 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the Present : Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 20th day of May, 2015/

30th Vaisakha, 1937)[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2455 The award will come into force one month after its

ID 40/2014

Union : The Secretary

Ernakulam District Labour Congress

Central Committee Office Narakkal COCHIN - 682505

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 20th day of May, 2015.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

Management : The Commander

The Head Quarters Coast Guard Dist. No. 4 Calvathy Road, Fort Cochin

COCHIN-682001

By Adv. Shri N. Nagaresh

This case coming up for final hearing on 20.05.2015 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1126.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 29/00) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26.05.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/235/99-आईआर (बी-II)]

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government/Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-14011/ 09/2014-IR(DU) dated 17.07.2014 referred the industrial dispute schedule thereunder for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the District Commander of

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2015

S.O. 1126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmment hereby publishes the award (Ref. 29/00) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur 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 26.05.2015

[No. L-12012/235/99-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

coast guard, Ernakulam is denying wage increase and other benefits to seven civilian workers and refusal to regularize them in services is justifiable? If not what relief they are entitled to get?"

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

3. After receipt of summons union entered appearance but did not file any claim statement in spite of several No. CGIT/LC/R/29/00

adjournments. Afterwards union remained absent and hence set ex-parte. Management filed affidavit to satisfy that the action of the District Commander of Coast Guard, Ernakulam in denying wage increase and other benefits to seven civilian workers and refusal to regularize them in services is justifiable.

Late Shri Lal Singh Chouhan, LRs-Smt. Sharda Chouhan & Shri Narendra Singh Chouhan, R/o House No. 118, Gali No. 4, Mahesh Nagar, Sailana Road, Ratlam.

...Workman

VERSUS

4. As the union remained ex-parte without even filing any claim statement the reference can be answered as against the union in view of the averments contained in the affidavit filed by the management.

5. In the result an award is passed holding that the action of the District Commander of Coast Guard, Ernakulam

in denying wage increase and other benefits to seven civilian workers and refusal to regularize them in services is justifiable and hence they are not entitled to any relief.

Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, 690, Shastri Nagar, Ratlam (MP)

...Management2456 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of May, 2015

1. As per letter dated 14.1.00 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-12012/ 235/99/IR (B-II) The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Ratlam Region in terminating the services of Shri Lalsingh Chauhan, Ex-Head Cashier w.e.f. 15.10.93 vide their order No. RO/PRS(DAD)/7/ 93-94/1525 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 workman submitted statement of claim at Pages 2/1 to 2/5. Workman died during pendency of reference and his LRs are brought on record. Case of workman is that he joined Bank service on 24.08.1967. He was working as Head Cashier and on 15.10.1993, he was discharged from service. The order of discharge was challenged filing appeal. His appeal was rejected on 10.11.1993. Workman also availed remedy of mercy appeal to Chairman and managing Director of the Bank. His appeal is still unconsidered. It is further submitted that workman was served with Ist Memo on 29.1.1993. He submitted his reply on 19.4.93. Enquiry Report and show cause memo, copy of proceedings of personal hearing are submitted in support of his claim. Workman contented that he was not provided reasonable opportunity for his defence. He was denied natural justice. Workman further submitts that he admitted charges for the reasons narrating the circumstances in which the act was perpetuated on his part. The admitted charge with understanding that punishment less than discharge, dismissal would be imposed. The punishment of discharge imposed against him on his voluntary confession is not legal. As per section 13 of Evidence Act to hold him guilty without any other evidence is not legal. Fair enquiry was not held before discharging him from service. That he had pleaded before enquiry Officer w.r.t. charge No. 1 he had no malafide intention to misappropriation of amount. Pampering of Bank record was not committed. Loss was not caused to the Bank. Aggrieved party had withdrawn any claim. His previous service card was not considered by Disciplinary authority. He had put in 26 year continus service. He was given silver jublee award for the same.

3.The Regional Manager Disciplinary Authority did not impose punishment of discharge independently on his own judgment. The punishment was dictated by Vigilance Deptt. contrary to the law and justice. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure and dispute was referred. The enquiry was not conducted as per rules. Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority acted upon voluntary admission of charges imposing punishment of discharge from service. Workman further submits that punishment was dictated by legal department at Mumbai Disciplinary Authority had proposed to award reduction of increments but the Chief Vigilance of Bank instructed to award disharge from service. On such ground, workman prays to set aside order of his discharge and prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.

4. LRs of deceased workman submitted additional statement of claim contending that services of workman were terminated illegally under pressure of Cheif Vigilance quoting letter dated 16.3.93. The submissions of deceased workman were terminated as Vigilance Officer in letter dated 16.9.93 the punishment imposed against deceased workman is illegal, the orders of Appellate Authority and Divisional Authority be set aside.

5. IInd party filed Written Statement at pages 5/1 to 5/5 opposing claim of deceased workman. IInd party did not dispute initial appointment of workman on 24.8.67. At the time of his discharge, workman was working as Head Cashier. The deceased workman received amount of Rs. 1700 from one jayantilal on 5.11.92. The amount was misused for 22 days till 27.11.92. Amount of Rs. 1500 issued by Jayantilal on 5.12.92 was misused for 5 days deposited in Bank on 10.12.92. Amount of Rs. 5500/- was received from Shri Jayantilal on 10.12.92. It was misused for 130 days till amount deposited on 19.4.93. Workman had borrowed loan of Rs. 7700/- from Bank customer. Workman had issued cheque of Rs. 3641/- on 1.11.92 from his HSS Account No. 778 having credit balance only Rs. 17.08 in said account. Explanation of workman was called. Workman admitted all charges against him. Chargesheet was issue to workman, enquiry was conducted. The punishment of dismissal was imposed against workman. Workman had challenged punishment order. Appeal was rejected. The mercy appeal perferred by workman was not allowed. IInd party reiterates that chargesheet was issued for misconduct narrated above. Workman admitted charges before Enquiry Officer. Any appeal and mercy appeal prepared by workman was not allowed. Principles of natural justice were followed while conducting enquiry. Workman was given opportunity for defence. All adverse contentions of workman have been denied. The contentions of workman that Bank did not suffer loss are denied as false. The workman committed gross misconduct. The imges of the Bank was tarnished. The integrity of workman is in question. The punishment of discharge imposed against workman is proper. Punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority independently on his own judgment. It is denied that punishment was dictated by Bank's Vigilance Deptt. On such ground, IInd party submit that claim of workman is not justified.

6. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at pages 9/1 to 9/3 denying amount received by workman from Jayantilal,[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2457 misuse of said amount for different period. Amount was not dispensed. Workman had taken loan from Bank customers. Cheque was issued by workman without having sufficient amount in his account.

7. IInd party filed reply to rejoinder at Page 14/1 to 14/2

reiterating its contentions in Written Statement.

8. As per order dated 11.12.12, enquiry conducted

aganist workman is found legal and proper.

9. Considering pleadings on record and order on 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 charges alleged In Affirmative

against workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings.

(ii) Whether the punishment of In Affirmative

dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal?

(iii) If not, what relief the Workman is not

workman is entitled to?" entitled to any relief.

about the case. He had passed 12th standard. His father told him that charges against him were false. No complaint was submitted to higher officers. His father told him about letter Article A-1 only. He was not told any other things by his father. His father did not tell him that he committed mistake. He was not told by his father in committing misappropriation in the Bank.

12. Management's witness Manish Vyas in his evidence says that Bank issued Memorandum dated 29.1.93. Management's witness denied that the punishment of withholding 4 increments of deceased workman was proposed. Workman had voluntarily admitted charges against him. It is denied that assurance was given to workman that if he admits charges, he would not impose major punishment. Management's witness in his cross says enquriy was not conducted in his presence. He claims ignorance all documents were suplied to workman before conducting enquiry. He had not witnessed the incident. He claims ignorance whether FIR was submitted about the incident. Personally he doesnot know the Enquiry Officer but he knows Presenting Officer. He was unable to tell who was Vigilance Officer at relevant time. In Para-4 of his affidavit, contentions are made as per record.

REASONS

10. Learned counsel for workman Shri Vijay Tripathi during course of argument submitted that workman was initially appointed on 4.8.67. He was promoted as clerk in 1981. Chargesheet was issued to workman in 1993. Workman denied charges in reply to the chargesheet. Enquiry was conducted. Shri Tripathi repeatedly submits that legality of enquiry is not disputed. Workman had admitted the charges. The DE conducted against workman is held legal. It is submitted that the punishment of discharge imposed against workman is not legal as the Disciplinary Authority proposed to stop 4 increments, Punishment of discharge was imposed only as per directions issued by Vigilance Officer.

11. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Kohli submits that workman admitted all charges. The charges relates to misappropriation of amount. As per proviso to Section 11-A, this Court Annot record evidence w.r.t. the proof of charges. The charges proved are of serious nature. There is no evidence that punishment is shockingly disproprtionate. The issue of legality of enquiry is to be decided considering evidence of parties. Workman died during pendency of proceeding. The LRs brought on record Narendra Singh Choubey filed affidavit of his evidence contending that the Disciplinary Authority had proposed to withhold 4 increments. The punishment of discharge was imposed following instructions of Vigilance Officer as per letter dated 16.3.93. Said letter is not proved. Copy of said letter produced on record is marked Article A-1. The LR of deceased workman in his cross-examination says he was residing with his father. His father was knowing about letter Article 1, how his father had given information to him 13. The question whether charges against workman are proved needs to be decided as per evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. In Exhibit M-1 the details of charges against workman are shown. In reply M-2, it is clear that workman had admitted charges against him. The articles of charges are also given in details in Exhibit M-3. The Enquiry Proceedings Page 23/13, when charge was explained to workman, he has admitted charges against him saying that he submitted details in his reply dated 19.4.93. During course of argument, there was no dispute that workman had admitted charges. In Enquiry Proceedings Exhibit M-6, Presenting Officer submitted that as workman has admitted charges, it was not necessary to record evidence of the witnesses. As workman has admitted charges as per Section 58 of Evidence Act admitted charges need no proof. Enquiry conducted against workman is also found legal. As workman admitted charges, it is sufficient to prove the charges alleged against workman therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

14. Point No. 2 — Ist party workman submits that punishment of discharge form service was imposed due to pressure from Vigilance Officer. Disciplinary Authority has proposed to stop 4 increments with cumulative effect. The showcause notice dated 2.9.93 at Page 2/18 of Enquiry Proceedings finds that for Charge No. 1, punishment of discharge from Bank Service, for Charge No. 2, discharge from Bank service, for Charge No. 3, punishment of censor, for Charge No. 4, withdrawal of special allowance permanently were proposed. The contentions of Ist party that Disiplinary Authority propsed to impose punishment of withholding 4 increments with cumulative effect is not2458 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] supported by cogent evidence on record. The punishment order Exhibit M-9 finds reasons discussed by Disciplinary Authority that after careful consideration of what has been stated by Shri Chouhan, observed that he has felt the punishment proposed regarding charge No. 1 and 2 to be harsh and extreme and the punishments for other two charges as minor penalties. He did not agree with the views expressed by Shri Chouhan in as much as a deliberate misappropriation and tampering with Bank's record was perpetrated by him to draw undue benefit for himself which clearly reflects upon his integrity and such dishonesty cannot be tolerated in institutions like Banks where the employees are expected to work with utmost honesty and integrity to maintain the confidence of the constituents. It is clear from above in order of punishment that the punishment of discharge was imposed applying his own mind by Disciplinary Authority.There is absolutely no reference to any letter or correspondence received from Vigilance Officer. The alleges letter from Vigillance Officer is not proved. The copy of letter dated 16.9.93 produced at Article A-1 does not bear signature of anybody, rather it appears a typed copy. There is no cogent evidence that order of discharge from service imposed against workman was on the instructions issued by Vigilance Officer.

15. Learned Counsel for workman Shri Tripathi on the point relies on reported judgment in Case of S.C. Seth versus United Commercial Bank and others by High Court of MP at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 5732 of 2008. The reading of the judgment clearly shows that other employees Shri R.K. Tiwari, N.K. Gopal, H.D. Pandey a punishment of censure/ warning or stoppage of increment was issued and workman was discriminated imposing punishment of discharge. The facts of present case are comparable. The ratio cannot be applied to the case at hand.

16. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Kohli relies on ratio held in case of Manoj H. Mishra versus Union of India and others reported in 2013(6)SCC 313. Their Lordship in Para 34, 35 of the judgment dealing with DE, admission of guilt by delinquent despite opportunity to deny the charges before Enquiry Officer nor earlier denial of charges made by delinquent in preliminary hearing. Their Lordship held delinquent cannot be permitted to resile from admission made before Enquiry Officer.

17. Ist party workman has contented that in view of Section 30 of Evidence Act, without recording evidence, finding of Enquiry Officer that charges are proved on his admission is illegal.

Section 30 of Evidence Act deals with. When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.

Section 30 of Evidence Act cannot be applied in present case as Ist party clearly admitted charges against him and did not implicate any other person for the alleged charges against him. In view of admission of charges by workman, as per Section 58 of Evidence Act, no fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.

No evidence is required to prove charges alleged against workman. The charges proved against workman pertains to misappropriation of amount Rs. 1700/-, 1500/-, 5500/- taking loan of Rs. 7700/- from Bank's customers and issuing cheque of Rs.3400/- without having sufficient amount in his account. Employee working in the Bank commits such act, certainly image of Bank is tarnished. The confidence of the customers is lost in the Bank therefore the punishment of discharge from service against workman cannot be said excessive. For the reasons discussed above, punishment imposed against workman is proper and legal. Therefore I answer Issue No.2 in Affirmative.

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

(1) The action of the management of Central Bank of India, Ratlam Region in terminating the services of Shri Lalsigh Chauhan, Ex-Head Cashier w.e.f. 15.10.93 is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1127.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 42/91) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26.05.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/280/90-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2015

S.O. 1127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/91) of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management Punjab National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/280/90-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2459

ANNEXURE

cheked by officer concerned. Thereafter said voucher was lost or mispalced by office. W.r.t. the same charge, other employees were served chargesheet, its copies and reply submitted by employee were not supplied to the workman.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/42/91

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary, Punjab National Bank Employees Congress, Plot No. 118, Swavlambi Nagar, Nagpur

....Workman/Union

VERSUS

General Manager Punjab National Bank, Kings Way, Nagpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27th day of April, 2015

1. AS per letter dated 26.3.91 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The referene is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/ 280/90-IR(B-2). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in awarding the punishment of stoppage of 4 increments to Shri D.M. Asatkar, Teller is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entiled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. On behalf of workman, dispute is raised by Union shown as IInd party in Statement of claim. Management is shown as Ist party. Case of IInd party Union is that said D.M. Asatkar workman was working as Teller in the year 1986 at Kanhan Branch. On 23.9.86, chargesheet was served on him. The allegations were while working as Teller at branch office, Kanhan, he made credit entry of Rs.47,100/- on 9.6.86. The said card pertain to S.F.Account No. 8918 of one Ajay Sudhakar Joshi without any credit voucher. While preparing reconciliation sheet, he intentionally omitted amount of Rs.47,100/- to match the balance of ledger daily sheet. Thus said bogus entry remained undetected. The serious lapse on his part involved Bank on financial loss. The workman submitted reply to chargesheet on 24.9.86 denying charges against him. Workman submitted that credit entry was affected in view of vouchers received by him through the officer who checked it. The voucher which was received by the member was then sent to the ledger keeper. The ledger was also 3. Mr. K.R. Palsodkar was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Shri Agnihotri, Asstt. Manager was appointed as Presenting Officer. Workman had submitted objection fjor appointment as Enquiry Officer Shri K.R.Palsodkar claiming that he had no faith in him. However, his request was not accepted by Disciplinary Authority. Workman was suspended on 23.12.86. He alleged to have act hand in gloves. The application submitted by workman to engage Advocate for his defence was rejected on the ground that Presenting Officer was not Law graduate. It is further submitted that workman was not supplied documents on his request. Enquriy was not properly conducted. Findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. The punishment of with holding 4 increments is imposed against workman is shockingly disproportionate. The request of workman for appointing arbitrator for enquiry against him was rejected. The documents requested by workman were material documents and were not supplied. Lesser punishment were awarded to other employees to whom chargesheet were issued. On such grounds, IInd party submits that punishment of withholding 4 increments be set-aside.

4. Ist party management submitted Written Statement at Page 11/1 to 11/8 opposing claim of IInd party. Preliminary objection is raised that Union has not filed resolution for raising the dispute on behalf of workman. The reference of dispute is not legal. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide it. Ist Party further submits that chargesheet was issued to workman, he was suspended on 23.12.86. FIR about incident was also lodged to the police. The police did not file any case till period of one year therefore management had decided to conduct enquiry. It is submitted that the documents requested by workman were supplied to him. Application of workman to engage Advocate for his defence was rejected. Presenting Officer as per request of workman, co-employees Gajbhiye participated in enquiry as Defene Assistant. The witnesses of management were cross-examined. Enquiry officer submitted his report that the charges alleged against workman are proved.

5. Considering report of Enquiry Officer and gravity of charges, the punishment of withholding 4 increments was imposed. The punishment is not shockingly disproportionate. The punishment issued do other employees are not relevant. Workman had filed Writ Petition No. 702/88 before Bombay High Court Bench, Nagpur. The Writ Petition was rejected. The same question cannot be raised again. It is reiterated that enquiry was conducted against workman properly following rules of natural justice. Any reasons were not shown why Enquiry Officer Shri K.R. Palsodkar should be changed. There is no illegality in rejecting the application of workman for permission to2460 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] engage Advocate reiterating those contentions, Ist Party management submits that workman is not entitled to any relief.

Vide order dated 27.11.03, enquiry against workman was found proper and legal. Cosidering pleadings on record and order on preliminary issue, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the misconduct In Affirmative

alleged against workman

Shri D.M. Asatkar is proved

from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of Punishment imposed

withholding 4 increment to against workman is

workman is proper and legal? excessive.

(iii) If so, to what relief the As per final orders.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. Enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal as per order dated 27.11.2013 the question remains whether charges/misconduct alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings and whether punishiment is shockingly disproportionate. The legal position is settled that in order to decide whether charges against workman are proved. Evidene in enquiry Proceedings needs to be considered. Legible copy of the statement of witnesses is made available for convenience.

9. During course of argument, Learned counsel for workman Shri N.N. Kawade pointed out my attention to evidence of MW-2 Mr. Bedi said witness of the management was working in the bank. Q.6 was asked that workman Shri Asatkar was claiming in Saving Fund Account No. 8918 Ledger No.33 Credit of Rs. 47,100/- was shown as credit as per voucher. MW-2 Bedi says that said entry was not taken as per voucher. He denied his initials on the ledger entry. The witness of management admits that at relevant time, he was working in Saving Fund Section. In his further cross- examination, management witness says except cash voucher counter entry was taken of all other transactions. That there was no counter cover w.r.t. Account No. 8918. In reply to Q.15, management's witness No.2 admits the amount of local collection was deposited as per Form No.153 of the Bank. W.r.t. entry of Rs. 47,100m, Form No. 153 Account No. 8918, he had not seen any record. In reply to Q. 20 whether any other person had drawn voucher making initials from ledger No. 19, he says that no other person has drawn such vouchers. The denial of intials by Shri Bedi in his evidence is not satisfactory explained. The evidence of MW-2 Bedi shows that his initials were made on the ledger. He is denying without convincing reasons. No other Bank employee had taken voucher with his initials.Therefore, defence of the workman that the voucher was received by Bedi and thereafter he had initialed appears probable. After ledger was signed, voucher was missing or misplaced. It could have been possible to accept the defence completely. However when statement of workman was recorded at fag end of his statement, workman says that it had been done internationally by internal forces of the staff member on conevance with outsider. He doubts one Shankar who was working in the branch as cash peon. Workman further replied that it is negligence from both side form ledger keeper and teller also. Thus workman has admitted his negligence in the matter. Therefore the findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said perverse. Workman was also negligent in taking entry and at time of re-conciliation, voucher was not seen, he should have immediately report said fact to the Branch Manager. The workman remained silent when voucher was not received at the time of conciliation. Said conduct confirms his negligence in duty. At the same time one cannot overlook that MW-2 Bedi who was on duty on ledger had put his initials. At time of conciliation and balancing, Mr. Bedi did not disclose that not disclose that he not not received voucher. The entry in ledger was not initialed by him. It shows negligence on part of MW-2 Bedi also. What action is taken by management against Bedi is not known. Despite of request of the workman, the documents about chargesheet issued to other employee regarding punishment imposed against them are not produced. All witnesses of the defence consistently says that workman had not given call ot take entry in ledger.

8. Management's witness Shri A.G.Navlekar says that Teller card of Account No. 8918 Shri Asatkar had entered amount of Rs. 47,100/-. In reply to Q. 8, the management's witness denied that there was any likelihood that the entry can be passed for Rs. 47,100/- so that the credit can be afforded to the account in the Bank relevant account. In reply to Q.No. 4, management's witness says for effecting the transfer entry, other Bank record will also be reflected. Management's witness admits that it would be out of place if conclusion can be drawn, there was no such credit voucher in the Bank so that credit can be afforded and the entry was entered without any evidence on voucher. In reply to Q. 10, management's witness says the entry was bogus. In his cross-examination MW-1 says in June 1986, he came to know about bogus entry and informed the Manager. He denies that ledger keeper is required to take entry to credit posting without voucher. In reply to Q. 5, in cross-examination, MW-1 says it is not necessary to keep flap after voucher is taken out from ledger. In his further cross, MW-1 says it is not necessary that after receiving complete voucher, taking entry in blank books is responsibility of Teller. Management's witness says that he found entry of previous balance in ledger book as cheque of Rs. 35,000 was passed. The balance was in order. The charge against workman does not relate to mis- appropriation of any amount.

10. Learned counsel for management Shri A.K. Shashi produced copies of Award in R/117/97, R/28/90 each matter needs to be decided considering the evidence on record. The awards passed in those matters therefore cannot be followed for persuasion purpose as the nature of evidence is not comparable.

11. Reliance is also placed in 2006 (5) SCC-201. The preliminary issue is already decided and enquiry conducted against workman is found legal therefore ratio held in the case needs no detailed discussion. For the same reasons, judgment in W.P. No. 3545 of 2006 needs no detailed discussion. As enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal, ratio held in case of Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank versus Manoj Kumar Sinha reported in 2010 (3) SCC 556 needs no consideration. Non supply of Enquiry Report to delinquent not ipso facto vitiate order of punishment in absence of any prejudice to employee vitiate order of punishment cannot be applied beneficially.

12. The evidence of management's witness discussed above clearly shows that workman was negligent in his duties. Even Shri Bedi was negligent in his duty. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1128.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 34) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सट्रल बक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 162/02) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26.05.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/140/2002-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2015

S.O. 1128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 162/02) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur 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 26/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/140/2002-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/162/02

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sewak, R/o Lodi Mohalla, Khirkiya, Harda (MP)

...Workman

VERSUS

13. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1, the charges against workman are proved, he was negligent in his duty, not reporting to the Branch Manager that he had not received Bank voucher at the time of balancing the amount. Mr. Bedi also did not complained that he had not received voucher when he was on ledger duty. Mr. Bedi had initiated the ledger shows that voucher was received by him, then he had input his initials. Above aspects of the evidence were not considered while imposing the punishment. The charge against workman was not about mis-appropriation of amount. There is no evidence workman causing loss to the Bank. Under such circumstances, punishment of withholding 4 increments of workman appears excessive. Considering the evidence and circumstances of the case, punishment of with-holding 4 increments deserves to be modified to withholding one increment with cumulative effect. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

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

(1) The action of the management of Punjab National Bank in awarding the punishment of stoppage of 4 increments to Shri D.M. Asatkar, Teller is not proper and legal.

Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Above City Post Office, Mangalwara, Hoshangabad

...Management

AWARD

(2) Punishment of withholding 4 increments imposed against workman is modified to punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. The consequential monetary benefits be paid to workman within period of two months from the date of publication of award. Parties to bear their respective costs.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer Passed on this 30th day of April, 2015

1. As per letter dated 10-12-02 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, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/ 140/2002-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to :

"Whether the claim of Shri Sanjay Kumar Sewak that he has rendered continuous service as a temporary sub staff with the management of Central Bank of India during the year 1990-1997 is correct? If so whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Hoshangabad in terminating the services of Shri Sanjay Kumar Sewak w.e.f. 18-5-97 is justified? If not justified, what relief is the disputant entitled to?" 4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 46/1 to 46/3

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

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

(i) Whether claim of Shri Sanjay In Negative

Kumar Sewak that he has rendered continuous service as a temporary sub staff with the management of Central bank of India during the year 1990-97 is legel?

(ii) Whether the action of In Affirmative

the management of Regional Manager, Central bak of India, Regional Office, Hoshangabad in terminating the services of Shri Sanjay Kumar Sewak w.e.f. 18-5-97 is legal and proper?

(ii) If so, to what relief the Workman is not

workman is entitled to?" entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 5 to 15. Case of workman is that he was engaged on pay scale of permanent peon from 1-3-90 by the then Branch Manager of Khirkia Branch. That as per rules of IInd party, temporary employees cannot be continued more than 60 days in each of the year 1990, 1991, 1992. Workman has shown his working days in para - 7 of his statement of claim. Total working days 702 from 1-3-90 to 17-5-97. That his wages were paid in different names. He was paid TA Bills. He was called for interview on 29-1-96 in Regional Office Hoshangabad. The interview was cancelled. On evening of 5-12-94, Branch Manager handed over amount of Rs. 50,000 for depositing in his Account that he would receive back that amount in next morning. He submitted that as per bipartite settlement dated 6-4-93, the employee gets eligibility for permanent absorption. Despite workman working in the Bank from 1-3-90 to 17-5-97, his services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. The termination of the service is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. IInd party did not follow principles of last come first go. IInd party also violated Section 25-H of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 45/1 to 45/4 opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that workman was not permanent employee, he was not given appointment letter. Workman did not undergo any process of Selection. His name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. Workman is not employee under law of the land. The reference is not tenable. It is denied that after considering the documents, workman was appointed as permanent peon by Branch Manager. It is denied that workman was honestly working. IInd party denies that since 1-3-93, workman was regularly working and his wages were paid in different names. All adverse contentions of workman are denied. It is denied that workman completed 240 days continuous service. It is denied that his services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. It is submitted that workman was appointed on permanent basis. The workman was engaged as casual labour on temporary basis on daily wages. His job came to end on expiry of the work. He had no right to continue. IInd party submits that workman is not entitled to any relief.

6. The terms of reference pertains to whether Ist party workman has rendered continuous service as temporary sub staff during 1990 to 1997. IInd part of reference pertains to legality of termination of service. In para-7 of statement of claim, workman has shown 702 working days from 1-3- 90 to 17-5-97. Yearwise break is also shown. If only those working days are accepted, workman has not completed 240 days continuous service preceding termination of his services. Exhibit W-1 is interview call given to the workman, he was called for interview on 29-1-96. Exhibit W-9 is letter given to workman on 6-6-96 asking him to present before Enquiry Officer. Bipartite Settlement W-8 provides temporary employees working for 90 days during 1-1-82 to 24-12-90 were elitgible to be called in selection process. The temporary employee working 60 days during 1.1.1987 to 24.12.1990 were also eligible to be considered for selection of sub staff. Para 3.4 provides for preparing panel of selected candidates. Bipartite settlement W-8 doesnot give right for absorption against permanent post.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence contending that he was working from 1-3-90 in scale wage. As per practice prevailing employees working 60 days or more were paid wages in different names. Workman in his cross- examination says he has not produced any documents about illness of regular peon Ramesh Guru. He was unable to tell in whose names, payments were made and he had practiced fault on the bank. He did not compelled about it. He admits that he was not working as permanent employee.

continuous service preceding 12 months of his termination. Therefore violation of Section 25-F of ID Act could not be established. Workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 3.

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

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

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1129.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंध् ातत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 48/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26.05.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं॰ एल-12012/443/95-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2015

S.O. 1129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2004) of the Cen.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/443/95-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 48 OF 2004

PARTIES:

He denies that he was not temporary employee of the Bank but he has no evidence for that. He was doing work of Sweeper. Saving Account was opened in his name for saving purpose. He further admits that appointment letter was not given to him. He has no evidence about working 60, 90 days in the Bank. The cross-examination of workman w.r.t. his working days in misplaced as IInd party has admitted documents Exhibit W-2, W-3, working days of workman are shown 130 days in 1993, 94 days in 1994, 53 days in 1995, 60 days in 1996. The payment of bonus is also shown. As per document Exhibit W-4, claim of 1st Party workman for gratuity was rejected. Exhibit W-5 is reply submitted by IInd party before Competent Authority for payment of gratuity. Management's witness Mahesh Kumar in his affidavit of evidence denies that the workman was engaged during illeness of regular peon Ramesh Guru. That workman was engaged as per exigencies. Affidavit of evidence of management's witness is in shape of denial. Management's witness in his cross-examination says his affidavit of evidence is filed as per record. He was not working in Khirkia Branch during 1990 to 1997. He has not received information from previous Branch Managers. Workman was paid in cash. Documents about payment of wages are not produced. Management's witness claims ignorance whether workman was called for interview on 31-9-96. However, he admitted documents Exhibit W-1, W-2, W-8, W-9. Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. The documents Exhibit W-2, 3, shows workman had not completed 240 days continuous service preceding 12 months of his termination. The names of junior employees are not disclosed in evidence of workman. Violation of Section 25 (G) cannot be proved. The bipartite Settlement Exhibit W-8 doesnot give right for regularization, it provides only for eligibility for absorption as permanent employee. As per Para No. 3.1 in Bipartite Settlement Exhibit W-8, name of temporary employee should have been registered in Employment Exchange Office but their names were not sponsored. The evidence of workman is silent whether his name was registered in Employment Exchange Office. Workman is not complying with the eligibility conditions in Exhibit W-8. Therefore, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative and Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

The management of Syndicate Bank, Asansol

Vs.

Sri Vaskar Roy

REPRESENTATIVES:

8. Point No. 3— workman has not adduced satisfactory evidence about completion of 240 days service preceding termination of his services. Document Exhibit W-2 is clear that the workman had not completed 240 days service. There is no question of violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.

For the management : Sri N. Ganguly, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman) : Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

Industry : Bank State : West Bengal

Dated-04.12.2014

AWARD

9. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Kohli Advocate relies on ratio held in Case of R.M. Yellatti versus Asstt. Executive Engineer reported in 2006(1) SSC 106, in case of Range Forest Officer versus S.T. Hadimani reported in 2002 (3) SSC 25, case of Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC and others versus K.V. Ramana and others reported in 2007(2) SSC 324. Ratio held in those cases needs no detailed discussion as evidence adduced by workman is not sufficient to establish that he completed 240 days In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the2464 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-12012/ 443/95-IR(B-II) dated 23.09.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Vaskar Roy, S/o. Sh. Bhawani Sankar Roy w.e.f. 01.07.1993 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the disputant concerned is entitiled to?"

Having received the Order No. L-12012/443/95-IR (B-II) dated 23.09.2004 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 48 of 2004 was registered on 05.10.2004. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their representative and filed their separate sets of written statement in support of their respective claims.

The Workman has pleaded in his written statement that he was appointed as a "Peon" in Syndicate Bank situated at Durgae Market, Asansol. He was appointed in the Bank as a "Peon" from 01.04.1991. The workman since the date of appointment used to discharge the duties as a "Peon" viz. taking advantage of taking out Ledgers, Registers, cleaning tables, sprinking water on the Khuskhus and serving water to the member of the staff. During the year 1991, 1992, 1993 & 1994 workman worked more than 120 days continuously and was paid Rs. 16/- per day as "Remuneration". Workman was terminated by the Management from service w.e.f. 01-07-1995 without any notice as per Section 25 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The action of the Management is arbitrarily and illegal. The Management has illegally terminated the Workman from service by adopting and unfair labour practice. Workman is a young and energetic boy, he expects that he will service in the Bank. The workman has stated that he should be declared as regular workman.

The Management of Syndicate Bank has pleaded in the Written statement that reference is not maintainable because there is no employee and employer relationship between the parties to the dispute. The workman Sri Vaskar Roy was engaged as a "Casual Labour" on daily wage basis for pouring water on khaskhas mat during the summer season, the was purely on temporary basis and no appointment order was issued to him. He was engaged on daily wage basis of Rs. 16/- per day. He was engaged for 70 days only in 1991, 68 days in 1992 and 58 days in 1993. Pouring water on khaskhas mat was seasonal work temporarily during summer months and whenever heat of summer was receded., he was disengaged. Management has cited some case law. In his written statement, the Management has further stated that workman never worked even for 90 days in any of the year visualized 1991, 1992 and 1993. He was engaged as "Casual Labour" for pouring water on khaskhas. Therefore the question of applicability of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute does not arise as there is no question of termination as alleged by the workman. The Mangement has prayed to reject the petitioner's claim as same was devoid of to any merit.

The workman has filed 10 pay vouchers of Syndicate Bank regarding his payment. Workman Shri Vaskar Roy has filed "Adffidavit" and he has been cross-examined by the Management of Syndicate Bank.

The Management has not filed any oral or documentary

evidence.

I have heard the argument of Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of workman and L. Advocate Sri N. Ganguly on behalf of Syndicate Bank.

Mr. P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of workman has argued that workman has worked as a casual workman he should have been regularized on same Terms and Conditions as other casual worker have been regularized. The action of the Management is arbitrary and illegal.

On the other hand Shri N. Ganguly Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of Syndicate Bank has argued that workman Sri Vaskar Roy was a casual labour on temporarily basis. He has no right to be regularized.

Section 25 B of Industrial Dispute Act defines the

continuous service which is as follows:—

(1) Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for he period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal. or a lock out or a cessation of work which is not due to fault on the part of workman.

(2) Where a workan is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemded to be in continuous service under an employer.

(a) For a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calender months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less then.

(i) One hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and fort days, in any other

case;

(b) For a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calender month preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—

(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed belwo ground in a mine; an

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other

case.

न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 08/1995) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं॰ एल-12011/46/94-आईआर (बी-II)]

रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2015

S.O. 1130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/1995) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribnunal-cum-Labour Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/05/2015.

[No. L-12011/46/94-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Shri Vaskar Roy has not filed any document to prove that he was appointed by the Bank. If he was not having any document, he could have summoned the document from the Bank to support his version that he was duly appointed by the Bank. The workman Shri Vaskar Roy has not filed any terminated letter as alleged by him.

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 08 OF 1995

PARTIES :

As per the provision Section 25B the workman can only be regularized if he has put in 120 days continuous service in any organization. Though Vaskar Roy has stated in his examination-in-chief that in the year 1991,1992, 1993 & 1994 he worked more than 120 days continuously. If he has worked continuously four years then his service contribution to the Bank would have been more than 1200 days.

The management of Uco Bank, Burdwan Division.

Vs.

Sri Nepal Ch. Bagdi & 10 Others

REPRESENTATIVES:

Whereas the Management in his written statement specifically stated that workman worked only 70 days in 1991, 68 days in 1992 and 58 days in 1993. If he was rendered service less than 120 days or more than 120 days with break then there is no employee and employer relationship as per industrial Dispute Act 1947.

For the management : Sri Indranath Mukhopadhyay,

Sr. Manager of the Bank

For the union (Workman): Sri Subrata Chandra, Asst.

Secy. of the Union

Industry : Bank State : West Bengal

Dated 20/6/2014

AWARD

In view of the discussion above, the workman has failed to prove the case and accordingly reference is fit to be rejected with no relief to the workman.

ORDER

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

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. 12011/ 46/94-IR (B-II) dated 31.01.1995 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1130.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंध् ातंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम "Whether the action of the management of Uco Bank, Burdwan Division is not regularising Sri Nepal Ch. Bagdi, Part-time Sweeper and 10 others on permanent basis and non-payment of equal emoluments in various branches of Uco Bank situated in the district of Burdwan and Birbum is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"2466 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Having received the Order NO.12011/46/94-IR (B-II) dated 31.01.1995 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 08 of 1995 was registered on 17.02.1995 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the record I find that the case is remarked as "No Dispute Award" passed by my predecessor as the workman has already superannuated from service. Having heard both the parties and on their prayer I came to the conclusion that the case may be closed and a "No Dispute Award" may be passed as the workman has already been superannuated and no dispute exists between the parties. Hence the case is closed and accordingly it is hereby ordered:

देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधारण) विनियम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं;

(5) निगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अध्निियम की धरा 45 की उप-धरा (1) के अध्ीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई सामाजिक सुरक्षा अध्किारी या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राध्किृत कोई अन्य पदधरी;

(i) धर 44 की उप-धरा (1) के अध्ीन, उक्त अवध्ि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टयों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ; अथवा

(ii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधरण) विनियम,1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवध् िके लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं; या

ORDER

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

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 मई, 2015

का.आ. 1131.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, कर्मंचारी राज्य बीमा अध्निियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धरा 91-क के साथ पठित धरा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए स्टील ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के सैन्ट्रल मार्केटिंग ऑर्गेनाइजेसन के कारखानों/स्थापनाओं के नियमित कर्मचारियों को इस अध्निियम के प्रवर्तन से छूट प्रदान करती है। यह छूट, इस अध्सिूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से एक वर्ष की अवध् िके लिए लागू रहेगी।

2. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अध्ीन है; अर्थात्‌ः-

(1) पूर्वोक्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं, एक रजिस्टर रखेगी, जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे;

(2) इस छूट के होते हुए भी, कर्मचारी उक्त अध्निियम के अध्ीन ऐसी प्रसुविधएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अध्सिूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदानों के आधर पर हकदार हो जाते हैं;

(3) छूट प्राप्त अवध् िके लिए, यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए

जा चुके हों, तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे;

(4) उक्त कारखाने/स्थापना का नियोजन उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना उक्त अधिनियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अवधि कहा गया है) प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां, ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टयों सहित (iii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी, नियोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को, जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अध्सिूचना के अध्ीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं; या

(iv) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवध्ि के दौरान, जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध् में अध्निियम के उपबंध् प्रवृृत्त थे, ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधें का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगाः-

(क) प्रधन या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधरी आवश्यक समझता है; अथवा

(ख) ऐसे प्रधन या आसन्न नियोजक के अध्भिोगाध्ीन, किसी कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंध्ति ऐसे लेखा, बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज, ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधरी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करेें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं; और

(ग) प्रधन या आसन्न नियोजक की उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति को, जो ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है, परीक्षा करना; या[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 30, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 9, 1937 2467 (घ) ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा, बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;

(ङ) यथानिर्धरित अन्य शक्तियोें का प्रयोग करना। 6. विनिवेश/निगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रदत्त छूट स्वतः रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्टान को छूट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमति लेनी होगी।

[सं. एस-38014/2/2014-एसएस-I] सुभाष कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2015

S.O. 1131.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/ establishments of Central Marketing Organisation of Steel Authority of India Ltd. from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective from the date of issue of notification for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:—

(1) the aforesaid establishments wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees';

(2) Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;

(5) Any Social Security Officer appointmented by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of:—

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 44 for the said period; or (ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act has been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or

(c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/2/2014-SS-I]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Pr ss, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.